libeskind / Manuel Aires Mateus on the docks

I am alien here, and I don’t know much about leibskind. Who can give me some information of him and his work?
pretty thanks! :>

I quite like the Manuel Aires Mateus hotel….
http://www.irish-architecture.com/news/2004/000114.html

Originally posted by valentina wong
I am alien here, and I don’t know much about leibskind. Who can give me some information of him and his work?
pretty thanks! :>

You’ll get a fair amount here
https://archiseek.com/search/search.php?template_demo=&site=&path=&result_page=search.php&query_string=libeskind

Originally posted by Paul Clerkin
I quite like the Manuel Aires Mateus hotel….
http://www.irish-architecture.com/news/2004/000109.html

I like it too. It’s hard to imagine seeing that in reality cos its like something I’ve only seen in renderings. But I think it will look great though.

whats the idea behind the cave-like entrances. They really upset the form for me.

Oh, ic! Thanks for a brief introduction. I suppose I’ve seen the layout of the ship-like building here. It had been discussed early this year, right?

It looks to me like one of those Eileen Gray Lacquer screens, blown out of all proportion. I can’t decide whether I like it or not.
Is that a stone facade? as long as it’s not pre cast concrete…
That could end up looking very old very soon.

Let’s hope its not being different just for the sake of it.

…….it kinda looks ugly, does n’t it.

For some reason it reminds me of some of those models of buildings in the Architectural Archive on Merrion Square (the ones that were often never built). That is not to say I don’t like it though. It has that sort of ‘futurist’ appearance or something to that effect. I think I would like to see more pictures in order to make up my mind fully.

Teeny tiny little rendering here:

http://www.ddda.ie/cold_fusion/news/press_releases/press_releases2.cfm?counter=101

Bigger renderings available here..

http://www.grandcanalsquare.net

Thanks for those. The image in the Irish Times was one of the other buildings on the Square then was it?

The image in the Irish Times was of the Park Hyatt Hotel.

This Libeskind style is starting to look tired and empty of any meaning.

In Berlin’s Jewish Museum, I could see the violence of the building as a reflection of the violence inflincted by the Nazi regime on the Jewish people.

http://germany.archiseek.com/brandenburg/berlin/jewish_museum.html

In Toronto, its just a design to catch the eye and make a bold statement – “Danny, will we put a slash here or here…”

http://canada.archiseek.com/unbuilt/ontario/toronto/rom_extension/index.html

Now in Dublin, he has proposed a ship version for Dun Laoghaire, and this which looks like something from the Borg in Star Trek.

http://www.irish-architecture.com/news/2004/000114.html

So whats the meaning Danny? Mr Libeskind said his futuristic wedge-shaped building would show how architecture could act as a magnet for the public. It would not be a stand-alone building, but would be integrated into an urban space with as much going on outside as within.

So it has no meaning – just your signature style now so…..

Danny boy, you have completely debased the Berlin Jewish Museum for me. The exterior of the Dublin concert hall looks like one of the corners of the Berlin Jewish Museum turned 90 degrees.

Does it? I don’t see it myself, and in anycase turning a building which doesn’t exist in Dublin yet 90 degrees seems fairly spectacular to me.

Is this local sour grapes? I don’t know, but I know what I like and I like this – as an non-architect and a non-expert, of course. Seems marvelous to me.

Best new building suggested for Dublin in my lifetime ( 30 years).

I can’t see either design doing any harm, while they may not be to everyones personal taste they are sufficiently different to anything built before on a largescale.

Maybe when a few of these buildings are errected people will complain at some of the dross labelled ‘exciting and progressive’

remember the U2 tower will be on the corner only a hundred yards away – so that area should be architecturally interesting to say the least…

I think that these projects will be finished long before the U2 Tower. Sexy photoshop aside, it will be impossible to judge these buildings with out seeing plans and internals….

http://www.irish-architecture.com/unbuilt_ireland/sligo/lama/gordon_murray_alan_dunlop/index.html

Think his nightshots are improving though……….head for the light.

Spooky 🙂

It’s good however that we are finally getting a Daniel Liebeskind piece for the country. It will be some architectural recognition for the city and will in a way be beneficial to the tourism business.
So far we have a Calatrava, now a Liebeskind….who else can we add to the shoping list……..a couple of Brits ….Foster and Rogers, etc…..etc….

Why is it good GregF?……………for anyone other than the local politicians and the Irish Tourist Board as they chalk up another marker for Dublin

Better to encourage the best in Irish architecture than to accept a sub standard piece from an international star, surely?

maybe a gehry or a roche!!

In what way is the building ‘substandard’ aland?

Don’y really know enough about it other than it look like a standard Libeskind to me. My comments were general. What’s important for Dublin…..that it has a Libeskind, like New York or Berlin or London or that it has a great building?

I was thinking of situations in my own city where, commissioning a big name brings kudos and is marketable, as a consequence. Even if it is evidently clear that the international star involved had very little to do with the design or the design is poor.

marketability has a lot to do with things now alright and big name architect’s bring in the crowds. he was on the radio last friday evening and to me, i must stress that, it sounded like he had only a small bit to do with it. more than likely he was briefed on it beforehand by the actual designer. this is ok though as it’s still got his brand and style. it raises the profile of the city to a regional capital. our homegrown talent hasn’t reached that sort of pinnacle yet but i feel it’s only a matter of time.

Sorry FIN, it’s not for me to say as an outsider but sometimes you can’t see things dangling from the end of your nose because it’s too close.

Believe me though, in my view Ireland has some impressive homegrown talent…….. it’s just a big pr budget that’s missing and belief in your own worth

Don’t mean “you” can’t see things dangling, I mean all of us.

I’m sure you’d see something dangling alright, heh, heh.

lol… i know what u mean but unfortunately a big name architect has more selling power not only to joe public but to the councils as well.

Which projects are you referring to AlanD.
I don’t suppose you mean Norman Foster’s Armadillo – I think it’s superb, especially on the motorway in from the ferry.

Well there you are………different strokes for different folks, I guess. Don’t suppose even the most admiring advocate of Foster would consider that the armadillo comes anywhere near his best work.

Myself I find it strange that you enter from the SECC building up the creatures arse and despite having a distinctive riverside location it pays no attention to it……..except as a foreground for a photograph.

I liked that building without knowing who this “famous” architect was. It seems that that AlanD wants a protectionist market for Irish architects, while everybody else has to compete on the open market? I am writing software which should compete globally: should I demand that the gubberment buy it and ban imports of competitors?

If Irish architects could compete, they could compete anywhere : in this small market and abroad, and be famous themselves. Like the rest of the Island, or the parts of it that are private sector.

I’m not protectionist at all asdasd and would be happy to compete with any architect from anywhere and have done so, with some success.

I would suggest that if there is a parochial attitude it comes from those who commission major public buildings by famous names because of their name and the knock on positive effect that supposedly brings.

Of all the buildings recently commissioned in my city by architects whose work I greatly admire, like Chipperfield, Rogers, Grimshaw
and Foster I find their proposals lacking inspiration. Like a “ghost” of their usual work

We don’t have a Libesking though…….yet

I agree with you AlanD on your general point.
When it comes to signature architects, you only have to look at Calatrava’s Blackhall Place Bridge to see how forgettable these things can be.
When you see what he’s done in Valencia, Lyon and with the Athens Olympic Stadium – you just know the Dublin bridge (Even though I do like it) would never even feature in a retrospective of his best work.
Is it better to have a bog-standard Calatrava than a great Ian Ritchie work (The Spire) or an Irish architect’s masterpiece?

Originally posted by Paul Clerkin
I think that these projects will be finished long before the U2 Tower. Sexy photoshop aside, it will be impossible to judge these buildings with out seeing plans and internals….

Just what I was thinking. I don’t think renderings are going to be able to capture the full extent of what the building will be like.

Also, do you think the U2 Tower will ever get underway? 🙁

Just as a pure matter of curiousity – who is going to pay for this,- theatre, operate it etc,
if it ever gets built.

A bit like the Cardiff Opera House, – I think the rendering is as much as you are likely to ever see.

I think it’s better to have great building by an Irish Architect.

At the time Foster’s office was designing the Armadillo it was working on the Hong Kong Airport, the biggest construction project in the world.

Perhaps he took the glasgow project home at weekends?

Competition Competition Competition

don’t know what you mean don’t know what you mean don’t know what you mean

It is increasing unlikely that an Irish Architect will be called upon to complete major projects like this beause of the desire to be instantly marketable. Even where competitions are held it appears that this alternative way of procuring ideas and designs is fraught with other difficulties.

Shadow I agree

Consequently, for your first point, far from being competative and open to all the opposite is true? Emphasis is placed on marketability and the architect who can talk a good game.

Therefor someone like Tony Fretton who is an excellent architect but who could bore for England, in my view, will always lose out to someone who could talk the hind legs off a donkey, like yer man with the leather jacket and black rimmed specs who is trying to build the same building, horizontal and vertical all over the world and now in Dublin

Your second point …….that’s because good modern architecture should stimulate debate and be provocative.

I’m not impressed with the design – it looks like the borg have crash landed there. Not as distinctive as the armadillo or the erotic gherkin for that matter. Also I feel that this design will date badly. Maybe it’ll be better in the flesh though.

Like the hotel!

Aland,

What if the substandard work from an international star is better than the best work from Ireland? I still smell protectionism here. The best Athlete from America, giving a sub-standard performance in the Olympics will almost certainly beat the best Irish Athlete.The pool is bigger.

If the best Irish Architect was really good, he would be an international star anyway. It’s not as if, I presume, there is an Irish school of architecture with everything deriving from a similar pardigm, or look, which in future generations will mark the era: instead all architects have their own signatures. I am not an archiect but maintain an interest in the environment around me, and the stuff chosen for the grand canal seemss way better than the IFSC – which was not doubt an Irish designed block.

well asdasd, you build the best project and that’s it. If you think this Libeskind design is the best and better then any Irish Architect or Armenian, or American or Angolan or Slovakian or Scots architect could build, that’s what should be built, no question.

All I’m saying is that sometimes it is not always to do with design and quality of architecture………sometimes it is to do with marketing and pr and sale- ability.

I just happen to think that Irish Architecture is at the moment of an exceptionally high standard, generally. That’s all.

Not just for a small country but in universal terms and it has been my experience that when an international star is appointed for a “local” job those high design expectations are not always met.

Ok, I take you point if that is the case.

In fact in thinking about this between my last post , and this, it occurs to me that architecture is not really like software. It is probably better to hire an Irish architect for Ireland, if that architect is as good as a foreigner, and all else been equal – given that a country needs to define it’s identity somehow, and an indigenous building style would be a way to do that. I am always wary of free market fundamentalism, like any other fundamentalisms.

Still, on this building. I like it, in photoshop as least – even if it is a copy of a building elsewhere, and regardless of who designed it.

It’s like a card game played by all the major cities looking to improve visitor numbers and inward investment.

Glasgow’s hand is a bridge by Rogers, a conference facility by Foster and a BBC Headquarters by Chipperfield, Dublin has a bridge by Calatrava and now an arts centre Libeskind, Manchester Salford has a bridge by Calatrava and a museum by Libeskind ……….and if this project is being commercially funded then it is a positive thing for the developers and investors to have an international name and a famous architect on board , who don’tcha know is also designing the world feckin trade centre, by the way.

Don’t get me started on photoshop.

The building is architectural fodder.
Libeskind is laughing (at us and all the other fools) all the way to the bank.

Isn’t it a fact that the Starchitects have too much going on to actually get involved in all the designs their offices produce?
I think Foster has suffered from this for quite a few years now. An Libeskind’s Berlin building is really good, if a little difficult to fit out with an exhibition, but its one of those architectural onomatopeia tingys, the design fits the brief on more levels than usual. It think the nay-sayers, wherever they are, may have a point in criticising reproduction designs, but why has no-one mentioned Gehry?

If they all went over or back to Po-Mo it might be easier. A quote I read somewhere comes to mind:
“A post-modern architect can produce the design for a huge building in a day . . . . . any day”.
Anyone know where that came from?

http://www.spa.uk.net/hotmail.htm

the “spot the fake” section is excellent

http://www.spa.uk.net/fake.htm

I particularly like the lexicon, but maybe that’s got more to do with me not being an architect, just having to deal with them.
🙂

Originally posted by Paul Clerkin
I think that these projects will be finished long before the U2 Tower.

I would have thought that the U2 tower would have been proceeding quickly. Is there any news on when construction will begin?

I bet they wait till U2, along with the rest of us anticipating it, are dead. 😡

Have either of these been completed or even commenced?

The lift shafts of the Aires Mateus were being cast in situ two weeks ago.

The Libeskind was invisible, though the Schwartz plaza is nearing completion- estimated date is late March according to DDDA people.

Isn’t completing the plaza before the performing arts building a bit like hoovering the shed before commencing the woodwork?

i cant wait till the local wee critters make their mark on that scheme!

Here’s a glance at what’s happening with the Mateus hotel. It looks as if they’ve added another lift shaft since November and there’s more activity going on at ground level I can’t make out. There are some good pictures from Devin and CM00 in the New Public Space for Docklands thread that, combined with some of these, give a good sense of how the plaza is developing.

In keeping with the cart-before-the-horse spirit, they have started to install some of the lighting that will form a pathway alongside the rumored ‘performing arts theatre.’ They seem to be a bit cheaply made and don’t look as though they’ll wear well over time.

Lots of lights. Lots and lots of lights. One can only grit one’s teeth in anticipation (fear?) of what it will look like once the Libeskind mothership lands. There are such bizarre juxtapositions going on right now, some quite wonderful:

Or this:

So far, so good. But then, gentle reader, you get this travesty:

Arrggh! The cheapy green bulbs, apart from reminding me of a marquee or some emergency exit path lighting gone all wrong, are garish and detract from the oddball, elegant simplicity of the vertical red lights.

The renderings of the plaza are flashy all right. When you look at the plans for everything all together: the red sticks, the green Disney benches, the odd triangular yokes, the performing arts theatre and its ‘meaningful’ angles, the sleek checkerboard of the Mateus, it really is sensory overload. All of them? All at once? I know I should suspend judgment until it’s all built, but I feel at the moment rather like that Grand Canal Harbour chimney… hidden away, standing in the center of a bizarre half-wasteland, half-art installation, wondering whatever was wrong with leaving a little open space.

Enjoy it while it lasts…

i do agree that all this may prove to be a bit much, but god docklands needs something, anything ! and this is welcome relief from miles of blandness, if verging a little on the tacky side.

Thanks for the pics. I think it was a little silly crowding the old chimney like that. Will there be any view of it left at all?

Have Dubliners come up with a nickname for the red, throbbing poles yet? 😀

The Sticks in the Craw? Oh hang on, that doesn’t rhyme.

The wands on the pond?

The barber on the harbour?

Or, given the recent SoHo nonsense, maybe they’re going for another American theme- the Batons Rouges Quarter?

It seems we might have drawn the Schwartz straws here, folks…

*ctesiphon gets taken away to the punitentiary at this point*

If there gonna be described thusly “red, throbbing poles”, I can think of one word that rhymes with docks, but let’s not go there.

Ah this whole debate is just a load of bother by the Dodder and banal on the canal, in my opinion.

is it time to resurrect “stiffies on the liffey”?
Given the theatrical element of the development “the rods in the gods”?

ah they’re sh1te. The old ones were the best though

And when both the Libeskind building and the little red jetty yoke are finished, we’ll have The wedge by the ledge.

In fact, taken collectively, they could be The cheese wedge, the quay’s ledge and the Mr Freez hedge. Not far from the sea’s edge.

You’ll stop me when I’ve gone too far, won’t you?

*two swift pun-jabs to the kidneys and ctesiphon falls silent*

The skewers on the sewer?

*thump*

The canes and the lanes?

*oof*

Baguette Street?

*he is quietly removed for a well deserved pun-ishment beating*

alonso – I think ‘The Cocks on the Docks’ is a definite runners up!

I’ll meet you at the Grand Canal Cocks..

So the grand canal square hotel facade work is nearing completion. I can’t quite square the renders with what we’ve gotten so far.

[ATTACH]7298[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]7296[/ATTACH]

The ground floor looks cool

[ATTACH]7300[/ATTACH]

But does anyone know what the final plans are for the top storey? Actually it looks to me like we’re already seeing it in its ‘finished’ state :confused:

[ATTACH]7299[/ATTACH]

Has the building been fatally compromised to make it comply with the grand canal docks master plan with regards to maximum storeys and setbacks or something? Hopefully I’m just jumping to false conclusions here.

[ATTACH]7297[/ATTACH]

white marble and 1 metre deep window reveals!!!!

(but we all know this was a major major challange)

Hopefully not the finshed top floor version. Building looks pretty ordinary without those deep windows etc.

Oh that’s so disappointing – I had really high hopes for this Mateus building but clearly it’s been cost engineered almost beyond recognition. The penthouse floor is revolting and the lack of deep reveals completely destroys what could have been a very strong, sculpted facade. Now the ground floor just looks almost tacked on and gimmicky since everything else has become so standardized. I wonder have the plans been brought back to the standard hotel bedroom layout as well, or will the ground floor rooms still have their crazy sculpted ceilings. I wouldnt be surprised if a bog standard fit out were just slotted in now since they seem to have had no problem completely destroying the design concept of the exterior…

And you’re surprised?

A lot of architects seem to go out of their way to make simple concepts obscure, to mystify instead of de-mystify at every opportunity, and I would be inclined to put the current occupant of the Presidency of the RIAI in that category. I don’t think he does it deliberately, he just exuberates (probably not a verb) about architecture and the more he exuberates, the more obscure becomes the point he has set out to make.

Knowing this and fearing the worst, I scanned his column in the current issue of the RIAI Journal only to find a couple of daring proclamations, pretty boldly stated, admittedly interspersed with sentences of pure impenetrability.

His second paragraph stood out:

‘I first visited Daniel Libeskind’s Jewish museum in Berlin in 2002 and I still recall being moved at it’s powerful and eloquent silence’. That’s ok, anyone with Leaving Cert English is going to follow that, but then:
‘The Talmundic rhythms of his narrative articulating the relationships of it’s striated fissured skin to the pre-holocaust habitats of Berlin’s Jewish Community seemed appropriately profound.’ See what I mean. He’s talking about the slit windows and how Libeskind sold us the idea that these virtual knife wounds across the zink skin of the building were ‘vectors’ joining points in the geography of Berlin with individual Jewish connections, or something very like that. Then some clarity rerturns:
‘I also naively believed that the building’s theme and intent warrented that it’s expression and language be reserved for this shrine alone. Am I alone in being surprised and not a little shocked and puzzled to see the same fractured language appear in commercial, entertainment and arts buildings throughout the world by its progenitor and pale imitators?’

Actually, no, you’re not alone! Here’s what a poster to this thread said on the same subject in 2004:

@MG wrote:

This Libeskind style is starting to look tired and empty of any meaning.

In Berlin’s Jewish Museum, I could see the violence of the building as a reflection of the violence inflincted by the Nazi regime on the Jewish people.

Danny boy, you have completely debased the Berlin Jewish Museum for me. The exterior of the Dublin concert hall looks like one of the corners of the Berlin Jewish Museum turned 90 degrees.

Like many architects, I was stunned by Liebeskind’s Berlin Museum. It was classic competition winning stuff, different, graphic, shiny, it must have stood out a mile from everything else submitted.

For the record, both as a concept and as a building, I think Libeskind’s Berlin Museum it is a masterpiece. Like most masterpieces, I think it is also slightly flawed. I used to think the flaw was the window gashes, but I’ve changed my mind about that. The way I see it now, the startling windows are crucial to the impact of the design and they work on any number of levels, as violent cuts (as identified by MG), as a disorienting device, both internally and externally, as a statement that this building is not an ordinary building and that what it contains/commerates is nothing short of shocking and extraordinary, there must be a dozen reasons why the window gashes are justified and appropriate, without creating a new justification based on ‘vectors’ between contrived locations, to me that is the flaw.

The problem is that when you’ve created one masterpiece, people want you to go on doing it on every project. It must be expected, even demanded. I don’t know to what extent Daniel Libeskind designed the Grand Canal Theatre, I imagine he passed it to a design team who understood that their role was to deliver a ‘Libeskind’.

For what it’s worth, I think the present manifestation of the scheme, as illustrated in the published renders, is a giftless shambles, with bits of ‘Libeskind’ mixed in with bits of the Bejing bird cage. My guess is that, when it’s finished and it joins the chequer board hotel (which, in no way, looks like it was ‘carved out of a single block’ of anything, except maybe a crate of mono-tone Battenburg cake) and the slanty red poles on the slanty red carpet, it will be an eloquent statement of exactly how directionless civic architecture has become in the first decade of the 21st century, but I could be completely wrong.

The early drawing from earlier in this thread, for comparison purposes.

[ATTACH]7302[/ATTACH]

God what a disappointment, The developers are such cheap skate w*nkers

@JoePublic wrote:

Last edited by JoePublic : Today at 10:09 PM. Reason: thought I’d add a bit of profanity

😀

What a turd this turned out to be, I was under the impression we would get a sculpted granite or limestone facade, with deep reveals & appropriate detail, similar to Grafton’s DOF extension. It looks like some QS has weilded an almighty axe & its dripping with blood.

The cladding is tack, the ground floor a dreadful realisation of the original concept & the set back absolutely alien to the shite it crowns.

A real pity, little worse than realising that the lamb you were anticipating is in fact manky mutton.

I agree that the finished bits look cheap, but is the top floor really finished? Isn’t there a chance there’s still some cladding to add?

@ctesiphon wrote:

I agree that the finished bits look cheap, but is the top floor really finished? Isn’t there a chance there’s still some cladding to add?

I hope you’re right, though looking closely at it the top floor windows are wider than those below, and the black plastic or whatever in between is narrower than the white slabs below: It doesn’t seem that more white slabs will fit. Also the back slabs have a ‘finished’ look about them.

Hopefully this is not the case though, but I ain’t feeling optimistic.

@JoePublic wrote:

Hopefully this is not the case though, but I ain’t feeling optimistic.

Nor I, but I’ll be keeping my fingers crossed. The ‘finished’ side of the top floor wouldn’t inspire confidence.

gunter-
Well put. Like many people, I knew much about the Jewish Museum before finally paying it a visit, and fortunately it didn’t disappoint when I saw it in person, but its appearance has rapidly become a house style to be applied like wallpaper, with diminishing returns each time. Given the dilution that seems to have taken place with each design revision of the Grand Canal building, one wouldn’t hold out too much hope here either, if the MAM hotel is a reliable guide.

The only other building of Libeskind’s that I’ve liked as much as the Jewish Museum is the Boilerhouse Extension of the V&A (but I’ve yet to see that one in the flesh ;)). Love it, hate it, or both at the same time, at least it appears to have been thought out on its own terms, not in the context of a house style. But I’m digressing.

@notjim wrote:

I thought that was never built?

Hence the fact that I’ve yet to see it in the flesh! (Sorry. :o)

That Manuel Aires Mateus hotel when first proposed was always described in terms of it being “geological” as if hewn from a massive piece of rock – the renders suggest as much. So when I saw it flying up and saw the white panels I assumed it was some Kingspan isulation panels or something similar.

Imagine my surprise last week when I saw the finished product was just that! The whole “hewn from rock” design looks ridiculous when the foyer now looks like a smooth plastic cave. Hewn from formica!

Pile of shite if this is the finished job – why not have polished granite and be done with it, major disapointment/cop out.

[For what it’s worth, I think the present manifestation of the scheme, as illustrated in the published renders, is a giftless shambles, with bits of ‘Libeskind’ mixed in with bits of the Bejing bird cage. My guess is that, when it’s finished and it joins the chequer board hotel (which, in no way, looks like it was ‘carved out of a single block’ of anything, except maybe a crate of mono-tone Battenburg cake) and the slanty red poles on the slanty red carpet, it will be an eloquent statement of exactly how directionless civic architecture has become in the first decade of the 21st century, but I could be completely wrong.[/QUOTE]

I know we can’t go on agreeing like this, but you have put the ‘case against’ very elegantly here. Old cynical me wondered what ‘carved out of a single block’ had to do with a commercial hotel, but I guess that’s just Johnglas…

The danger with this whole civic space now is that it looks like it is being reduced almost to the level of an architectural freak show: no coherence, no dominant design ethos, neither formal open space nor particularly useable ‘play area’, the potential of its relationship to the canal basin wasted. Of the buildings, the office block is decent and well mannered, the hotel is a joke and the DL is… well, what is it? Perhaps you can stand in the middle of it and go ‘Wow!’, but if you can’t, what was the point?

@d_d_dallas wrote:

That Manuel Aires Mateus hotel when first proposed was always described in terms of it being “geological” as if hewn from a massive piece of rock – the renders suggest as much. So when I saw it flying up and saw the white panels I assumed it was some Kingspan isulation panels or something similar.

Imagine my surprise last week when I saw the finished product was just that! The whole “hewn from rock” design looks ridiculous when the foyer now looks like a smooth plastic cave. Hewn from formica!

That’s the point exactly, although, I don’t know if I’d even go as far as saying that it has slipped since the original renders. I think it’s probably being slipping since it was first sketched on the back of an envelope. These are the kind of ideas that hit you like a lightning bolt, usually at 3 in the morning and often with drink taken, but you try and translate them into an actual building, especially that most commercial and superficial of building types, the designer hotel, it just can’t be done. In fairness to them, it’s almost surprising that they even did this well.

I’m not sure that 1m deep window reveals would have saved this building, or that the concept has been dragged down, because the facade looks veneer_eal. I’m inclined to think that the concept was daft in the first place, and should never have gotten beyond napkin sketch.

From what I saw of the construction, there was a mess of steel frames internally presumably corresponding to the room modules. Hotel room specifications change every twenty years or so, and this one doesn’t look like it has a shread of flexibility in it to accommodate a re-fit, if and when a re-fit is called for.

If this building gets hailed as a triumph, the last word in hotel design, we may have to do a serious bit of back-pedaling, or a quick name change.

Who did that sloping green hotel shocker in Glasgow a few years ago? johnglas. Has that bedded in now, or does it still stick out like a sore thumb?

The original design was meant to echo the Burren landscape and I think if it had been built as drawn in the original design (as posted by JoePublic) it would have looked interesting. Unfortunately looks pretty pathetic from the photos above though..

gunter: I’m not sure who did the Radisson on Argyle St, but I’ll find out. Didn’t the RIAI give it an award? I couldn’t believe it myself and had a bit of an argument (not like me) with a good friend over it.
I still think it looks tacky (and tacked-on) and hasn’t worn well, although it has now become part of the streetscape (in an area that is ‘regenerating’ but is still a bit of a ‘twilight zone’) – I’ll see if I can get some pics.

I think this square will age badly. A shame really, because the three most prominent elements of it (the hotel, the theatre and the squares landscaping) could work really well as individual projects but here they are like the Irish rugby team – a load of individually good bits that dont work very well when brought together.

It reminds me of an argos christmas tree – a pile of glittery bling.

I can see the liebeskind theatre being botched aswell. The facade of the holel looks like its made of plastic from the photos.

@TLM wrote:

The original design was meant to echo the Burren landscape and I think if it had been built as drawn in the original design (as posted by JoePublic) it would have looked interesting. Unfortunately looks pretty pathetic from the photos above though..

TLM:

‘meant to echo the Burren landscape’? I’m not having that!

The last time I was in the Burren, the words ‘chequerboard block’ never came into my head. The echos of the Burren that come immediatly to mind are ‘wild’, ‘rugged’, undulating’, ‘layered’, this building is a ‘block’. They couldn’t have made it anymore block like if they had built it out of Lego.

I do recall clearly the ‘hewn out of a single something’ comment, which I filed away in the back of the head with a post-it note (can’t wait to see this) on it, but I don’t recall any ‘echos of the Burren’ comment. Surely that would be an abuse of language!

Joe Public’s pic.

On the issue of the top storey: I don’t think we need worry too much, there’s no way they’re not going to come along now and clamp on some ‘three dimensional’ version of the facing panels here, you know, to retain the integrity.

God that close up looks worse – glorifed travel-lodge architecture

@Rory W wrote:

God that close up looks worse – glorifed travel-lodge architecture

:Dbest description yet..it really does look like a TravelLodge. I’ve only been down here a couple of times (and in fairness not very recently)but the whole thing does look very cheap. Those red poles and the green lighting are tacky central imo..Even the “red carpet” looks cheap

I know, I know, he’s “trendy”, but I really like David Adjaye. I just like the use of simple materials on simple projects. I’m not claiming that it’s the second coming.

And at least on this the large blocks look and feel – well – “massive”. So that they might require some “hewing”, and not just picking up….

Am I the only person here who likes it?
I haven’t seen it in person, but based on the photos, it looks quite cool.

I’m going to remain competely neutral until it’s finished. I do agree though, that they have changed the look from what was being proposed in the renders.

Maybe the Chinese are buying up a lot of hewn rock for their Tiger economy?

Since ctesiphone gamely volunteered to be stuck indoors on this lovely day covering the high-rise/density conference, I took a stroll down the docks at lunch time to get a look at the hotel. I know we’re supposed to keep an open mind on these things until they’re finished, or is it until they’re all weathered in and patinated, but I can’t hold off, this block offends me on so many levels.

I’ll agree the panels aren’t actually formica, (they do appear to be stone, presumably Portuguese limestone), but they’re put together like formica. Where the ground floor is knawed away and curved sections are required, two flat planes are used with a cut line in between. The amount of structural steel framing that has gone into producing this (to me) dubious concept, is breathtaking, but currently, all this lovely frame work is in the process of being covered up and will never again be seen. There are steel frames in here that wouldn’t look out of place on the Forth Bridge, but they’re being encased in a finish that has the qualities of styrofoam.

This hotel has a perfect location, in away from traffic noise, facing a new theatrical square, over-looking the Grand Canal Dock, but it doesn’t look like you can open a window. There could be performance art going on outside, or somebody drowning 10m away and you’re in your hotel room hermetically sealed.

It is, however, incredibly eye-catching, which is also very annoying.

Dreadful – I can’t get over how disappointing this is. Aside from the upper storeys having 80s travelodge architecture the ground floor looks like it has bits of mfi kitchen units glued to it. Instead of looking like its hewn from stone with a dramatic entrance floor this looks like it was hewn from lego. I know I should wait and see how it turns out and the stone weathers, but I think I’d sooner stay in the office block with the couloured lights than this crud

@RoryW wrote:

the ground floor looks like it has bits of mfi kitchen units glued to it.

Aren’t you being a little too complementary Rory 😉

theres an obvious lack of depth with the fenestration, the renders emphasied this depth a lot more…..
disappointing

the more i see it the worse it looks.

im gutted.

Me too. It looks terrible. Cheap and nasty. What going in here? A Hilton or a Travelodge.
Was this what went through planning. Can enforcement be brought in?

@gunter wrote:

.

Seriously………..wtf?

Went down there today for a look, yes it is as bad in the flesh. It looks so dated – this 80s revival thing has gone too far!

On a brighter note they’re fairly motoring away on the theatre building – hope this isn’t bastardised like the hotel

Going on the pictures this is surely going down as one of the most scandalously bleak new developments in the docklands area. It makes the other stuff look good. :confused:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/infomatique/2060590014/

The square itself only seems to look good at night. http://www.flickr.com/photos/73039906@N00/1955136083/ During the day its starting to look worn and inappropriate ahead of the inevitable vandalism.

How much control did McCauley Daye O’Connell have in this project? Could they have led to poor final state of the building?

From looking at Aires Mateus’s website, and at the handful of buldings completed by him, I see high build quality. Can’t really say the same for MDO’C. They seem to do a lot of bland stuff. Like that church in South Dublin on their webpage. Looks like a leisure centre.

@PTB wrote:

How much control did McCauley Daye O’Connell have in this project? Could they have led to poor final state of the building?

Which leads me to wonder about the potential gulf between the graphics of the Abbey Street scheme and the final artefact. 😮

im not sure what all the fuss is about as the near-finished article albeit without the top fringe and deep window reveal looks as BAD as the original renders and graphics suggested it would look.
Hands up all those who couldnt see that this was a monstrosity in the making.
Your probably the same people who think that Madonna really does look that good at 50 in her current cover shot on this months Vogue…
This is hilarious , reading all the old posts of everyone wetting themselves at the thought of a starchitect gracing our shores with his latest creation. No matter what stone was going to be used it was always always going to look modular, dated and bland. Take a bus around the periherique in Paris and you will see a hundred of these same structures, low cost housing, The best is yet to come, Im actually looking forward to the total completion of the whole development including Libeskinds shoe box , just to see how really bad something of this scale and with this much potential can actually come to realisation, having being backed to the hilt by the architectural establishment …this is very very funny stuff.

BostonorBerlin: glad to hear some sense – it is crap and was always going to be crap. I’m thinking of bowing out of making any posts (awwwww!) because the extent of architectural establishment wishful thinking, lack of any concept of context (spatial or temporal), and just plain mutually-congratulatory masturbation on these threads is truly breathtaking.
Add to that a worship of starchitects and it just makes any comments from someone not part of the club superfluous.

Johnglas and BostonorBerlin – glad you’re able to have a laugh at the rest of us. No-one expects that the renders will be 100% accurate, there is however a real sense of disappointment at the way this building has turned out as it is miles from the intended design. Starchitect or not the original design was exciting (and if you did have a preminition on how it would turn out why didn’t you say so before now – isn’t hindsite wonderful) and the finished product is dire – there’s no need to piss in everyone else’s cornflakes

@johnglas wrote:

it is crap and was always going to be crap. I’m thinking of bowing out of making any posts (awwwww!) because the extent of architectural establishment wishful thinking

Daft is a nicer word than crap. I don’t thing crap is really the right word here anyway. I would save ‘crap’ for the buildings that they just didn’t bother making any attempt to do anything with. I think this is a diferent situation. This one looks more like the product of a lack of self criticism. One of those ‘big idea’ buildings (‘it will be as if hewn from a seven storey block’) handed out by the master to a ‘B’ team of atelier believers, where nobody has the confidence, or the critical faculty, to put their hand up and say, ‘Manuel, is this not going to be a bit stupid?’

I’m sorry I don’t share the common belief (RoryW and others) that this would have been fine, if it was just chunkier, as per the original renders.

On the architectural establishment point, I think I alluded earlier to an interesting piece in the March RIAI journal, where Sean O’Laoire, did come out with a pretty blunt rebuke Mr. Libeskind, which mightn’t be any big deal coming from ordinary Joes like us, but, is a bit of a departure for the guys at the top, given that they’re likely to have to share an awards podium or two during the term of his presidency.

And the rest of you are touchy beyond belief (being translated: ‘the emperor has no clothes’). I’ve only been on the thread since December and it’s not hindsight (sic). The square is overdesigned and just hectic (what are the squinty poles about?), the theatre belongs to the dimension of Mr Mxyzptlk, and the scooped-out entrance to the hotel lacks any coherence (if you’ve lost the profiling of the cladding as well, there’s not much left). The only decent building is the office block which is both discreet and well-mannered (but not ‘iconic’). There is a real crisis in architecture and design and townscape-making is a lost art.

gunter: I will accept your criticism and ‘crap’ was a singularly ill-chosen word; you do have a knowledge of where we’re coming from and I believe that does make a real difference. We are not slaves to the past, but the paradox is that if we are to design a historic city we cannot ignore it and indeed we should draw inspiration from it (not copy it). There are plenty of historical precedents for designing near water and my main critique of this design is that, apart from the orthogonal discipline of the square itself, there is not a shred of evidence that anybody has bothered to discuss the relationship of one building to another or indeed of any of them to the square. How ‘professional’ is that?
PS Good point about Sean O’Laoire; my experience of academic discussions is that they can be quite visceral, but we need a much wider discussion of what civic architecture is about. We need to understand that criticism is not ‘ad personam’ and that just because someone is not ‘on message’ doesn’t mean they’re wrong.

@johnglas wrote:

and that just because someone is not ‘on message’ doesn’t mean they’re wrong.

@johnglas wrote:

… just plain mutually-congratulatory masturbation on these threads is truly breathtaking.

slight difference in approach there John, if you were just stating your opinion on the building and or well known architects, i doubt there would be an issue. I had my doubts about this one from the start and given the chasm between original render & final product, its reasonable enough for contributors to be surprised, at quite how far this particular project has fallen, from concept to reality.

@johnglas wrote:

‘the emperor has no clothes’.
The square is overdesigned. What are the squinty poles about?
There is a real crisis in architecture and design and townscape-making is a lost art.

I love this quote function.

‘The emperior has no clothes,’ that’s the phrase I was looking for. The black and white squares was a sixties thing, wasn’t it? They’ve probably knocked down all the office blocks and council flats that used this patterning, but I know I’ve seen pictures somewhere.

I don’t know what the slanty red poles cost, but I bet is was more than half a dozen decent trees would have cost!

Is there a crisis in architecture and design? is townscape making a lost art? It’s certainly starting to feel like it, to me. I was more encouraged a few years ago than I am now. There was an awakening in Dublin with the emergence of Group 91 and the rescue of Temple Bar, and it did seem like we had turned the corner and we had learned that good urbanism often involves, not going all out for the big impact, but in making small scale interventions and assembling the bits to make a greater whole. Now it just seems that we’re back in a sixties mentality, and we’ve forgotten all the lessons that we were just beginning to learn and suddenly no idea is too brash again, everything has to be attention grabbing, not just the arts centre, or the opera house, but every apartment scheme, every hotel and every office block.

I took a load of pictures a few weeks ago, of what they’ve done with Paternoster Square in London, beside St Paul’s Cathedral, to reverse out of the sixties. I was aware that PC had had an impact on the Paternoster debate and I knew that some awful stage-set schemes had been proposed, but they’ve just completed the redevelopment now and it’s worth looking at.

There might still be some pretty dodgy stuff here, if we take the wrong lessons from it, but there’s some thought provoking stuff as well. I’ll see if I can find a general ‘Quality of contemporary urban space’ thread to stick them on over the weekend. One of the themes, in Paternoster, could be characterised as Michael Graves meets Mussollini, so you better get out the drool bucket johnglas!

gunter: you know me too well! Not only did M make the trains run on time, he ‘encouraged’ some interesting bits of architecture (cf. the gloriously fascist avenue leading to the station in Turin). On the other hand, he drove a road straight through the Forum Romanum, destroying its integrity, so I’m hardly an uncritical admirer (and we’re only talking architecture here!).
PeterF: OK, hands up, but I think you know what I mean.

gunter: I’ve lost where you did the original post, but re the SAS Radisson hotel in Argyle St, it was designed by Gordon Murray and Alan Dunlop and there was a discussion about it (and a contribution by AD himself) on the thread: ‘What is “good architecture”?’ on 19 Mar 2003.
I have to fess up and say that I’m now seeing it as part of the streetscape; I don’t like it, but life’s too short and it’s there. And it’s not sandstone. (PS The Ta Paell-ya ‘Spanish’ restaurant in the hotel does brilliant tapas.)

Might not be the right thread, but does anyone have any images of the new theatre they’re building at Grand Canal Dock and what it will look like?

@SunnyDub wrote:

Might not be the right thread, but does anyone have any images of the new theatre they’re building at Grand Canal Dock and what it will look like?

Heres a few images sunnydub. http://www.grandcanalsquare.ie http://www.daniel-libeskind.com

is the new theatre starting to take shape? does anyone have construction pics? pictures from google earth and microsoft earth appear to be months if not years old.

Presumably you’ve Google Image searched for Libeskind + Docklands? :rolleyes:

Second picture from those results:

Or you could, y’know, take a walk down there.

@cgcsb wrote:

is the new theatre starting to take shape? does anyone have construction pics? pictures from google earth and microsoft earth appear to be months if not years old.

Heres a few aerial pictures, theatre is starting to take its shape internally:cool: Sorry no ground pics!

It’s Sim city!

thanks for the pics, no thanks to ctesiphon’s sarcasm

Ah feck off. You’ll be asking us to tie your shoelaces next.

An Post have a very big surface car park there on Macken Street. There must have been serious temptation to dispose of some of that land.

BTW did anyone see Martha Schwartz on Kevin McCloud’s Big Town Plan about two weeks ago?….see seemed like a bit of a witch…….ok this comment has no discussion quality at all….but since I’ve typed it :rolleyes:

Update On Libeskind Theatre, Nearing completion of roof over main stage

I interviewed Martha Schwartz in ’06 – she seemed very warm. Not even a hint of witch 😉

Pic of libeskind building on the docks;)

Another pic from this evening.

and of the hotel.

They are bolting on tapered white blocks to the top storey, as per the original renders.
We should have had more faith!

It still dosen’t work…

“We should have had more faith!”

Agreed, having read some of the earlier comments on this thread, I think the moral of the story is we should have had more faith in the ablity of Irish architects, rather that looking to the “names” under some illusuion that they could do better, and the horribly shortsighted view that having a “Roche” or a “Calatrava” branded structure is somehow impressive… for the tourists.

(The ironic thing is I actually like Mateus a lot, and I beleive this project probably suffered from bad managment by the Dublin firm given charge of its construction -who’s name eludes me, although I’m open to correction on this point)

Imagine Grafton’s Bocconi sitting on this site….
(Or even imagine the real Mateus building on this site, because what’s built is not the same building that’s on the Mateus website.)

@gunter wrote:

“We should have had more faith!”

I presume gunter was being a little sarcastic.

Even if this had been carved out of a single block of lard, or whatever, I just don’t get it.. . . but then, I don’t really get the ‘Gerkin’ either, so maybe there’s always going to be great contemporary architectural icons that I just don’t get.

Having said that, if a person had any interest in extravagantly expensive design statements by some of the world’s architectural elite (and let’s face it, who hasn’t) this little quarter square mile of Dublin is the place to take a little wander around at the moment!

The construction of the Libeskind theatre is amazing and it’s taking shape so quickly in comparison to everything else around town that it must be being built by elves,
No matter how fiendishly complicated the steel and concrete details, every day you go down there, there’s a new bit bolted on.
I hope somebody’s put a webcam on this.

The Liebskind theatre really does look insane at the minute – the way so much heavy, heavy structure appears to be hanging off those two massive concrete cantilevers at either end… Quite dramatic. I hope the finished product dosent cover up too much of the structural heroics.

The addition of the white blocks at the top makes a massive improvement to the hotel although the facade is generally let down by some of the more awkward detailing, particularly at the base. I have to say I love the way the ground floor interior is shaping up – the sheer intricacy of those formations on the ceiling is extremely impressive from a craft point of view, plasterboard or not. I believe there’s a lot of lighting integrated into the cracks and crevases so I’d say it’ll be pretty amazing when finished. Just as long as they leave it all white – I heard a rumour that the interior designers were wanting to paint the ceiling all sorts of different colours to make it feel more “opulent”. Ugh…

Sisk website have added a live webcam for the site!!!:cool: http://www.sisk.ie/sisk/sisk/www/default.asp?magpage=25&id=593&sector_id=1&wid=2

Recent pics from http://www.grandcanalsquare.ie The theatre looks confusing…….!!!!:cool::cool:

The theatre looks confusing…….!!!!

And how! But it’s somehow appropriate in this zany square, which is a sensory overload. Having said all that, when I was there on 30 Nov (a sunny, freezing day) it all looked magnificent and gave the lie to the idea of the ‘dull’ Docklands. The view from Crazy Square (or Mxyzptlk Plaza) is dominated by the water (as it should be) and the little Schwarz jetty makes you feel really in contact with the basin (of course, I wanted to straighten all the lightposts and although I’m not a fan of DL, if you half-shut your eyes…). The views are big, the architecture is interesting (with the reflecting office block across from the hotel the clear winner on a sunny day) and it’s starting to come to life. It’s connected to Pearse St and from there to Ringsend and the city: coffee on the corner, pricey organic stuff at the St Andrew’s RC, a view (but NO ENTRY!) of Pearse Sq – a real tranquil oasis – and the feel of an area in progress.
The Downturn will give it all a chance to settle down; the next phase? Demolition and redevelopment of that ugly shed at the NE corner of P Sq, relocation of the An Post yard (how they must be kicking themselves they didn’t dump it in the boom!), a ‘mews terrace’ along Macken St behind PSq (and the new bridge), more social and affordable hsg with lower property values, etc. And Goodbye to Bono.
Me, I think the South Docklands is great and people are failing to see the wood for the trees. The foundations have been laid, there’s plenty of time to humanise it and get the rest of it ‘right’.

The grand canal theatre taking shape……:cool:

Pic taken from flickr.com