O’ Connell Street, Dublin

please do, would be interested to hear their reasoning.

Somewhere near Debenhams?

I’m guessing it was taken from Chocolate Soup?

Precisely!! I was there for the first time the other morning and It’s amazing! despite all those calories etc etc there’s a most amazing view of O connell street, and through the glass floor down to the street 4 storys below!

I got some handouts of the lecture about urban open space that Brian McGuinne of Mitchell + Associates gave and I said I would include them here. Sorry if they seem disjointed as I could include all of the notes. Brian McGuinne mentioned that the design of O Connell Street was in some way the opposite to the Ramblas. The Ramblas as you all know has a wide median and very narrow footpaths which do not serve the street buidlings well. The O Connell Street solution was to widen the footpaths and to narrow the median allowing much more live frontage use to the shops and buildings.

Notes of lecture:
True innovation in the design of urban space did not begin to happen until the latter past of the twentieth century, where the escalating cost of urban land, allied to the greater mobility of city dwellers, saw the demise of “rus in urbe” and the introduction of urban space as a container for intense cultural and recreational activity.

“…interventions in public spaces, or rather, in public landscapes, should no longer be focused on generating greenery. The real challenge is to create space and textures for city dwellers to colonize in their town. Nature can play a role in this, but not, a priori, the main role”.

One of the most favoured ways in Europe and the National States, and one of the most expensive ways is to create urban space on the roofscapes of gigantic underground car parks. The Schouwburgplein in Rotterdam, Placa de la Cathedral in Barcelona, Place Terraux and Place Celestine in Lyons are all created in such a manner, where the congested elements and parking problems are solved or partially – solved, but at a high price. In addition the creation of urban space on what are effectively roof terraces have significant limitations for the introduction of greenery.

The urban structure of Dublin does not fit well with the Europe or American models detailed above. Firstly, we inhabit a city with a small, low-density urban core, with a dispersed low-density monoculture of residential areas surrounding it. Secondly, this dispersion does not allow for the creation of intense foci of recreational activities, but rather an array of sub “rus in urbe” spaces totally overscaled in relation to the potential catchment areas.

Recent initiatives, however, such as the Residential Density Guidelines have encouraged a new examination of existing urban pattern. Any increase in density of the built fabric of Dublin will fundamentally alter the role of urban space. In low-density cities open space can be largely undifferentiated with few precisely ascribed uses. The implications for open space in dense urban structures is quite the opposite, where each space assumes a particular function or set of functions, very similar in form to a dense mat-building, such as the Free University of Berlin.

The quote is from the well respected Adriaan Geuze of West 8 and so did not necessarily reflect the idealism of Brian McGuinne. I thought the point was well made though, i.e that nature is not the main point of reference that urban space may need to focus on. It’s not saying that it shouldn’t consider it just it may not be the main point. Just look at Smithfield, Grand Canal Quay, Schouwbergplein.
What Brian McGuinne was describing was the historic need and trend for “rus in urb”, that is the recreation of the rural or an arcadian landscape or victorian garden, etc. in the city versus the current needs and uses that new modern urban space needs to provide. He wasn’t dismissing green space at all, just describing the change that the role open space is finding itself needing to address.

I think that the text I posted may have directed readers to one outcome of opinion and was out of context because his lecture did not conculde that all urban open space should be all hardscape. I think he would agree with you in the importance of green and amenity space.

Sorry about that.

Thanks for posting these notes Emma 🙂

Some valid points there – Im not too keen a fan of the outcome of the renewal of O’C St, but that said I do think that Gerry Mitchell & Co are among the best landscape architects that we have in this country… and the point re just dumping greenery into urban areas is valid – just look at the trees obscuring the front of the old colonial parliament; but equally too there is a balance – and I think there is quite a consensus as to the failure of the hard surface areas at both the Jervis Centre and also the plaza at City Hall.

Any explanation as to how Mitchell managed to omit a cycle lane from key parts of their design for O’Connell Street ?

I don’t know if they were fully responsible for this massive gaff, but obviously as chief landscape architects for the scheme, it is their job to establish current & desired uses of a space, ensure they are adequately catered for in any landscape design & push the client to implement the design in full.

This is an interesting discussion….a few comments

What Brian McGuinne was describing was the historic need and trend for “rus in urb”, that is the recreation of the rural or an arcadian landscape or victorian garden, etc. in the city versus the current needs and uses that new modern urban space needs to provide. He wasn’t dismissing green space at all, just describing the change that the role open space is finding itself needing to address.

I always wonder when I hear comments like this because I am not sure what these ‘changing needs’ are? I dont think the needs of people vis a vis open space are all that much different from before. And I am not at all sure hard landscaped areas fullfill any need at all. In some cases, eg new Store Street area, they provide an improved aesthetic environment for a small area but they arent really of any use. In the case of Smithfield, Wolfe Tone and the City Hall plaza they fail because the real need here are spaces that people can interact with and they generally dont do that with concrete. On the other hand ‘rus in urb’ parks such as Stephens Green. Merrion Sq and even the small park pre the City Hall development attract people precisely because of the lack of hard landscaping.

Im all for a quality hard landscaping as part of the wider public domain but I firmly believe the neeed remains for planted areas and unfotunately there is a growing tendancy to remove these. I think its driven by maintainence issues as mcuh as anything.

To emphasis my point when was the last time you saw anyone in City Hall Plaza! I never see anyone there. The barriers at the rear are still in place and the CC have taken to not illuminating the seat lights at night. Another ‘special occasion’ lighting project such as Smithfield’s braziers no doubt.

Any explanation as to how Mitchell managed to omit a cycle lane from key parts of their design for O’Connell Street ?

I don’t know if they were fully responsible for this massive gaff, but obviously as chief landscape architects for the scheme, it is their job to establish current & desired uses of a space, ensure they are adequately catered for in any landscape design & push the client to implement the design in full

There was a cyclelane in the original layout…only it was meant to run the length of the street against the median so as not to interfer with buses. Of course no cyclist in their right mind wanted to do that so the land has to be ‘redesigned’ or in the case of the section from Abbey Street to OC Bridge ‘overdesigned within an inch of its life!’

@Emma Dalton wrote:

True innovation in the design of urban space did not begin to happen until the latter past of the twentieth century,

Was Mr McGuinne responsible for this comment, or was it another quote from a ‘well respected’ member of West 8?

@Emma Dalton wrote:

About the pedestrianisation, I think about the disadvantages of providing a fully pedestrainised route from Parnell Square to Stephen’s Green. That would mean that you would have to redirect traffic off Naussau Street, off Dame Street/College Green, off the Quays, and off O’ Connell Street. That would in my opinion redirect traffic congestaion to other parts of the city that would result in chaos and more prople sitting in traffic than ever.

Only if they insist on using their cars. And if they do, then they deserve all the congestion the world can throw at them.

In city centres, pedestrians should be at the top of the food chain with private cars at the very bottom.

The fear you describe above will, in all likelihood, be a reality sooner rather than later. And it will be glorious.

StephenC, I amn’t really drawing any conclusions from the remarks your making. Are you proposing mini Stephen’s Greens and Merrion Squares in every new public space around the city?

Wolfe Tone Square doesn’t really fail. I often go through there and experience a buzzing plaza like you find on the Continent. A few tweaks and it would be a very accomplished space.

Smithfield is a very unique space. It is so expansive and can feel very empty but it is so flexible at the same time. Concerts, markets, ice skating, amusements etc. Endless amounts of people interaction

City Hall Plaza is just a really poorly designed hardscape. Hopefully it will be re-modelled in the next few years.

Of course people want to use Stephens Green. It is a unique public park in the middle of urbanity. They can have grass and daffodils and other delicate features like that there because it is such a controlled environment. Lawns and flowers in an open public space is a romantic idea.

The quote from Adriaan Geuze has been misinterpreted. The priority is to create urban spaces that people will use. Trees and robust planting play an important role in that.