New Appartment Blocks
- This topic has 54 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 9 months ago by
jackwade.
-
AuthorPosts
-
-
October 5, 2000 at 3:07 pm #704885
Anonymous
ParticipantAfter been abroad for a few years it was great to return home to Dublin to live and work.To find accomadation and a place to live I decided to rent an appartment which was only newly built.There are so many springing up everywhere transforming the place.However after finding a convenient place, I was astounded to see the shoddy quality of nearly all the appartment schemes I viewed including the one I’ve settled with. Firstly the miniscule size of these complexes is unbelievable.Two little port hole like windows, two dog kennel bedrooms, a larder of a kitchen, a bathroom and toilet the size of a shower and a bedsit sized living room and dining area…..and all for the princely sum of £140,000 to buy.It’s incredible to see that the overall design of such schemes are non-existant and the detailing is shoddy and cheap.I’ve heard reports too of all sorts of complications with such appartments including dampness, plumbing and wiring problems , cracks appearing in walls and lack of natural light. Who are these architects and gerry-builders? Is there no watchdog body is monitor the building of such schemes.
-
October 5, 2000 at 10:08 pm #714920
Anonymous
ParticipantI agree. Small, sub-standard accomodation, which people are queuing up to buy. We grumble about property prices, but there is little public discussion about the quality of housing. Builders are allowed squeeze as many badly constructed matchboxes as possible into a few acres, without any thought given to quality of life. Have we not learned from past mistakes? Soulless, isolated, and overcrowded housing estates breed social problems. Unfortunately, demand for more housing will mean poorer quality.
-
October 6, 2000 at 9:21 am #714921
Anonymous
ParticipantI know of a scheme where the view from the a window is the blank gable wall of another block. Also is’nt is sad to see these complexes full of high quality cars indicating the wealth of the occupiers; but too bad the appartment quality is seriously lacking and not worth the price. After all it is unfair to the people who have to pay astronomical prices; if people are willing to pay they deserve the quality.
-
October 6, 2000 at 9:33 am #714922
Anonymous
ParticipantThe nouveaux riche deserve what they get.It just shows how stupid they are in the first place to buy the likes. Superficial ignorant air-heads,knowing nothing but whatever is the latest and trendiest fads. If these people did’nt buy the shoddy kips in the first place builders would have to improve the standards.
-
October 6, 2000 at 9:40 am #714923
Anonymous
ParticipantDuck Soup……The birds come to roost!
-
October 6, 2000 at 10:49 am #714924
MK
ParticipantKMarx,
Nouveau Riche is a term used in a class snobbery system, it is not an indication of stupidity.
The ‘nouveau riche’ deserve all the credit in the world from making it in the world when they once had nothing.
People need to live, and they need apartments to live in.
Would you rather live in an apartment and pay rent, or live in an apartment & pay the morgage, they both cost the same.
Bad housing represents the socio-economic crisis of our times, need outstrips demand, it does not represent stupidity. Stupid people do not have money to buy expensive but badly built apartments. The people who can afford apartments KNOW THE VALUE OF THEIR MONEY, and see the investment worth it. -
October 6, 2000 at 11:10 am #714925
Anonymous
ParticipantWay, Way over priced.
Far, Far to Flimsy.Myself and many of my peers in their
twenties are setting our sights abroad
or have already gone, not willing to
put up with the way this coutry has gone.There might have been something done
only for the fact that there are the folks
in the 30’s and above who don’t care about
the way the situation has gone because of
their own assets are worth more.It’ll be the ruin of the country,
There is nothing that special really
anymore that makes it worth having
sub-standard living just to be in Ireland. -
October 6, 2000 at 11:34 am #714926
Anonymous
ParticipantIt is the superficial foney needs of such people for the superficial foney appartments that have hiked the prices in the first place……and the builders just keep getting richer.
-
October 6, 2000 at 12:05 pm #714927
Anonymous
ParticipantIt’s funny to think that Bono and a few other celebs were interested in paying £1 million pounds for a penthouse appartment at Charlotte Quay……a penthouse appartment with panoramic views……….of what! Okay London maybe, Paris, Rome, New York, Sydney or where ever…but the Dublin docks…no way! There is SFA of interest to see down there.
-
October 6, 2000 at 12:30 pm #714928
Anonymous
ParticipantNouveaux Riche with money to squander.Money to squander on cheap little appartments, cheap little restaurants, cheap food and wines…. thinking they are living a life of style, oppulence and finesse and yet not knowing basically good from bad quality.
-
October 6, 2000 at 12:43 pm #714929
MK
ParticipantAgain you you nouveau riche as a term to describe these people. If you are in the market to buy property in Dublin, maybe you would realises that everyone needs a home, nouveau riche, gentry, working classes, proleteriets,artists, intellectuals, etc.etc, blah, blah.
It is naieve to condescend on one portion of society when we are all to blame.
Is jealousy the source of this grudge. Realise that people who earn money from nothing are far more accomplished than those whinging about them. New money, so what, maybe they lack ‘taste’, but they dont lack hard work and determination.
They problem lies with the developers, architects & planners. Dont blame the product on the consumer. I have spent many years in dindgy flats, but it was all I could get.
The same applies today. Prices are too high for any reasonable quality. Let us not question the lifestyles of others here. The issues are with the people who build the apartments, not those who buy them.
When a person buys a car and it turns out faulty, do you blame the consumer?, no, the manufacturer or the vendor? yes.
Wise up a little eh![This message has been edited by MK (edited 06 October 2000).]
-
October 6, 2000 at 1:04 pm #714930
Anonymous
ParticipantAh tut, tut. There is a difference is there not with having money with style and having money without style. People can be complacent accepting anything of substandard quality. There is always a market for anything, no matter what, so long as the public is willing to buy it…. and that goes for everything, the food you eat,the clothes you wear, the music you listen to,the TV you watch…The advertizements you succumb to. In fact, I could describe myself as ‘Nouveaux Riche’ too but maybe I have a keener eye for quality and taste….. and good for me you say.
-
October 6, 2000 at 2:24 pm #714931
MK
ParticipantThis forum isnt about you and your tastes, its about sub-standard buildings in Ireland.
The use of th term’nouveau riche’ implicitly implies lack of taste!
To discuss this topic rationally, we must broaden our perspective views, as Spinoza said, the best perspective is from eternity.
One more thing, KMarx was a socialist, classifying people was completely at odds to his ideals. -
October 6, 2000 at 4:55 pm #714932
No.42
ParticipantI think ‘TurnOnMyHeel’ raised a good point or at least one I totally agree with:
>It’ll be the ruin of the country,
I am also of the opinion that the current housing market/developments will be the downfall of our economic success. These badly built box apartments schemes will not suit the needs of there current inhabitants in the years to come. The height of the glass ceiling above them to anything habitable will make them take their skills abroad.
‘Nouveaux Riche’ with its old school authoritive implications of taste/aesthetics is counter creative, less you forget KMarc, Daddy wouldn’t have been able to upgrade his yacht last year without the contribution that the ‘Nouveaux Riche’ have made to our economy
-
October 7, 2000 at 12:09 am #714933
Anonymous
ParticipantAt least in the future when all these shoddy schemes become uninhabitable ther will be plenty of work for architects when rebuilding them. At the moment architects they do not have any involvement in designing these schemes, so you can put all the blame onto the developers and the planners.
-
October 7, 2000 at 8:19 pm #714934
Anonymous
Participant“TurnOnMyHeel” is right about the
potential the to ruin the country.I don’t think though that the blame
lies with the New rich.A stroll through most European cities
bring you past and into many apartment
schemes that have well kept open spaces
that are shared with the apartment owners
and the general public alike. All apartments
built to a good level.Here though we have Dublin slipping back
into norman times with it’s spaces
enclosed behind large gates with your
standad 24hr Sentry on guard.It’s the regulations that don’t give
people long term leases on apartments,
tenants tending then to be transient.
This in turn makes the apartments more
easily a short term investment for the
buyers. And therefore the owner non-
ocupier won’t care much for the quality
of the building when it’s only a short-
term investmnet to make a few quid. -
October 9, 2000 at 10:34 am #714935
Anonymous
ParticipantWell as a consolation there will always be the potential of rebuilding for the better in the future. Most appartments schemes today won’t last even 50 years due to the shoddy workmanship. They’re merely space fillers for the derelict sites. Think of the schemes today as a forerunner for better things to come. All these neo-georgian fallacies that we have must be replaced. Hopefully in time we will have our act together too with a more urban minded society. Remember too it it not that long ago that we the natives were inhabiting the bogs.
-
October 9, 2000 at 11:14 am #714936
MK
ParticipantI agree, these apartments are merely a temporary infill.
The housing being built now corresponds to the baby boom of the lata 60s, early 70s.
As this demand for housing drops, & it will, the demand for these shoddily built apartments will diminish and a new better quality regeneration will supply the housing to those who no longer want low quality.
This turnaround is even becoming apparant today, so dont fret, you dont have to buy property if you dont want to. -
October 9, 2000 at 12:31 pm #714937
-Donnacha-
ParticipantIn relation to the debate about apartment quality. Would people be willing to accept the possibility of never owning a house/apartment throughout their lives. Does this horrify/scare people that after 30 to 40 years they will not possess a property to call their own. The major advantage in ownership , I suppose is security, however does a mortgage guarantee security? Short term leases are the biggest impediment to people’s acceptance of full time rental of property as a viable alternative to home ownership. What do people think about this.
p.s. I realise this is somewhat tangential to the theme of the post, but it does relate generally. -
October 9, 2000 at 12:51 pm #714938
Anonymous
ParticipantOn the point that we are just out of the bogs…….To view the big picture of our society and the architecture we have produced – the shoddy appartment complexes, the skullduggery associated with the building business, the twisted planning laws and rampant political corruption over the years…….but what can one expect when you think of a substantial aspect of the public were out en masse to object to divorce, condoms,(which we casually accept now as the country has’nt fallen asunder)the heated almost racist debates over refugees and foreign nationals;and to remember were at one time only recently moved by moving statues and consistantly voted for a particular political party that had caused the general malaise of the country – and what a pseudo religious semi communist state that was…………………..What a backward lot!…sigh!
-
October 9, 2000 at 2:18 pm #714939
Anonymous
ParticipantIt is obviously a tendency to offer the minimum standards to the apartment buyers in Dublin today.
Of course there are certain exceptions like the super pent-houses in Carrickmines or Howth rd. But in general, 95% of the apartments that have been built in dublin in the last 5 years provide the minimum standards, in terms of space, size, design, detailing, etc. And it is only because there is no need to provide anything a little bit better as anything will sell; as it’s been said, a lot of people would preffer to buy anything to pay rent, even if it is a very low standard apartment.
The bottom line of this is that developers will build them as small and cheap as they can get away with and nobody is going to complain, on the contrary a lot of people may see them as the way to improve their life-styles.
If consumers keep buying bad quality apartments, developers will build them for ever and ever, unless the architects begin to take responsability for their work and produce the best possible design, unfortunately ethics and good money don’t seem to get along very well so it seems that architects have been blinded in this respect and believe that morals aren’t an issue here. So I believe they should be directed by and controlled by institutions such as the RIAI and planning authorities in a very strict legal way.
-
October 9, 2000 at 2:33 pm #714940
Anonymous
ParticipantIt is obviously a tendency to offer the minimum standards to the apartment buyers in Dublin today.
Of course there are certain exceptions like the super pent-houses in Carrickmines or Howth rd. But in general, 95% of the apartments that have been built in dublin in the last 5 years provide the minimum standards, in terms of space, size, design, detailing, etc. And it is only because there is no need to provide anything a little bit better as anything will sell; as it’s been said, a lot of people would preffer to buy anything to pay rent, even if it is a very low standard apartment.
The bottom line of this is that developers will build them as small and cheap as they can get away with and nobody is going to complain, on the contrary a lot of people may see them as the way to improve their life-styles.
If consumers keep buying bad quality apartments, developers will build them for ever and ever, unless the architects begin to take responsability for their work and produce the best possible design, unfortunately ethics and good money don’t seem to get along very well so it seems that architects have been blinded in this respect and believe that morals aren’t an issue here. So I believe they should be directed by and controlled by institutions such as the RIAI and planning authorities in a very strict legal way.
-
October 9, 2000 at 3:13 pm #714941
MK
ParticipantI think that there is a tendancy to quote figures from thin air in this debate.
RIAI dont even have professional recognition in this country, lest any power over the planning process, or building regs.
People need to live somewhere, and your own property will cost the same as renting.
Why do you expect cheap apartments?Dublin, & Ireland is growing at a tremendous rate & we are one of the worlds largest centres for the worlds fastest growing industry, computers.
To rent in Ireland doesnt usually make sense, as a long term lease is difficult to obtain.
Also, if a developer builds with the regulations, how can anyone tell make them do otherwise.
You cant create legislation to force people to build bigger bedrooms at the same cost, because you say so. Get real, you cant force someone into a non-profit enterprise.
If people want quality accomodation, they must be willing to pay the big money, QED -
October 9, 2000 at 4:22 pm #714942
-Donnacha-
ParticipantI do not think that anyone suggests attempting to force people into non-profit enterprise. I do think that it would be defeatist to argue that it would be impossible to create conditions(legally) which would ensure better quality homes. Excellent apartments do not have to be very large, rather the design can be used to maximise the space available, and still produce ‘quality’.It is possible to introduce certain standards but it would be far more effective if planners were responsive and forceful in their dealings with particular developments. Should we be afraid to tackle the problem of sub-standard developments because we might upset developers? Should we not demand high(er) building standards generally?
-
October 9, 2000 at 4:30 pm #714943
Anonymous
ParticipantIt is obviously a tendency to offer the minimum standards to the apartment buyers in Dublin today.
Of course there are certain exceptions like the super pent-houses in Carrickmines or Howth rd. But in general, 95% of the apartments that have been built in dublin in the last 5 years provide the minimum standards, in terms of space, size, design, detailing, etc. And it is only because there is no need to provide anything a little bit better as anything will sell; as it’s been said, a lot of people would preffer to buy anything to pay rent, even if it is a very low standard apartment.
The bottom line of this is that developers will build them as small and cheap as they can get away with and nobody is going to complain, on the contrary a lot of people may see them as the way to improve their life-styles.
If consumers keep buying bad quality apartments, developers will build them for ever and ever, unless the architects begin to take responsability for their work and produce the best possible design, unfortunately ethics and good money don’t seem to get along very well so it seems that architects have been blinded in this respect and believe that morals aren’t an issue here. So I believe they should be directed by and controlled by institutions such as the RIAI and planning authorities in a very strict legal way.
-
October 9, 2000 at 4:38 pm #714944
Anonymous
ParticipantMK, I would like to ask you something,
Do you think that the majority of the apartment blocks reflect the best possible solution to the housing problem???
Do you think that nobody can create anything better and still make money?
Don’t you think that such a mediocre attitude is unhealthy?
-
October 9, 2000 at 4:50 pm #714945
Anonymous
ParticipantTo raise the point about building regulations, didn’nt the government introduce a minimum standard size for an appartment (including ceiling heigh) a couple of years because of the miniscule dimensions of the appartments being built then.It is up to the government to introduce such laws insuring and enforcing quality in the building industry instead of pandering to their croanies in such circles.
-
October 9, 2000 at 4:50 pm #714946
Anonymous
ParticipantX
-
October 10, 2000 at 5:19 am #714947
Anonymous
ParticipantThe idea of debating the slums of tomorrow in the same context as words such as ‘architects’ or ‘architecture’ is somewhat laughable. The average developer does not care about anyones quality of life but their own. Architects are hired today purely for the reason of obtaining planning permissions to construct second rate tenements for the investor market. The cynical regard for some of those who wish to make a better place for people to live in is appalling. Wishing for a legislation for a quality of life or architecture when both the legislators and the developers in Ireland are in the same bed is purely is a bit like wishing for world peace.
By the way you all have a choice: support An Taisce or create your own lobby to appeal this s**t that is being thrown at you. Just because you don’t have to live in it by choice or circumstance doesn’t give you the right to mouth off about the ridiculous quality of new building stock in Ireland without making yourself heard. We can’t depend on the assholes in Dail Eireann to do anything but legislate for higher salaries for themselves. Enough. -
October 10, 2000 at 9:09 am #714948
-Donnacha-
Participant‘Barbarosa’, could you please explain what a ‘psuedo-religious semi-communist state’ implies. I am not being smart here but I think that the description is somewhat paradoxical.
‘Whatever’, do you honestly think that people should not be allowed to be critical of sub-standard housing quality, simply because they do not live in them? Are we limited to accepting the situation and should we discourage ambition, because it seems like government seems disinterested in tackling the problem. In Ireland we are so often guilty of ecouraging mediocrity, accepting low standards, and disregarding creativity. -
October 10, 2000 at 10:43 am #714949
Anonymous
ParticipantHi bunch,I don’t wish to give a lecture on the history and social fabric of 20th century Ireland,(Re – pseudo religious semi communist state) but what I was implying was that our country once projected an image of itself as being deeply religious and ‘moral’ but yet the truth was the opposite, as you may know already. Hidden were the misfortunes and malices that befell the people; disadvantages and deprivation were to be accepted.The decades that followed WW2 were a boom time for western economies but yet here in Ireland there remained a somewhat stiffling atmosphere similar one could say to what was going on behind the Iron Curtain. Our country endured severe censorship laws under the ‘regimes’ of DeVelera, the Catholic church & Co. Hardly an environment for fostering and nurturing an educated artistic and ‘well rounded’ people. Therefore the subsequent results is the society we have today of which I have mentioned already. Hence to quote yourself…’In Ireland we are so often guilty of ecouraging mediocrity, accepting low standards, and disregarding creativity’.
-
October 10, 2000 at 10:48 am #714950
MK
ParticipantFion,
Cheap apartments are never a solution to the housing problem. Who said that it was???
In my opinion, the real housing crisis, i.e. the homeless & those below the poverty line, will never be the realm of the developer. What developer builds houses for those who cant afford them?
The National Building Agency have been designing and building some of the finest housing projects in Ireland for the past 30 years & still do today. The NBA provides homes for the homeless & the poverty stricken.Fion, as Im sure you know, all creativity that improves life and advances mankind can make money. What in the name of god do you think every single company in the world does. Is the motor car not an innovative machine, or the car, or the aeroplane?
Have you never heard of a wealthy inventor?
However, a developer will not nurture innovation, if it does not make a profit. Very few developers will give an architect the scope to try groundbreaking soical housing experiments on their time & money. The developers want a quick buck.Regulations are in place concerning minimum sizes of bedrooms etc., but the minimun and what is comfortable are two different things for the comfy educated middle classes who wish to buy the apartments.
Nobody should accept mediocrity, housing doesnt have to be mediocre, it just has to be taken out of the hands of the greedy developer.
In Post War Britain & Ireland(WW2), almost all architects and planners worked for their respective state bodies. It was a time when architects felt the common cause and wished to do the right thing. In this period, responsible, cost effective housing and planning was achieved. This can still happen today, if young designers & developers can stop paying lip service to good housing & design and instead forfeit their high wages to work for state bodies. Now we will see how easy it is to give up your wealth & chances of the quick buck. -
October 10, 2000 at 12:09 pm #714951
Anonymous
ParticipantOne wonders how elsewhere around the world in the past great architectural wonders were ever completed amid the atmosphere of political corruption and fiddling, ie the doges of Venice, the de Medici’s, the Borgias, etc….etc….
-
October 10, 2000 at 2:07 pm #714952
Anonymous
ParticipantApartment blocks constitute a VERY important part of the city as they usually are prominent buildings.
The impact that this buildings have on the streets determines what the city looks like. Therefore it is everybody’s buisiness what the general appearance of an apartment block is going to be. That’s why a specialized body in charge of maintaining a good desing standard is needed. Let’s face it, a lot of these apartment blocks are built without a commitment to enrich the city’s appearance.
Is the developer the responsable for the design of an apt block? I think that as long they are guaranteed a profit, they should not be involved in the design process; hasn’t it been said that money is the sole motivation of a developer.
-
October 11, 2000 at 9:15 am #714953
-Donnacha-
ParticipantBarbarosa, fair enough, and thank you for the explanation, I now know what you mean.
SIS, good point about apartment buildings and the fact that it is everybody’s right to be concerned about the appearance of them. -
October 12, 2000 at 12:41 pm #714954
McC
ParticipantSome of my thoughts on the subject:
I rented very happily for years as house prices soared around me. As soon as I made the decision to get married my thoughts turned to owning my own home. Had we been able to get security of tenure, which is possible in almost every other country in Europe, I believe, we would have continued to rent.
Why own if you could rent economically a quality premises that you could call “home” for all intents and purposes? Renting does not have to be the same price as a mortgage. Currently low interest rates and increased rents since the last (lamentable) Bacon Report make it so at the moment. Therefore I firmly believe sorting out legislation in relation to renting and encouraging a class of professional landlords is key to solving the housing crisis. Reduce demand, lower the price.
However, there is something in the Irish psyche which makes people crave ownership and eshue long-term tenancy. It’s catch 22 – tenants are transient, therefore don’t invest in quality apartments, therefore no tenants would contemplate renting on a long term basis. I believe we’re a long way from the German or Dutch model of understanding the concept of never owning one’s own home.
I work in one of those aforementioned architects’ practices employed to do planning permissions for developers. I’ve become wholy demoralised recently as I realise that our scope of work amounts to little more than draughtmanship. I’m ready and willing to pack in the private sector and join any local authority that will have me. I want to feel that my lifeswork will contribute to the solution rather than the problem – still got that naivite I guess.
Sorry about the length of this (& spelling errors) but I’ve three more thoughts: Despite being an architect involved with many housing and apartment schemes and fairly well versed in the solutions required (eg. high-density, shared-ownership, 20% social etc.), when it came to buying my own home I wouldn’t touch new build with a barge pole for the following reasons –
poor standard of usually unsuprevised construction;
too small for the price;
if affordable ususally in areas with no infrastructure;
would have to move again within three years which is not a good idea in the current market.
The house I’m lucky enough to call my own will do me for at least 10 years – enough time for just about anything to happen to the housing market.The development of “Sustainable housing” in this country is crucial i.e. houses people can live in all their lives and that are easily adapted to their changing needs and in areas with social mix – not all rows of three-beds together and avoiding “contamination” (estate agent phrase – depressing isn’t it?) from two-beds or any adjacent social housing schemes.
Last point: I have visited apartment complexes in The Netherlands where you neighbour could own his own apt. or have subsidised rent or be on social and you wouldn’t know nor would you care. We are a long way from understanding this in Ireland too.
-
October 12, 2000 at 4:38 pm #714955
Anonymous
ParticipantOk! Can anybody recall good apartment blocks?
Something like the corporation flat, the curved building, in the corner of New bride st and Kevin st, or the Iveagh Buildings or the Wooden building. Also HJL’s one on the quays, right beside the Sunlight chambers. O’Muire Smyth designed another building on Beresford St., near King ST north. The apartments at Essex St. opposite the civic offices.
There are lots more! Can you add on a few?
-
October 12, 2000 at 4:52 pm #714956
Anonymous
Participant……….but the bad out number the good ……and the good are overpriced…you have to pay very dearly for quality.
-
October 12, 2000 at 4:55 pm #714957
Anonymous
ParticipantCharlotte Quay and eh!………..
-
October 13, 2000 at 10:16 am #714958
john white
ParticipantIf decent apartments aren’t to be built it’s an added shame that good/nice/attractive ones are demolished to make way for them – like in the docklands for example. We’ll never get the likes of those lovely solid stone buildings again!
-
October 17, 2000 at 10:33 am #714959
Anonymous
ParticipantI know certain architects that insist in designing with minimum dimensions, ALWAYS!
I agree that for tax designated areas (urban) i.e. ‘in town’ apartments don’t need to be huge as the location is luxury enough – this doesn’t mean that they ‘have to be’ minimum either – but there is absolutely no reason why this minimum sizes should be used in suburban areas, where an apartment should be an affordable alternative to a house and it shoud compensate for things like not having a garden, not being able to extend,having to go up stairs to get to your front door, etc. Apartments shouldn’t be seen as the only option for the poor people that can’t afford a house! -and forger about the investors for a second, thanks to bacon they should be out of the equation-. An apartment should have something to offer and make potential buyers think about the option, a big apartment or a small house; but for this to happen they should really be similar in what they are offering and at the moment apartments in the suburbs are being designed almost as a last resource not as something people would like to consider a home.
In terms of the looks of the buildings, like any other piece of architecture it should reflect the situation in which it’s set (social, economical, cultural) and not trying to copy georgian or provencal or arts and crafts, or any of those … well gone styles, We are living the early years of the 21st century and the architecture of our town should reflect the way we do it in the best way, and I don’t think that the situation now nor the way we live is the same as it was in the 18th or 19th c.
-
October 17, 2000 at 10:44 am #714960
MK
ParticipantWho are these architects that always deign in minimum dimensions?
I dont know any architects who ALWAYS design with minimum dimensions. Some may design with minimum dimensions when the client (developer) demands it.
Goergian architecture is a style with wonderful proportions and can be sucessfully built today if wanted. Look at the reinstatment of Mountjoy Sq.The apartments inside may be squat and badly built, but the square has become again, one of Dublins finest Squares.
Also, Irish Georgian is a unique style, indiginous to ourselves, if anyone is looking for a facet of Irish architecture from the past, look no further.[This message has been edited by MK (edited 17 October 2000).]
-
October 17, 2000 at 4:38 pm #714961
john white
ParticipantDidn’t Frank Lloyd Wright favour having the ceiling within arms reach? Thought it was more ‘organic’ or something?
Must say – he was a beautiful artist.
-
October 17, 2000 at 5:24 pm #714962
MK
ParticipantLe Corbusier designed La Tourette with the rooms for junior monks the equivalant width of the outstretched human span, and those for the senior monks the equivalant of the outstretched human span plus the width of a book(for a bookshelf), mind you, that was a monastery
-
October 17, 2000 at 5:37 pm #714963
Anonymous
ParticipantHa Ha!
Funny, the average human being is getting bigger with each generation.
-
October 18, 2000 at 9:54 am #714964
MK
ParticipantDoes that mean that Wrights ceilings will have to get higher now.
[This message has been edited by MK (edited 18 October 2000).]
-
October 18, 2000 at 10:13 am #714965
Anonymous
ParticipantI have nothing against minimum sizes, I think you need to handle these in the best way possible so you can use the extra space somewhere else. But I think it should be the architects decision to allocate them and not follow developers instructions blindly and make them all small.
I think the main conscern for any designer should be to provide the best possible environment for the occupiers to live in comfort, after that, the developers requests.
-
October 18, 2000 at 5:09 pm #714966
Rory W
ParticipantWell the actual problem sprung from the fact that the government set out MAXIMUM sizes for the Section 32 apartments back in the 1980s, once the developers say what people would accept they kept making them small.
-
May 9, 2006 at 10:12 pm #714967
jackwade
ParticipantThought i’d revive an old thread rather than start a new one. There are plenty of threads for new high rise apartment blocks in Dublin, but not for new low-mid rise ( i.e. 4-6 storey) developments.
Here are some pics of “The Grange” a new development at the junction of Brewery road and the Stillorgan dual carriageway. The density is pretty impressive especially when you compare it to the surrounding housing estates in the aerial shot.
-
May 10, 2006 at 11:06 pm #714968
Maskhadov
ParticipantThats great to see jackwade. If all of Dublin was like that we would have apartment prices of affordability for most Dubliners. Hopefully this kind of density development will be extended city wide and we all wave good bye to Semi-D’s
-
May 11, 2006 at 12:15 am #714969
publicrealm
ParticipantIt certainly looks good but I imagine that the heavy mature trees would block a great deal of sunlight/daylight from the squar(ish) block on the right??
How likely is it that this will be built in that way?
-
May 11, 2006 at 1:40 am #714970
anto
ParticipantI doubt they’re very affordable. This is the heart of South Dublin!
-
May 11, 2006 at 10:47 am #714971
Anonymous
Inactive@publicrealm wrote:
It certainly looks good but I imagine that the heavy mature trees would block a great deal of sunlight/daylight from the squar(ish) block on the right??
How likely is it that this will be built in that way?
It is being built as we speak. To back up Anto’s point, the surrounding hoardings certainly dont indicate that these are to be affordable in any way.
-
May 11, 2006 at 3:59 pm #714972
Anonymous
InactiveThe Grange is the mixed development site that Quinlan Private bought for about 30 mill in 2000 and sold for about 90 mill last year. It was the highest price for housing land at the time. Kept the Foxrock fannies talking for a coffee morning or two. Of course it is Affordable, if you work for (or preferably own) a bank! I
-
May 12, 2006 at 1:42 am #714973
jackwade
ParticipantThey are indeed marketing themselves as an exclusive, upmarket development. They even have a concierge service. For anyone interested the website is here : http://www.thegrange.ie
BTW, i think the blurb on the hoardings is cringeworthy in the extreme. “The spirit of gracious living” – anyone care to explain what exactly that means?
-
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.