National Gallery Extension
- This topic has 100 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
What’s wrong with entropy and decay, I say. But I agree – the Museum of Scotland stone cladding when fresh was very beautiful.
I think the new building has a very Stephen Holl look to it( http://www.stevenholl.com )it looks great, a breath of fresh air and a nice departure from some ‘mock georgian’ buildings of recent years. I can’t wait to get a good look around inside.
fair enough Greg, i see what you mean about the facade, right now though i think it looks great, i guess time will tell…
I’ve just seen the National Museum in Edinburgh and was very impressed…. loved the internal spaces… sure some rooms detracted from the exhibits but those were in a minority i felt… got some great photos and the roof terraces are excellent
really looking forward to a wander through the gallery now for comparisom
The Museum of Scotland certainly is impressive, even if some of its details and design appear rather pointless (or perhaps I am living in a minimalist dreamworld)
It is a very easy and engaging building to wonder around for a couple of hours, even for a ‘non-architect’. I hope the Clare St. gallery has the same effect.
Please note that in designing this extension and the edinburgh building the architects hand drew all the plans and detailing. Fair play in the technoloogy age
[This message has been edited by graham (edited 31 January 2002).]
[This message has been edited by graham (edited 31 January 2002).]
RE. Museum of scotland
I walked around the building for two hours before getting kicked out at closing time,
I’d probably have stayed there another two if I was let. Every corner you turn is a new surprise, floor voids, veiws through walls to other spaces beyond,slits employing glimpses to the outside world, niches in the wall with places to sit, like one huge sculptural piece , amazing….. one strange thing i found was one place where you had to climb two floors of stairs to arive at… just toilets…..as regards dodgey detailing.. i certainly couldnt find any… though the huge wall thicknesses in places was something i questioned…..
and after all that i could hardly tell you what the exhibition was about.
Personally I havent been as impressed with a building in quite a while.Dodgy detailing… i am being a little harsh. i passed by the Muesuem of Scotland again today and i have to admit it is not as green as i originally supposed. I am not convinced of how well it look in time, but it is a wonderfull place to wonder around.
Many of the ‘slits’ etc. do not work as well as many people would like to think. it is a strain to look through many of them, or at least a very conscious effort. It probably betrays the architects intentions. some of them are so small and are difficult to clean, filled with rubbish from uncaring public. the architects fault???
yeah i suppose i would tend to agree there alright.
[This message has been edited by quirkey (edited 01 February 2002).]
this building is pathetic….a good idea gonde bad…really bad…..i have seen better details at burger king…..and the spaces aren’t big enough to exhibit shoes, let alone art.
…fair dues – this is probably the first building in recent times in Dublin with anything close to a wow factor (even if all those “quirky” angles began to look a tad flouncy)…it was worth it just to see jaws drop as people walked in the door…hopefully it might convince the general public to start questioning all those dreadful georgian pastiches and stop equating “modern” architecture with Ballymun..
I have not been in Ireland for some time, and these are the first images i have seen of it. It really is quite impressive isn’t it?? It does not appear to be as ‘over designed’ as its Scottish cousin.
The preservation of the ballroom really raises quetions about how far ‘conservation’ measures should be taken. It appears from the photos to look absolutley awfull.
There seems to be a very poor relationship between it and the contemporary gallery surrounding it.Can anyone who saw it enlighten me please???
Actually it works quite well, it is a gallery after all and the old buildings, the back of number 5 and the ballroom, are like an exhibit. It reminds you of, for example, the Met in NY where they have recreated various interiors and courtyards.
Couple of comments,
Gordon Benson is a true high modernist, his sole influence is Le Corbusier, as self professed, if you go to one of his lectures it is practically a read through of Vers Une Architecture.Museum of Scotland was paraded as a unique building, a new Scottish vernacular, if so how do the Dublin Gallery & it bear so striking a resemblance:
Same red steel work bridge effect
same window details
same Ronchamp windows (interior)
Identical stair (open tread terrattso)
Identical ‘courtyard’ and roof glazing
Both have very weak entrances
Both have the extraordinary mix of extremely Expensive and extremely cheap detailing side by side
Both completely detailed to death.Both buildings were designed simultaneously but the similarities are just too much to bear taking in mind the ‘uniqueness’ of both buildings as stated by the architect.
However, I prefer the Dublin Gallery to the Museum of Scotland. The main circulation space is without a doubt the most exhilerating space I have ever seen since Ronchamp and this is possibly Dublin’s greatest architectural achievement, but it could have been better.
Funny to think that we criticise (rightly I think) Georgian pastiche or fake Victoriana and yet hail as a masterpiece what is essentially a pastiche of the work of Corbusier (and not a particularly well thought out pastiche – Ronchamp meets Chandigargh meets Shodhan and gets it off with Garche!!!) I do like Benson and Forsyths work but it looks pretty dated and pointless to be re-hashing the same old motifs and ‘iconic references.
Methinks this is the Post modernism writ over!!!.
Also to be honest the building has a major flaw – it is essentially a series of retail and cafeteria spaces with a somewhat isolated series of galleries up top.
When I visited it was packed – but there was little to show of paintings. I had to re-enter (via a fairly tortuous route) the ‘old’ Galery to actually view an exhibition that had any coherence.
To follow up MK, the other extraordinary similarity between the Benson & Forsyth buildings in Edinburgh and Dublin is that they are both extensions to buildings by that interesting Victorian engineer-designer, Capt. Francis Fowke.
Had B&H won the competition to extend the Victoria and Albert Museum in London (and they came close) they would have pulled off the hat-trick: Capt. Fowke again!
I now think that the entrance is just a little too small and dark. I know its to create impact when you enter the large interior space but still.
First opinions.
Not at all bad. As others said interesting effects.
Already showing signs of wear and tear, the curse of the stuck up sign is in evidence. Dont fancy those steps in leather shoes on a wet day. A nice, artistic & dry shortcut from Clare St to Merrion Street too which introduces a new rat run for me.
On the whole I like the building but the details…. I hate the door they have used to section off areas. they are extremely ugly and I think glass would have worked much better. the look like that cheap wood used in MFI kitchens. Another problem area is the connecting gallery with the 1970s building (Milton Wing? I thought it loked really amateurish. But the overall effect of the building is a superb addition to Dublin’s collection of public buildings
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
