Libeskind in Dun Laoghaire
- This topic has 36 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 25 years ago by
.
- Posts
You are both acting in a very childish manner, not debating the topic in question, however, Alan, your comments have been rude and any chiding you have recieved is completely of your own making.
Your withdrawl from this forum is a welcome relief to me and others I presume.
As MK rightly states, you are agressive and this is not the kind of influence deemed acceptable to me.
MK, you should not rise to the bait so easily, just ignore comments of this nature from others, ultimatley, as proven, they are not worth the effort.As for Liebskind, wait and see & then judge.
Time out folks..
I think this is blowing out of all proportion… mr regan, for your first post here on your first registered day here, thats hardly very friendly…..
can we get back to the subjects in hand without the childish bickering….
I had a great laugh about a week ago sorting through twenty year old AR’s. The flavour of the month in 1981 (Michael Graves, et al) looks pretty embarassing from this distance.
I have a nasty suspicion that deconstructivism may look equally embarassing twenty years hence. To be fair though no drawn proposals for the Liebskind proposal appear to have been made public – there is always an outside chance that his scheme may actually be desirable.
As to context – deconstructivism idealogically recognises no context so Alan Dunlop’s point in this regard is quite correct. Personally I find it a pretty Onanistic form of architecture (like quite a bit of the debate on these pages), still he did a nice job on the Jewish museum in Berlin – although his South Ken job in London seems to be pretty much the same thing debased and rehashed – hope he does’nt make the same mistake here.
[This message has been edited by James (edited 22 August 2001).]
Deconstructivism does not idealogically recognise no context (although it may appear so). what it aims to do is look beyond the ‘veneer’ of context ie. instead of looking at height lines etc. it may instead focus on historical uses of the site, or on population shifts that affect the site etc. The basic premise is to look past the accepted meaning of what is in question (be it a site, text, building, painting, whatever) and bring out meanings or relevancies which are not obvious or have been suppressed for various reasons.
I don’t mean to be preachy or whatever but ‘deconstructivism’ is treated as a non-contextual, jaggedy style, instead of as an ideology and its name is bandied about as a term of abuse for anything that is a bit all over the place.
Anyway, having said all that, I’m still not sure as to it’s success as an ideology (after all height lines can be as important a criteria as the ‘diaspora’!)pictures in today’s print edition of the Irish Times… am attempting to get information for archeire now
Oh MY GOD!
I think Dunlaoghaire is finally to be finished off.
A century of destruction has un-systematically ruined what must surely have once been a jewel. I particularly point to:
The Shopping centre – horrendous.
That old Terminal – once hailed as a masterpiece I believe? Weren’t architects desperate for modern buildings to champion in those days! Anything un-old or un-pretty would do, it seems.
The list would go on…
And now the fiurther ruination of the harbour?
Liebskind – oh Christ. Have you seen what he’s doing with the V&A in London? It looks like a giant pile of old cardboard-boxes and rubbish have been tipped inbetween it. Clever? Oh yes – probably. Worth doing? I don’t think so. Okay, so it will add to the eclecticsm of that already slightly vulgar building but in this case disastrously.
I’m definitely cracking up – I rather like the Liebskind proposal – at least its form and siting. It looks a little too big and monolithic but ifthe design develops in the right direction that should be fairly readily resolved.
The only thing is though that whereas it has the look of a Cardiff Bay Opera House or a Guggenheim Muesum its actually a rather mundane and commercial collection of uses, apartments, shops, hotel.
True there is mention of a museum of the Diaspora – I’m suspicious of this however – usually this kind of thing is a planning gain lever to persuade the Local Authority to grant permission for large floorplates and overly high buildings. I’m also not comforted in this by the fact that the developer is Terry Devey – who now appears to be shutting down the much praised CEOL facility at Smithfield in favour of – guess what??? – Conference Suites, Meeting Rooms and Office accommodation.
Anyone see Newsnight on BBC2 last night. It featured an article about the above mentioned architect Daniel Libeskind. Among his works featured were the somewhat crazy ‘Spiral’ – the extension to the V&A Museum in London. This plan seemed quite obtrusive and ill-fitting beside the existing older classical buildings, but the design itself is quite brilliant, very dynamic and visually exciting. Also his distinctly modern yet unusual Imperial War Museum in Manchester looked quite attractive gleaming in the sunshine. His Jewish Museum in Berlin, again distinctly Libeskind, conveyed a sense of eerie bleakness – the interior that is – evoking the death chambers of the holocaust – despite being empty, not having any exhibits at the moment…..his family too having suffered at the hands of the Nazis. The exterior of the building itself was clad in Zinc and represents a broken Star of David. He is a remarkable architect.
I’d say give him the job at Dun Laoire and let’s see what he does.Excellent AAI/Peter Rice Memorial lecture last night by Cecil Balmond – a director fo Arups in London. He has been working on the Spiral for the V&A, and went into great depth on the maths and engineering of that and other projects apparently Arups have had a design team of 20 engineers and 2 mathematicians working on that one – bu he still managed to give a decent insight into the principles.
Two images available here http://www.irish-architecture.com/onsite/libeskind/
What an interesting sprawl…..no vertical thrusts however….complying to rigid guidelines I suppose.
If it’s composed of glass it will look good….concrete however would be yucky!
[This message has been edited by GregF (edited 19 September 2001).]
It appears to cover a much larger area than the current Carlisle pier. The models don’t particularly help. Does anybody know quite how big this is?
On the whole, I’m impressed. That ship’s prow end seems a bit of an obvious metaphor for Libeskind, though: usually he’s subtler than that. But it seems to work well on the site.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
