Libeskind – Grand Canal Theatre

Is it DCC or DDDA who maintains the area, whoever it is is doing a great job, the place always looks really clean.

There are some new images of Libeskind’s proposals on his website
http://www.daniel-libeskind.com/projects/show-all/grand-canal-theatre/

scroll down and you will see them

to save people the trip 😉

Interesting seeing those jets of water in the last picture, I’ve never see that happen in reality yet, maybe someone needs to turn on the tap a little more 🙂

Where do they get those tiny people for computer generated pictures?

Where do they get the absence of illegally parked cars, vans and delivery trucks in architectural drawings.

Is there a filter “Remove Reality” that can be applied when the excess sunshine is added:eek: ?

What I noticed most of all there is the water level, the renders show it as high as the footpath, when it’s actually a good drop of about 10ft

@igy wrote:

What I noticed most of all there is the water level, the renders show it as high as the footpath, when it’s actually a good drop of about 10ft

Its tidal.

How is a dock tidal?

@notjim wrote:

Where do they get those tiny people for computer generated pictures?

And the clean water, last time I was there it was filthy

There’s an interesting little park developing right behind the Mateus hotel with the chimney in it. Looks like a potentially lovely feature. Have to say (like or dislike it) this is certainly the boldest building yet planned for Dublin in recent years. It is such a vast improvement on what DDDA allowed on the Northside.

@rory w wrote:

How is a dock tidal?

Exactly, It’s a canal basin that’s not directly exposed to the sea

Interesting to see Liebeskind using a bit of colour for once. Driven by Schwartz’s design perhaps. Or the other way round. Or is this some kind of joint project?

Will there not be alot of water dripping off the front lip of this building down on the poor people who happen to stand underneath for any length of time, especialy when rain is coupled with a bit of wind, pidgeons love that sort of a spot also. Not to mind the water gushing down the slanted roof , although I expect thats being catered for. All of course on the rare day that isnt as brilliantly sunny as the image. Would someone throw the hooray henry in the boat a line , he is not tied up, has no sail,nor inboard/outboard motor.

I presume Daniel knows what a gutter is

the factual evidence indicates otherwise ….back of the class for you …

http://archrecord.construction.com/news/daily/archives/070411denverartmuseum.asp

After unveiling the long-awaited 146,000-sqaure-foot addition last fall, trustees, staff, and patrons thought they’d seen the last of construction crews for a while. But only weeks after the Hamilton wing’s grand opening on October 7, a massive storm dumped nearly two feet of snow and gave the new structure its first real test of severe weather. Much to their disappointment, museum officials discovered water leaking from the roof and skylights in the El Pomar Grand Atrium. This soaring, 120-foot-high space serves as the main lobby for the galleries and is best known for its sloped walls and a spiraling, four-story staircase.
The building’s architects, a joint venture between Studio Daniel Libeskind and Davis Partnership Architects, worked with teams from the construction firm M.A. Mortenson to inspect the atrium’s roof, which is composed of structural steel and a metal deck clad in titanium panels. As part of a temporary fix, crews removed elevated beam covers and applied an additional waterproofing layer

LOL I love it….Mt Libeskind has feet of clay it seems.

The Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto recently released a statement saying their Libeskind didn’t have any problems after the Globe and Mail newspaper suggested it leaked…

“Last week, The Globe and Mail newspaper printed an article entitled “Leaks, woes a smudge on Crystal sparkle” (Oct. 3, 2007). The story gives misleading impressions of the true state of the Michael Lee-Chin Crystal and gallery development.”

“The Lee-Chin Crystal building has been watertight since its completion in the summer of 2007. With very minor exceptions as final details are completed, the cladding has proven to be leak-proof. The permanent galleries in the Lee-Chin Crystal were designed primarily for the ROM’s three-dimensional collections (dinosaurs, mammals, ethnology, textiles) and are developing as planned for openings this winter. Exhibit designers have consulted directly with the architects since 2002. The galleries are emerging beautifully.”

“Since our all-night open house on June 3, we have experienced no problems with public behaviours in the Crystal spaces. Daniel Libeskind’s building was designed to meet an explicit program and is doing so with strength and efficacy. We are delighted with the result.”

@igy wrote:

What I noticed most of all there is the water level, the renders show it as high as the footpath, when it’s actually a good drop of about 10ft

Obviously, Daniel Leibeskind has the foresight to consider the effects of climate change.

There are some new images on Danny’s site http://www.daniel-libeskind.com/projects/show-all/grand-canal-performing-arts-centre-and-galleria/

DL Studios have considerably modified this since the early sketch proposals (for which much thanks). Although I still think the perf arts building is a bit lumpy, it now presents a much better edge to the (admittedly zany) plaza in front. However, it’s all very Mr Mxyzlptk. (Am I showing my age? The reference is to a character from another dimension in Superman comics; you can neither pronounce the name nor deal with the dimension.) There you go: the Mxyzlptk Concert Hall – any other names?Let’s hope it all turns out OK. How far has building progressed? I hope to be in Dublin Apr/May.

More detail there alright, the red lining the underside of the canopy is new, i quite like it but its a little harder to achieve than punching in an RGB code in reality.

I don’t see any correlation between the model & render of the auditorium’s interior (which is fairly conventional) although given the number of changes, perhaps one or other is a throw back to the original renders.

Given that we’re unlikely at this stage to ever see a new building for the Abbey against the backdrop of a site selection ‘process’ that was botched beyond belief, made worse by the nonsense that was the final decision – is there some merit in giving the grand canal theatre an actual purpose & declaring it the Abbey’s new home ?

I’m sure the internal configuration & capacity may need to be altered but perhaps this represents a viable option, given that the building will actually be completed and the site is not too bad either. I’m sure the DDDA if called upon wouldn’t be adverse to doing the state some service 😉

Any thoughts ?

It’s privately owned (Harry Crosbie) so think that may be out unfortunately. Would have been a most sensible idea otherwise. Too sensible by far for those doing the botching

I quite like this whole scheme. Kinda ‘funky’ contemporary stuff, it will be a welcome addition to the docklands including the 2000 seater theatre.

Checkout more of it here on his website…

http://www.daniel-libeskind.com/projects/show-all/grand-canal-square-theatre-and-commercial-development/

@jdivision wrote:

It’s privately owned (Harry Crosbie) so think that may be out unfortunately. Would have been a most sensible idea otherwise. Too sensible by far for those doing the botching

Had heard it was one of Crosbie’s projects alright, but also read it was the DDDA, will yield to your knowledge on that one 😉

Ah well, if you ever fancy making a grand gesture to the nation Mr. Crosbie, you know what to do !

@Peter Fitz wrote:

Ah well, if you ever fancy making a grand gesture to the nation Mr. Crosbie, you know what to do !

Rumour is he paid Joe O’Reilly E100m for it, if that’s true it’d be one hell of a gesture!!

The veil finally falls on Studio Libeskind….. All the Pseudo intellectual stuff has finally be benched in favour of what is a shallow exercise in facadism. Not merely intellectually problematic it really doesn’t rate as design….

What on earth… If you look closely at the Grand Canal, the real front on the street it is a combination of zip a tone and letraline. For all of you too young to know what that is check out the 1970’s.

Re. the 10 foot drop…The water level is controlled by the opening and closing of gates AFAIK and for the vast majority of the time the water level is at the same level as the footpath.I wandered down to have a look on Sunday and have to say that it looks great! It should be brilliant when finished.The theatre building itself is IMO one of the best looking new buildings in Dublin.The whole square is striking and the way that the hotel is reflected in the building opposite is fantastic!It’s one of very few modern developments in Dublin that make me proud of our Boom.

I also think that there is no harm in having more than just a few theatres in Dublin.A new theatre in GPO would be great! It would be brilliant if the city was able to attract large shows and performances to its shores to attract people to the city in a London/New York kind of way.

few shots from a rain sodden wind swept Grand Canal Dock

reminds me of a ska badge i once had

Onto the theatre

Only in the last picture does it become obvious what a dreadful building the theatre is. It’s not even good iconic architecture.

Bah.

looks terrible. some good brick cladding might fix it though.

I love how people who could never design a building a fraction as good as this can do nothing but bitch and moan. Why is everyone on here so negative? It’s maddening!!!

@rumpelstiltskin wrote:

I love how people who could never design a building a fraction as good as this can do nothing but bitch and moan. Why is everyone on here so negative? It’s maddening!!!

+1

This has to be the most interesting and original design in the last 15 years and it will be cherished for many years to come.

I think it’s an amazing design. I don’t understand why people are so critical

Why are some people so easily amused…?
Poor. Very poor.

You can’t judge a building by one (incomplete) facade, lads…

I like it. But, does anybody think it looks a bit sandwiched in between the neighbouring Hotel and Office development? I feel this lack of surrounding space detracts from its impact.

Overall…..easily the most distinctive building in that mind numbing dross called “The Docklands”!

C

It’s actually very fine from any perspective.

Except when viewed from the dark inverted passage that some posters have wedged themselves sillyly in.

As previously one of it’s biggest detractors, I have to change my stance slightly on this.

Since the glass on the facade has gone in it is beginning to have an interesting, layered materiality.

Of course the ‘reasoning’ behind the building is dire and as a piece of architecture it has no integrity, but as something to look at it is becoming quite striking.

I also enjoy the boldness of that chequred facade of the hotel .I wish they would finish that thing, such a shame.

@dermot_trellis wrote:

You can’t judge a building by one (incomplete) facade, lads…

This is archiseek. We can judge on the basis of a camera phone shot of a drawing in the planning file 😉

i like it anyway, nice place overall, if a little deserted on a poxy Sunday afternoon

it was originally meant to be austerely simple, with classical lines, a little known parallel genre that L has been quietly championing……but the drawing got scrunched up in a copying machine……..never seen the tongue in cheek when Libby is talking about it?

mind, there’s not much architecture in Dublin that wouldn’t be improved by a bit of scrunching.

@rumpelstiltskin wrote:

I love how people who could never design a building a fraction as good as this can do nothing but bitch and moan.

Alas, it aint a good piece of architecture. The appears to be no justification for the architecture. I wouldn’t mind the facade as much if it wasn’t so badly composed. The emphasis of the building as a whole is forward into the square but that is horribly contradicted by the sideways skew of the windows to the left of the photo. It’s just horribly nauseating. Oh, and it lacks any sort of justification other than that the DDDA wanted some sort of Iconic architecture. If I had done something similar in a first year project it probably wouldn’t have done very well.

It would have been far braver to turn over the job to an Irish company like McCullough Mulvin, Heneghan Peng, Grafton et cetera

To quote Glenn Murcutt at the recent DIT colloquim –

We only need one Frank Gehry, we only need one Zaha Hadid and we only need no Daniel Liebeskind

Spot on Glenn

Theres waaayyyyyyy to much going on in that square. Its disapointing that all these buildings were designed as a single submission and yet there is still no consistancy between them.

@PTB wrote:

It would have been far braver to turn over the job to an Irish company like McCullough Mulvin, Heneghan Peng, Grafton et cetera

I’m glad they didn’t

@PTB wrote:

To quote Glenn Murcutt at the recent DIT colloquim –

”We only need one Frank Gehry, we only need one Zaha Hadid and we only need no Daniel Liebeskind”!

Did he actually say that?

. . . . I can’t believe he said we needed one Zaha Hadid!

@PTB wrote:

Alas, it aint a good piece of architecture. The appears to be no justification for the architecture…. Oh, and it lacks any sort of justification other than that the DDDA wanted some sort of Iconic architecture.

Not that I’m overly fond of Libeskind’s work in general, but there’s room in architecture for the non-rationalsculptural approach some of the time too, right?.. (as in, the end result can be good irrespective of how silly the ‘justification’ for it is)

@dermot_trellis wrote:

(as in, the end result can be good irrespective of how silly the ‘justification’ for it is)

Or, as is more often the case, vice versa.

@what? wrote:

Of course the ‘reasoning’ behind the building is dire and as a piece of architecture it has no integrity, but as something to look at it is becoming quite striking.

I think this sentence sums up a lot of what’s wrong with architects nowadays. After three years being lectured by failed architects, people come out sounding like textbooks instead of human beings.

Originally Posted by gunter
Did he actually say that?

Yes and he got a fine round of applause

@dermot_trellis wrote:

Not that I’m overly fond of Libeskind’s work in general, but there’s room in architecture for the non-rationalsculptural approach some of the time too, right?

Perhaps yes, but libeskind has made his whole career out of it, which bugs me.

@rumpelstiltskin wrote:

Or, as is more often the case, vice versa.

I think this sentence sums up a lot of what’s wrong with architects nowadays. After three years being lectured by failed architects, people come out sounding like textbooks instead of human beings.

surprising remark. a rare shaft of truth. wasted here.

Rumplestiltskin,

Because my statement was specific instead of ambiguous it is from a text book?

There is another thread for people like you who think written expression shouldnt exceed the boundaries of ‘grand’ and ‘crap’.

@green_jesus wrote:

+1

This has to be the most interesting and original design in the last 15 years and it will be cherished for many years to come.

You cannot be serious…

@what? wrote:

Rumplestiltskin,

Because my statement was specific instead of ambiguous it is from a text book?

There is another thread for people like you who think written expression shouldnt exceed the boundaries of ‘grand’ and ‘crap’.

I simply mean that if a building is great and striking, the notion that we should consider it inappropriate because it’s “not justified” and “irrational” is insane.

@what? wrote:

Of course the ‘reasoning’ behind the building is dire and as a piece of architecture it has no integrity, but as something to look at it is becoming quite striking.

I love that sentence what?, if you loaded it with any more contempt, it would tip over!

@rumpelstiltskin wrote:

I think this sentence sums up a lot of what’s wrong with architects nowadays. After three years being lectured by failed architects, people come out sounding like textbooks instead of human beings.

You’re way off the mark there rumple, . . . . no it’s five years, not three years.

On the issue of the building itself, it’s definitely high on impact and free from any of the increasingly staid architectural language of the civic theatre. The great hooded entrance could perhaps be said to be ‘sheltering’ and almost ‘functional’.

I don’t even mind the crumpled glass screens, or the office park cladding of the Macken Street frontage, . . . . it’s just those criss-cross white steel bands behind the glass, they just look like they belong to a different building! That and the way the heavy, sharply projecting, wings just seem to slam into the facade! Why does this look so unresolved?

@rumpelstiltskin wrote:

I simply mean that if a building is great and striking, the notion that we should consider it inappropriate because it’s “not justified” and “irrational” is insane.

I think this is to do with expectations. We don’t want to be impressed by just very expensive gimmicks, we want the quirks to mean something, or to have an underlying logic. That was the apparent genius of the Jewish Museum, (as pointed out by none other than the Sean O’Laoire, if I recall). There’s not much wrong in wanting architecture to be ‘rational’, or failing that, ‘justified’. Any eejit can do ‘irrational’ and ‘unjustified’, if the budget is big enough.

Leaving aside the issues of detailing, don’t you get the feeling that this is a slightly surreal moment in the architectural development of Dublin?

We’ve an actual new urban square now at Grand Canal dock, where there used to be cement works and scrap yards, (we’ll come back to that hotel later), and now a shiny new theatre by architecture’s wunderkind. Over on North Wall they’re topping off Kevin Roche’s NCC and out on the Liffey, there’s a Calatrava bridge sitting on a barge!

The last time there was probably a moment like this in Dublin, they were building Merrion Square, the Wide Streets Commissioners were aggrandizing Dame Street and Gandon was fending off angry mobs at the Custom House.

@gunter wrote:

I don’t even mind the crumpled glass screens, or the office park cladding of the Macken Street frontage, . . . . it’s just those criss-cross white steel bands behind the glass, they just look like they belong to a different building!

Thats it exactly! I still like it, but they seem so industrial for the… finesse.. this building ought to project. Its like the hotel next door infected it. Hopefully the stone clad roof will improve things, ill reserve judgment.

The white bands are clearly the manipulation of structure into motif.

The jarring junction of facade with the side wings is also symptomatic of this intentionally unresolved aesthetic drive.

@gunter wrote:

The last time there was probably a moment like this in Dublin, they were building Merrion Square, the Wide Streets Commissioners were aggrandizing Dame Street and Gandon was fending off angry mobs at the Custom House.

So next up a Famine? Sheeeiiite

(i may have skipped a few decades there)

@what? wrote:

The white bands are clearly the manipulation of structure into motif.

The jarring junction of facade with the side wings is also symptomatic of this intentionally unresolved aesthetic drive.

I think your username says it all.

@what? wrote:

The white bands are clearly the manipulation of structure into motif.

and the motif being homáge to the Beijing bird’s nest?

@what? wrote:

The jarring junction of facade with the side wings is also symptomatic of this intentionally unresolved aesthetic drive.

otherwise known as ‘creative block’.

@alonso wrote:

So next up a Famine?

Alonso: I was thinking more in terms of an architectural moment!

what? knows what I’m talking about, don’t you what?

@alonso wrote:

So next up a Famine? Sheeeiiite

(i may have skipped a few decades there)

You sure did! First, there has to be an Act of Union. 😉

Would you bet against it? (Oh, hang on… M&S, Tesco, Debenhams, John Lewis…)

The cladding on the sides is being unveiled in sections. Diagonal strips of silvery metal, think the top 2 thirds of the spire. If the roof is made of this too, the building will be dazzling, figuratively and literally.

I think it looks cool so far, but I’ll reserve judgment until it’s complete.

I do worry about the amount of lighting maintenance in the square. I haven’t been there in a long time. Are the billions of LEDs still working?

Checked it out over the weekend. It’s too early to tell cause the roof still isn’t formed.

One thing I’d say is that in the renders it looks like the sloping roof would be visible from ground level, but that doesn’t appear to be the case unless you’re standing way back at the water’s edge.

@gunter wrote:

and the motif being homáge to the Beijing bird’s nest?

Yes! My thoughts exactly! The diagonal sides, giving it a dish shape, the beams at crazy angles inside… it’s the nest again.

The theatre seems to be clad in metal. Does anyone have any idea what exactly this is?

Looks pretty groovy to me so far. What’s wrong with you lot? Would you prefer one of DDDA’s ‘oh so bland’ 6 storey blocks instead? This is the best we can hope for!

(c) http://www.flickr.com/photos/turgidson/

(c) http://www.flickr.com/photos/megangier/

is it a parametric building?

Wow, thats beginning to look great!

Weren’t those cross beams black in the render?

@what? wrote:

The white bands are clearly the manipulation of structure into motif.

The jarring junction of facade with the side wings is also symptomatic of this intentionally unresolved aesthetic drive.

do wha?

interior pretty far along … (from the Irish Times)

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/property/2009/1105/1224258088629.html

@IT, Frank McDonald wrote:

It is flanked by an office block with the most beautiful façade in Dublin (by Duffy Mitchell O’Donoghue) and an unfinished hotel developed by Terry Devey. Its cheap-looking chequerboard pattern is a travesty of Portuguese architect Manuel Aires Mateus’ original idea that it would look as if hewn from a single block of stone.

Spot on, Frank !

The interior looks brash and decadent . . . . . . . like a proper theatre

@gunter wrote:

The interior looks brash and decadent . . . . . . . like a proper theatre

I agree!

Agreed – interior of the theatre looks fabulous darling… interested in seeing the circulation spaces etc

That picture looks delightful, waiting for some more.

Hard to see where they’ll fit 2,000 🙂

Looks great.

Jesus – A positive comment from Spoil Sport !

And I even agree with him.

The new theatre certainly brightens up Misery Hill.

It’s not unprecedented.
I just wish I had the opportunities to make more.

Brilliant stuff. Can’t wait to get in here.

WOw, the interior is breath-taking.

I really think Dublin needs an Opera House right now but this is definitely a great addition to the city.

I had a sneak preview last night! Its an excellent venue. The amphitheatre is very impressive.

amazing interior, I’m most impressed with the design

Wow, had a ramble down and saw this today….It’s definitely something unique to Dublin. You’d think you were abroad. The rear of it looks cool too…..the sleekness and sharpness of the facade and it’s edges as it lines the street looks cool in the sunlight of a cold autumn day…… (and I just thought of the general shite that some Irish architects design today!)

😎

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-dogg/4100561712/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-dogg/4100568262/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-dogg/4099807905/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/debbiedunne/4113576694/sizes/l/

i love it

I love it.
Very well done, a great addition to the city. Hooray something genuinely good!!

wow wow wow – couldn’t be better.
Really looking forward to the opening, which I believe is really soon.

March 17 Swan Lake by The Bolshoi. All sold out. IN fact the first 5 days are all sold out.

Stephen,

Youare incorrect, there are still tickets availablefor all 5 ballet shows

Misinformed then

look at that interior! Wow!

These were recently added onto the sisk.ie website,

are these around the back of the theatre?

yeah must be, pretty similar to early renders on libeskind’s site. Turning out to be a pretty decent scheme overall !

I was inside the theatre today, and the pics shown above do not do it justice. It is spectacular!
The clean clinical liebskind lines and angles coupled with incredible views over The Grand Canal dock from the upper floors are breathtaking. The auditorium is incredibly intimate for a 2100 capacity,and 3 exterior walls are clad in Stainless Steel panels up to a height of 8 stories.This is definitly going to knock the socks off the Gaiety, Olympia, Abbey etc.
Well done to Harry Crosbie for having the b**ls to pull this off.

Let’s not all slap Harry on the back here. The scheme was originated by somebody else, bought by somebody else and then finally purchased by Crosbie at the top of the market while it was already under construction. I really like the buildings and enjoy being in the immediate area. If only the north docks was even slightly as successful

Critical difference between North and South Docks are transport connections; I have no doubt getting from the DORT to this wonderful new theatre from Barrow Street is very convenient. The Point was always a nightmare and although Luas will help it really needs to be fully plugged in to the main rail network.

BTW This does look like a real gem

Report on yesterday’s RTE News:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0104/6news_av.html?2676625,null,230

@PVC King wrote:

The Point was always a nightmare and although Luas will help it really needs to be fully plugged in to the main rail network.

BTW This does look like a real gem

Well there is that rail spur into the Docklands now from the Maynooth etc line.

This is a fabulous addition to the fabric of Dublin City. Like the new Point, I would say that this venue will have extraordinary success. It has the scale to bring top-class theatrical productions to Dublin since it has 5 times the capacity of the Abbey. The office buildings around it are also of a very high standard and are a good cut above the usual dross to which we have become accustomed.

+1

I wonder how much of a boost the new Point, the Conference Centre and this new theatre will have on Dublin tourism? They all should boost visitor numbers by a good few percent since they add much-needed amenities to the city of Dublin.

@Cathal Dunne wrote:

I wonder how much of a boost the new Point, the Conference Centre and this new theatre will have on Dublin tourism? They all should boost visitor numbers by a good few percent since they add much-needed amenities to the city of Dublin.

well the conference centre is going to send any tourist away with a serious case of visual botulism

@wearnicehats wrote:

well the conference centre is going to send any tourist away with a serious case of visual botulism

🙂 I take it you’re not a fan of the new Conference centre, then?

The place is due to host Derren Brown’which, AFAIK, has never toured Ireland before. Perhaps this is an indication of the range of new events to which, with the new theatre, we can look forward.

sweet 😉

All the views of the new theatre make it look good and (internally) rather trad, but the finishes to the balcony and some box fronts look very plain and mean. Is this the contemporary fetish for exposed concrete? Perhaps it’s just plain plasterwork. Either way, is this appropriate? What is the point of plainness and greyness in interiors? I just don’t get it.

aren’t theatre interiors supposed to be plain? so as not to distract. this one looks quite busy actually.haha

Are they?

The Americans and the germans went in two different directions on this in 1930s movie theatres, escapist palace of dreams vs non distracting suave venue.

The lights are all on the stage during a performance though, right?.. You don’t really see the interior of the auditorium all that much until the main lights come back up, surely it can’t be too distracting to performers.

The box fronts are actually finished with a gold coloured aluminium mesh that is back lit with colour chnage LED’s. The picture above does not do it justice, as it has all house lights on white up full. In typical show or pre show mode these lights would not be white and may only operate at 20% power.
Believe me, it is spectacular and needs to be seen.

And yet it still suffers the same affliction as an illuminated ceiling cove in Penneys.

Gah!

I do like that the interior is so opposite to the angular machine coldness of the exterior, and I don’t mind that, in some ways, it seems to be a return to the brash opulence of the Victorian music hall.

I’m not going to lie to you, gunter wouldn’t be a big theatre goer [mostly because if you’re going to fork out thirty or forty quid to hear two blokes talking to each other, you might as well stay in and click on archiseek], but theatre design has always fascinated me.

Architecturally, I have always liked 60’s Brutalism, even the mild Brutalism of Denys Lasdun, but the theatre as a segment of a shuttered concrete stadium, with plush seats and carpet, never worked for me. It always seemed to me that the architecture of theatres like Lasdun’s National Theatre in London strove too hard to emulate the forms, and possibly the longevity, of classical Greek/Roman models, when there was absolutely nothing wrong with the tiered and galleried box.

Concrete instead of stone, but the half circle layout of the Olivier Theatre in the South Bank complex hints at the classical inspiration for much late-20th-century theatre design, with an emphasis on Ephesus.

If the Grand Canal Theatre is some kind of fusion of Libeskind’s angular metallic house style and something like traditional theatre design, this could be a bit special.

On a related topic, did anyone hear that radio interview during the week [can’t remember channel] with the director of the Globe Threatre [can’t remember name], . . . . very interesting stuff.

Apparently the literati are inclined to sneer at the Globe for being a reconstructed Elizabethan tourist trap, but yer man had answers. What’s the difference between being the director of the Globe and being the director of a regular [subsidized] theatre, he was asked. Answer: ‘Well the Globe is always full, and everyone always leaves happy’.

So apparently you don’t actually need carpet . . . or seats 😉

Libeskind at centre stage
Shane O’Toole – RIBA Journal

As the opening production at the Grand Canal Square Theatre takes to the stage on St Patrick’s Day, the curtain falls on efforts to rejuvenate Dublin’s post-industrial docklands. As Bolshoi ballerinas glide gracefully through the Russian State Ballet’s production of Swan Lake, officials from the Dublin Docklands Development Authority (DDDA) will be looking on, aware that their years of paddling furiously below the surface to stimulate and keep pace with a rapidly transforming city have drawn to a premature close.

In fact, had Daniel Libeskind’s theatre been even six months later getting out of the ground, it is unlikely it would ever have seen the light of day, instead joining the growing list of projects that have been euphemistically ‘pushed out’, or cancelled, during the past year. Buildings we won’t be seeing for some time, if ever, include Foster + Partners’ U2 Tower, West 8’s ‘island’ urban blocks in the Liffey, Agence Ter’s Royal Canal linear park, JDS Architects’ Dublin harbour bath, Heneghan Peng’s Custom House plaza and Antony Gormley’s 48m-high sculpture of a figure standing in the Liffey.

http://www.ribajournal.com/index.php/feature/article/libeskind_at_centre_stage_MAR10/

Some things we have been spared too, like the graph paper design of the O2 Tower.
I would be more of the “less is a bore” school of design and that tower just left me feeling cold.
Still, the principle is what counts and having “Twin Towers” at the Liffey Estuary could have been fantastic.

ONQ.

Arch Daily entry with photos and drawings:
http://www.archdaily.com/52814/grand-canal-theatre-daniel-libeskind/

RTE Nationwide special on the Docklands here, from Feb 22. Harry Crosbie talkin about the new theatre etc.:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0222/nationwide_av.html?2705878,null,228

A video of the atrium and main auditorium, showing the orchestra pit and balconies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yk9q4YM_IM0

The theatre seems to have gone down a treat with young and old alike over the weekend – only complaints seem to be the outrageous price of food and drink and a distinct shortage of toilets.

Still, overall a victory for quality contemporary architecture I think.

Daniel Libeskind in the Dragon’s Den
Tom Dyckhoff – The Times

I hear Daniel Libeskind long before I see him, his machinegun Jewish New York voice rising excitedly above the soft accents of Dublin civic dignitaries. There he is, moving like a whirlwind through a cloud of groupies and TV crews, all bear hugs and that Cheshire cat smile. Welcome to the Daniel Libeskind roadshow. He’s in Dublin to promote his latest building, the Grand Canal Theatre, the city’s first venue large enough to pack in the punters for the crowdpleasers — Swan Lake tonight, then Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and even Gilbert O’ Sullivan.

The building is another Libeskind showstopper, Ireland’s first and — with its national economy in tatters — only piece of “starchitecture”. It’s avant-garde, with Libeskind’s trademark sharp, dynamic angles poking up over Dublin’s low skyline, and a huge façade of splintered glass sheets, but garnished with theatrical razzmatazz.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/architecture_and_design/article7072966.ece