Libeskind in Dun Laoghaire
August 6, 2001 at 10:12 am #705092
ONE of the world’s most radical architects has designed a Â£50m development, including a museum, hotel and shops, for a derelict pier in Dun Laoghaire.
Daniel Libeskind, best known for the striking zigzag thunderbolt design of Berlin’s Jewish Museum, presented his plans to the Dun Laoghaire Harbour Company in June. The Polish-born architect has been commissioned by a consortium hoping to win a contract to redevelop Carlisle pier.
August 7, 2001 at 10:55 am #716896LOBParticipant
I would love to see some indication of the design-it would be a fantastic site.
I hope Dun Laoghaire have the vision to carry it through
August 7, 2001 at 11:33 am #716897
I’m goning to contact the developers and hope that they will supply archeire.com with some images as soon as they have a proposal together.
August 8, 2001 at 9:52 am #716898ArchitecktParticipant
I certainly hope that the project goes ahead, a project by Libeskind in Ireland would be a small step to attracting other international interest, something that is in short supply in the country.
I just hope it will suit Dun Laoghaire
August 16, 2001 at 6:38 pm #716899AndrewParticipant
That’s a good point…will it suit the site, or will it end up being “a project by Liebskind”, like Calatrava’s bridges…all designer labels showing, but no relevance to it’s context ?
August 16, 2001 at 10:32 pm #716900HKParticipant
I say let him put up what he wants. But then I won’t be deciding – and that’s part of the problem. Who am I? I am a member of the public. And why won’t I be deciding? Because I don’t know what architecture in Ireland is beyond what the Times and the Independent publish and the RTE broadcasts (and currently, I am not interested).
Whatever he puts up it could spark a much needed public debate that may penetrate through the relatively small elite of Irish architectural critics to the “people of Dublin” though publicity. The question at this stage is not whether the project will be contextual or not. The Dun Loughaire-Rathdown CC will do their work and so will the immediate residents as is their responsibility (and the even architects will have their say). The question is what will the nature of the debate be? will it last long enough to spark wider public interest? Or will it be another Eircom Park political debacle? (the only current language of public architectural debate)? And how many people in Ireland will know and perhaps even have an opinion of what architecture may do (or not do) for them. This must grow people’s architecture minds (or give birth to one). Perhaps I’m making more of this than is warranted, but you did say Libeskind, didn’t you?
August 17, 2001 at 4:52 pm #716901AnonymousInactive
of course it won’t be contextual, his work is architecture as object or for me smoke and mirrors. I thought Dublin had a strong sense of itself and its worth, sounds like you guy’s are as unsure about your own direction in architecture and parochial as the Scots.
Don’t be taken in by the glossy photos and the hype for god’s sake. If he builds something in Ireland great, but don’t think it will be wonderful for Ireland.
August 20, 2001 at 5:40 pm #716902izz4Participant
‘Contextual’ must be one of the most abused terms in architectural debate of this kind. Unfortuately those who use it tend to mean will it ‘fit in’ visually, i.e. will it be a pastiche take on the predominant architectural style of the setting. Please clarify what you mean by this term: i.e. that Liebskind is interested in the project due to his interest in emigration suggests it will be completely contextual, as so many people emigrated to Britain on boats from Dun Laoghaire.
We should be welcoming the possibility of Liebskind’s project wholeheartedly.
August 21, 2001 at 9:03 am #716903
Liebskind’s work is always contextual. Dont confuse deconstruction with a lack of concern for context.
August 21, 2001 at 2:48 pm #716904AnonymousInactive
dear izz4 and mk,
I overheard this converstation on holiday between my four year old daughter and my wife.
Anna; mum where did you meet dad?
Kate: at a disco, many years ago.
Anna: did you think he was attractive?
Kate: yes, I suppose I did.
Anna: what, could he juggle or something?
Until I read your views about context and Libeskind, this was the funniest comment I’d heard for a long while.
August 21, 2001 at 7:38 pm #716905cajualParticipant
but…that wasn’t funny at all
August 22, 2001 at 12:30 am #716906izz4Participant
I really do not understand what you mean about our ‘funny’ comments on Liebskind. Please! Less of the smoke and mirrors!
I was merely commenting on how the usage of the term ‘context’ is so broad, that it would be helpful in the interests of clear debate if people could specify what they meant by it.
August 22, 2001 at 1:36 am #716907deepnoteParticipant
we could use a good ferry wreck on the pier, now that would surely be contextural
August 22, 2001 at 9:00 am #716908
Less of the Readers Digest anecdotes, your not only embarressing yourself, your making the rest of us cringe also.
August 22, 2001 at 9:16 am #716909
Why get all uppity when one has’nt seen any plans…..the mere mention of a development by a big name and everyone seems to reach for their cudgels. Wait and see what is on offer …..instantaneously one will know whether what is planned is suitable.
August 22, 2001 at 9:26 am #716910AnonymousInactive
Sorry mk, but this is virginal territory for me. Thanks though for the advice, I will take it in good grace from someone who obviously knows quite a bit about embarrassing disharge.
August 22, 2001 at 10:16 am #716911
Alan, I have no desire to enter into petty bickering with you. This is not the first time you have engaged in personalised comments with myself or with others and I have challanged you on this point before also.
Try to attack the issues and not the people discussing the issues. In a debate the aim is to argue the point with valid arguement, not trivia and insults.
If your debating demeanour represents your business demeanour, your general regard for other people and their views, then I believe, and I mean this constructively, that you should seriously look at yourself and consider is your method of approach (attack) suitable to an enviornment where you can build positive interdependant relationships with others.
No doubt you will retaliate with usual venom, never-the-less I feel my responding to your comments is well and truely over,
Best of Luck,
August 22, 2001 at 10:57 am #716912AnonymousInactive
Sorry mk, again. It’s just that I find it difficult to take what you say seriously.
Confusing deconstructavism and context-really? It must be a Scottish thing and probably all my fault, I know, but you come across to me like a cocksure pedant. Are you a student?
Deepthroat is right, run it into the harbour and succesfully marry the two.
August 22, 2001 at 11:11 am #716913
More of the same…..
Also, deepthroat is actually deepnote, a Freudian slip of epic proportions no doubt, symptoms, symptoms….
August 22, 2001 at 11:33 am #716914AnonymousInactive
not really of epic proportions mk, I always suspected that taking part in discussions with those indulging in self defilement would result in my own premature withdrawal.
Sorry though deepnote, I have very much enjoyed your contributions. Good luck with Sports Campus Ireland
August 22, 2001 at 12:12 pm #716915John ReganParticipant
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.
August 22, 2001 at 1:55 pm #716916deepnoteParticipant
MK: perhaps some anger management therapy so you could learn to deconstruct your superior attitude
August 22, 2001 at 2:15 pm #716917
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….
August 22, 2001 at 8:47 pm #716918JamesParticipant
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).]
August 22, 2001 at 10:32 pm #716919cajualParticipant
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’!)
August 29, 2001 at 10:51 am #716920
pictures in today’s print edition of the Irish Times… am attempting to get information for archeire now
August 29, 2001 at 11:29 am #716921john whiteParticipant
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.
August 29, 2001 at 7:37 pm #716922JamesParticipant
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.
August 29, 2001 at 8:55 pm #716923
very true James on Ceol
September 7, 2001 at 9:32 am #716924
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.
September 7, 2001 at 8:05 pm #716925JLParticipant
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.
September 11, 2001 at 8:32 am #716926
September 19, 2001 at 10:47 am #716927
Two images available here http://www.irish-architecture.com/onsite/libeskind/
September 19, 2001 at 11:02 am #716928
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).]
September 19, 2001 at 12:02 pm #716929Rory WParticipant
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?
September 19, 2001 at 12:35 pm #716930AnonymousInactive
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.
September 19, 2001 at 12:51 pm #716931
Its very big, the footprint look huge, but look at the size of teh current terminal behind it for scale. I do like it though, dramatic, but as Hugh has said, the prow is a fairly obvious metaphor.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.