- This topic has 31 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 6 months ago by Anonymous.
October 2, 2003 at 2:39 pm #706508AnonymousInactive
Recently there seems to have been alot of talk in planning circles of what are termed “Landmark buildings”. For example the U2 tower competition and the 18 storey sail shaped tower which was turned down in Dun Laoghaire. Does anyone know if there is an actual definition of “Landmark building”? At times it seems that it is developers method of getting away with a building which is completely out of scale with the surrounding area and which is truly of no architectural merit. At present for example the Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council Draft development plan has designated 12 different sites within the town centre of Dun Laoghaire which it deems would be appropriate for a landmark building. Surely having 12 landmark buildings in a medium sized town centre defeats the purpose of having a landmark building in the firstplace. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
October 2, 2003 at 2:49 pm #736362-Donnacha-Participant
I doubt it means there’d be 12 landmark buildings, the way I see it it just means 12 sites that are suitable for landmark buildings. Doesn’t mean each and every one of them will be used.
The way Ireland is at the moment any building above 5 stories and/or not shaped like a cardboard box would constitute a landmark building. Witness the breathtakingly banal plans for the docklands in Dublin. I find it kind of amusing that they have plans for two or three “landmark” buildings on what is a completely blank canvass. It just seems like an admission that the vast majority of the place will be covered in witless, ultra-conservative monotony much like practically all of the rest of modern Dublin.
October 2, 2003 at 2:54 pm #736363d_d_dallasParticipant
October 2, 2003 at 3:21 pm #736364AnonymousInactive
What happens, though, if it is above 5 storeys and still shaped like a cardboard box?
October 2, 2003 at 3:24 pm #736365AnonymousInactive
its a landmark building if it looks like a cardboard box that was kicked around a bit, as frank ghery shows.
October 2, 2003 at 3:29 pm #736366AnonymousInactive
that’s funny What? but do you think that a landmark building should be of any architectural merit or should they just stand out because they are bigger than the surrounding buildings? your opinions would be appreciated. Thanks
October 2, 2003 at 3:31 pm #736367sw101Participant
its a landmark cardboard box.
i’d like to grab dublin city planners by the ear, drag them through the irish sea and show them canary wharf in london. now thats utilising potential. say what you like about rogers and foster et al having a professional wank with the egg and gherkin and what not, but londons starting to look great. Not on the strength of the individual buildings, but on the overall scheme and bravery of it. Transport, business, commercial enterprise, accommodation.
Our planners however, want to replicate stuff like that awful apartment block facing calatrava’s bridge. bad people. bad or stupid. either way, i cant see the docklands ever being developed to its full potential
October 2, 2003 at 3:47 pm #736368d_d_dallasParticipant
North docklands is a waste of an opportunity. Southern looking like that too – despite the amazing potential with the basin, mills and gas sites.
Well – at least for the next 20 years. Maybe then some of the kellogs inspired blocks will be redeveloped.
October 2, 2003 at 4:03 pm #736369AnonymousInactive
in the simplistic, regimented world of planners in this country a landmark building is one that is far taller than the others around it.
this doesnt have to be the case though. in my opinion a landmark building (or place) is one that stands out in a persons memory from what is usually a banal (sub)urban environment, somewhere you would arrange to meet someone or go to at lunch time. planners use these buildings when they want to add focus to an area, for the purpose of regeneration or a new town centre for example. it seems to me that the planners presume that the most visually overt solution is always the best.
but examples from the continent, holland in particular show modern ways of creating a landmark using more subtle methods such as material, luminance, activity, open areas, sound, addition of water, public transport nodes, culture etc etc. i think the whole idea of just lashing up an out of scale building to only visually mark an area to be criminally lazy. these projects usually go to larger offices with a similarily shallow and facile response to the situation and do something half arsed (like make it in the shape of a sail because it beside the sea WOW! the genius it must have taken to find that connection ).
October 2, 2003 at 4:12 pm #736370AnonymousInactive
Thank you very much what? I fully agree with you on the whole sail beside the sea thing. It would have been a complete joke.
October 2, 2003 at 5:10 pm #736371garethaceParticipant
I was in Malta working once, and I noticed that on the Med, people love to do nice long walks at nightime along by that little Islands beautiful long shorelines. But what I found strange and new for a while, but then it seems logical having gotten used to it, was that the Maltesse Hotels were always situated at the termination points of one of these nice shoreline pedestrian walks. Meaning, that the Hotels functioned as landmarks in the sense you are refering to. That a wide age group of people on Saturday evening walks could have tea and bikies at the the end of the walk. This meant that old people could do something on Saturday nights too, while the young skirts were busy going clubbing. The playgrounds were strategically located too. I find in our culture here in Ireland, that Hotels are never really landmarks, or significant places in every peoples’ lives. It was a strange experience for me, and an alternative defintion to how we here in Ireland, and planners here would say, ‘BIG landmark hotel with a sailboat shape on it’. WOW! But those Hotels basically tell you to go ********* when you are out walking the campshires in Dublin or someplace. What was also intriguing to me, was how you could get a cheap bus to the place where the walks started too. So there was entirely no need for a car at all. But in Malta, a car isn’t much good – nowhere much to drive – so people by circumstance have invented alternative forms of entertainment, and illusions of space and time. Blasting down the M1 with RAP on loud is the Northern European equivalent. Look at our miles and miles of canals and unused trainlines. There is a route through Dublin from the Wood Quay offices to where the U2 tower will be built, which passes by the Pearse Street Garda Station and Screen Cinema, which could do with a nice light rail system, and things along it, like in Helsinki or somewhere. Hop on, Hop off. Plenty of opportunity to put all kinds of landmarks, public buildings, institutions, public spaces and residential accomodation along it. Bringing that whole city back into the picture. Places like Hawkins street back into the picture. Instead of the North/South axis around College Green, O’Connell St. and Grafton St, which ‘has become our excuse for a city centre’. More like pick pocket mile. I am hoping that LUAS line on the North site, will offer an experience like this. But I think it would be nice eventually to see a LUAS running East to West just on the south bank of the Liffey too. Which might terminate down beyond Ringsend too, with nice pedestrian walks along the sea and Hotel projects/public open spaces like in Malta.
Brian O’ Hanlon.
December 19, 2003 at 3:21 pm #736372AnonymousInactive
I realise that I asked about this before, but I was wondering if anyone knew of any official documentation which might contain a definition of ‘landmark buildings’? For example is there any mention of them in the planning act? Does anyone know of any County or City Councils who have actually put any effort in to deciding what a landmark building is? What about abroad, does anyone know of any definitions from abroad?
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
December 19, 2003 at 3:30 pm #736373AnonymousParticipant
DEGW high-building study for Dublin Corporation 2000
Great to see the principles being discussed so logically
Only â‚¬20 if you have to take it away, the lads down there are quite good at giving a few free photo copied pages.
Bolton St has a copy in its reserve collection.
December 19, 2003 at 3:56 pm #736374AnonymousInactive
Thanks for that Diaspora. I have found out where I can get that document. It is available from the Civic Offices at a cost equivelant 20 Punts.
December 22, 2003 at 10:11 am #736375GregFParticipant
I suppose a building that can termed as a ”landmark” is a building which is usually different from it’s immediate surroundings. It may serve some importance, usually larger in scale and acts as a focal point. In Georgian Dublin, the Custom House (which met planning problems), The Four Courts, The Pepper Cannister Church, City Hall etc …all act as landmarks and focal points breaking up the regular uniformity of the red brick Georgian houses.
This is the basis of all towns and cities I suppose with the important buildings acting as the focal points, ie Churches, Town Halls, Banks etc….
Nowadays there is an emphasis on scale as well as unusual form and shape, …..(with a touch of Hollywood and high tech SCI FI) to catch the eye as the architects babies scream for attention on the skyline!
(and which we lack here in Ireland hence the regular blandness even in emerging developments that could have great potential……. ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz eternally!)
April 26, 2004 at 4:33 pm #736376AnonymousInactive
Here is an attachment of a proposed ‘landmark building’ in Dun Laoghaire. It is on one of the 12 sites designated as being suitable for landmark buildings within the Town Centre. Anyone have any thoughts on it?
April 26, 2004 at 4:57 pm #736377Paul ClerkinKeymaster
Fuck! Was there an architect involved?
April 26, 2004 at 5:05 pm #736378FINParticipant
because it’s different it is , i suppose, a “landmark” building but how long before the person next door wants to make some money and gets permission for a similiar development because the precedent is there for size and shape etc. then it isn’t a landmark anymore cos lots of them will spring up. a landmark in my opinion has to be something that can’t or won’t be copied in the immediate area.
April 26, 2004 at 5:09 pm #736379Paul ClerkinKeymaster
In Ireland, people think of landmark as big….
developer reading guidelines “ahh landmark, excellent, add a few floors and use my favourite architect Bodgit Associates….”
incidentally there is a place called Landmark in Manitoba, Canada…. must go see it 😉
April 26, 2004 at 5:14 pm #736380AnonymousInactive
Yeah, there was an architect involved. OCA Architects are their name.
April 26, 2004 at 8:53 pm #736381shaunParticipant
When I was in Dun Laoghaire in Febuary they were actually building this building, or something very similar………..
April 27, 2004 at 12:31 pm #736382AnonymousInactive
It was probably a recent development which I think is called Marina View. This development is just down the road from that one.
April 27, 2004 at 1:08 pm #736383AnonymousInactive
……..looks as though someone’s driven it into the ground with a giant hammer.
Take it that’s a penthouse on top?
April 27, 2004 at 1:15 pm #736384AnonymousInactive
I must admit, that the photomontage which is attached is of very poor quality. How and ever, it really is an unattractive building anyway. There is a model of it on view in the Dun Laoghaire – Rathdown County Offices at present.
Aland; levels 7 and 8 contain 2 no. 2 bedroom apartments, whilst the top contains 1 no. 2 bed apartment as its penthouse.
April 27, 2004 at 1:40 pm #736385GregFParticipant
It looks plonked right in the middle of the housing estate.
Almost like a bad photoshop job of two images compiled.
If that obtrusive lump was removed from the roof it might’nt look so bad …see image attached.
The rendering of the sky in the original looks shite too like a bad Hollywood backdrop.
April 27, 2004 at 3:49 pm #736386AnonymousInactive
ah Greg……you’ve just knocked 500,000 euros off the developers profit margin. It’s the penthouse that makes the cash.
April 28, 2004 at 9:10 am #736387Ronan CParticipant
Is this the new building proposed for the Iceland shop on Patrick St ????????????
April 28, 2004 at 12:12 pm #736388AnonymousInactive
Ronan C; It is the proposal for the Iceland shop, but it is not on Patrick Street. It is between Georges Street and Georges Place. It starts out as a two storey building on to Georges Street and then becomes a three storey building. About two thirds down towards Georges Place there is a 9 storey ‘feature element’ as it is described. It faces onto Georges Place with a 4 Storey block with a fifth storey set just back from this.
April 28, 2004 at 2:10 pm #736389Ronan CParticipant
Thanks for that Phil – I was getting my streets mixed up !
Has construction work definately started then ?
April 28, 2004 at 2:48 pm #736390AnonymousInactive
No, not yet. Iceland is still open for business and the planning is at the stage of ‘additional information’. This required the developers to submit completely new designs. The attached photomontage is from the new proposed design.
May 2, 2004 at 7:57 pm #736391lexingtonParticipant
I wish I wish I wish city planners and developers would actually use their brains and open their minds to a little architectural ingenuity! Ireland has next to nothing along the lines of a real ‘Landmark’ building or structure. Sure there’s The Spire, but like, as much as I like it, it’s still an oversized pin. Cork has the occasional nice/lankmark building, 21 Lavitts Quay, Shandon Bells but that’s it! I wish developers would take a chance and do something truly amazing! With HUGE potential for this kinda thing in places like the Dublin and Cork dockland development areas – now’s the time! London has the Houses of Parliament, Paris has the Eiffel Tower, New York the Statue of Liberty, Sydney the Opera House, Ireland…em…the…the Spire???
May 14, 2004 at 1:45 pm #736392AnonymousInactive
The afore mentioned building on the Iceland site was granted full planning permission today!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.