O’Donnell + Tuomey Architects win RIAI Gold
- This topic has 43 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 5 months ago by bitasean.
November 10, 2005 at 5:02 pm #708229
O’Donnell + Tuomey Architects win RIAI Gold
O’Donnell + Tuomey Architects have been presented with the RIAI Gold Medal by the President Mary McAleese. At an event at the RIAI in Merrion Square, Ranelagh Multidenominational School was announced as the winner of the medal for the period 1998-2000.
November 10, 2005 at 6:24 pm #763075ctesiphonParticipant
Congratulations to O’D+T.
They got my vote in the poll here (he said smugly). Other buildings were close in my mind, but I think this one will age really well- will possibly get better over time.
November 11, 2005 at 11:50 am #763076AnonymousInactive
Its about time they were getting noticed as the cream of irish architecture. Rather than just regurgitating polite modernism, they allow poetry and a sense of mythology to exist in their buildings, giving them a depth and resonace that other architects can only look at in puzzlement. ODT are to my mind far and away the most interesting office in Ireland at the moment. Well Done, and well deserved.
November 11, 2005 at 1:30 pm #763077SueParticipant
Sorry to be a damp squib, and I really know nothing about architecture except that I know what I like, but I find this building really ugly and I’m flabbergasted that it’s won such a prestigious award. I passed it only a couple of weeks ago and was surprised to see the weathering damage to the timber in the building etc. Am I alone in being underwhelmed?
November 11, 2005 at 1:43 pm #763078
It is a fantastic building in the way it relates to its surroundings and its usability.
To put things in context it replaced 3 wooden prefabs and a corragted iron church that would have been more at home in Mombassa than Ranelagh.
Well Done O’Donnell & Toumey the award is well deserved as evidenced by this award and how impossible it is to get a child into the building following a near closure shortly before due to lack of interest.
November 11, 2005 at 3:46 pm #763079AnonymousInactive
sue, your’e entitled to your opinion that the building is ugly. but there is more to architecture than the current (modern) obsesssion with facile beauty and immaculate appearance. this trend towards the abstract and infinate is bordering on irrelevant to the nature of building architecture and the human condition which are both in a state of perpetual decay and renewal. What ODT do in many of their buildings is allow this deacy to be an intentional part of their buildings so that they can exist in time and not in some unachieveable, abstracted realm.
November 11, 2005 at 4:26 pm #763080-Donnacha-Participant
I’ve only seen pictures, but I don’t get it either. And what exactly is facile beauty? Do you mean if something is shiny and new-looking, it has less integrity than something that’s made to look like it’s being weathered away as soon as it’s built?
November 11, 2005 at 5:40 pm #763081AnonymousInactive
yes, buildings that are made to exist in some abstract world which deny both the beauty and complexities of life lack the integrity and awareness that a building like this possess. they are focused on being a fixed image of perfection. These images end up betraying their inadequacies by the very fact that they can never achieve what they set out to be, immaculate, infinite and immaterial. Time makes these buildings look sad and disillusioned, whereas the ranelagh school has the potential be enriched as it ages.
November 11, 2005 at 10:21 pm #763082roskavParticipant
HORAY! What ….. a passionate intelligent opinion expressed succinctly!
November 12, 2005 at 3:59 am #763083GrahamHParticipant
Very nicely put what?.
It will mellow very well over time, indeed this is the greatest appeal of it for me even now – it’s a lovely ‘soft’, subtle building that sits in its environment exceptionally well.
It is also eye-catching on another level too, as when you see that sandy brick for the first time in the coner of your eye, you immediately dismiss it as just another structure that’s been clad in ‘quality’ brick to compensate for a complete lack of design or innovation.
Realising it is much more than this simply adds to the appeal of what is a thoroughly attractive building.
November 12, 2005 at 6:39 am #763084wrenParticipant
I’m a definite fan of O’D+T and think they absolutely deserve their medal. I really like the Glucksman Gallery (though I’ve only seen photos of it). I have a minor problem with their use of untreated timber though; Ireland does not have the climate for it. Both the Ranelagh School and Letterfrack show blackening of the timber where it is not in the path of the sun. I like the idea of the untrated wood forming its own protective silver skin against the elements, but I think anyone who has been to Letterfrack recently will agree that damp blackening mildewed wood is probably not what they had in mind for a building weathering gracefully.
Is the oak in the Glucksman gallery treated?
November 14, 2005 at 9:34 am #763085
Somebody once told me that the selection of any winner in any competition is a reflection on the assessors who make the selection. This result is a surprise, not necessarily by what was included but by what was left out. As for the school this is a building designed by and for adults. The details, scale and organisation are less about the direct experience of the young and more about the rarefied air of the adult.
January 6, 2006 at 11:40 am #763086
February 11, 2006 at 12:47 am #763087
ODT are a joke, as James Krenov says people get away with bad craft by calling it art.
I went to visit the new gallery in Cork a few months after it opened, hadnt seen it before but heard lots about it. Glucksman more like yucks man didnt like it all, all that rubbish they went on about in the press releases, award winning, ‘respecting the site, inserting into the woodland’ totally crap if you ask me, I struggled to find a redeeming feature.
It doesnt work as an art space, or lend itself to viewing or interpreting anything. It already feels like it needs a facelift. The only plus side for me was that seeing this cluttered junkheap helps me to understand better what terms like, form, function, design, detail, craft style are about, cos its certainly not present here. Id love to have seen some of the other submissions. It was a lovely location, I spent many summer evenings lazing by the river here listening to the water and the tennis balls, we used go ‘bushing’ by the tennis courts on the river there..
Are they really the leading architects of this generation? Whilst browing in the bookshop the register girl and an attendant were talking, he was saying that ‘ its only a open a couple of months and already its leaking all over the shop’ (he was from Cork after all) . Did they learn nothing in letterfrack, capillary action. treated timber, bare concrete. I cant get this building and everyone else does. Dont good architects take an interest in the minutiae of their buildings, ODT look like they gave a bad mockup to the builder and moved on, everything in it was distasteful and badly laid out. For instance you have to look askew at items in the sealed room, wheelchairs need to get the lift from the cafe (which feels like a bunker and not a woodland cafe) to the loo (whos style is out of step with the rest) , the stair rail look likes a leaving cert metalwork project, the doors they found in a skip, I ran out of the place. Oh i also heard someone turned down a job in the Glucksman because there are no offices for people to work there, have a look next time you visit theres no space for anyone located in the building to work in, one person ended up having to work out of their car.
They also screwed up the Letterfrack furniture college, completely inappropriate, non-functional design for its location and purpose. And that piece of crap they sent to the biennale in Vienna was embarrassing.
February 13, 2006 at 4:01 pm #763088AnonymousInactive
i havnt seen their piece for the Vienna Bienalle. or heard of it for that matter.
February 13, 2006 at 4:27 pm #763089maggieParticipant
I’m interested to know which Architects mickletterfrack likes? And which buildings?
February 13, 2006 at 4:49 pm #763090
bit of an agenda there perhaps ‘mickletterfrack’ ?
February 15, 2006 at 2:46 am #763091
Ok so we have gone from being critical about everything to being critical about nothing. Raising up various candidates on pedestals is not a progressive way forward, especially when you see the quality of work that appears daily in Europe and in the new accession countries. For the most part most of the work here is by and large pedestrian intellectually and suffers seriously from an inability to bring the complete composition to a meaningful relevant conclusion. The Ranelagh School, while being one of the better works by ODT it certainly has major questions over its relationship to it s subject. So too does the Glucksman. Just because it is different does not grant it absolution to be merely wilful. Regardless of stylistic preferences we should be working toward a critical position that can discuss these matters without relying on accusations of snobbery or axe grinding. The work has to present itself without the cloak of favouritism or influence and be seen in its true state as is. A case in point is Henngean.Peng’s Kildare Offices that will likely receive awards but is a seriously flawed work conceptually and materially. Yet we will get threads extolling the adventurousness, the “dynamic” facade, the “social” ramps and the crisp brutal detailing. There will be little time for the mundane-ness of the curtain wall, the uncomfortable ramps or the unresolved joints and corners.
February 15, 2006 at 9:11 pm #763092
i’ve no problem with criticism shadow, however mickletterfrack’s comments dismiss entirely two of OD+T’s most celebrated works & indeed their entire practice as a ‘joke’ … seems a little unbalanced.
February 15, 2006 at 9:19 pm #763093
I totally agree;
and would further request a detailed critique of the Ranelagh School from Shadow
February 16, 2006 at 2:30 am #763094
Maggie…I like some French architecture and also the new Cork County Council offices but all in all I dont like any Irish architects or major recent public work that I can think of. I think it has something to do with Irish architects being very unoriginal in their thought and design,they follow fashion and achitectural flavours,whether its Calatrava or Pei or Libenskind. Whatever is heralded in the architectural world is basically re-formulated by Irish architects and presented to an ignorant public as something original. Maybe its because being a relatively closed shop in Ireland ie.UCD student architects are totally corrupted , the same school of thought is hammered into the same crop of architects produced every year. Some kind of incestuous corruption of their thought process occurs, you only have to look at how many of them get shacked up. This theory is some ways is proven by the sterotypical and similar reactions of PeterFitzpatrick and ThomandPark to my earlier comments, neither have choses to address any particular issue I raised about ODT instead took a kind of uniform professional offence to it all.
Is the term ‘Celebrated Works’ supposed to mean something PeterF… FrankWright has alot of celbrated works too most if not all of which are falling down,the only thing keeping them up is rich patronage.
I took the ceiling off my 100 year old cottage today, the timbers are immacualte, the lime mortar and slate show no signs of any water damage, yet ODT cant design a roof or facade that doesnt leak…end of story… oh hang on my mistake the purpose is not to design functional living working spaces its to be celebrated!
February 16, 2006 at 2:04 pm #763095
no offence taken mick, & not sure how my ‘offence’ could be stereotypical.
I think if your going to completely dismiss glucksman & the furniture college of having any merit whatsoever, (i’m thinking in the wider context of the general rubbish thats built), then it requires more justification than your rant, ‘glucksman more like yucksman’ etc…
‘celebrated’ refers to Glucksman winning RIAI best public building in 05 & being nominated for the stirling prize … similar acknowledgement for letterfrack & the pavillion … which doesn’t by any stretch mean that both are above criticism, just deserving of a better overall critique, than the simple dismissal of all their work as rubbish.
What international influence was followed at letterfrack, their interpretation there is specific to that site & its history, so who are they ripping off ?
February 16, 2006 at 3:41 pm #763096
PeterF. … everything I said went way over your head… back to 1st year for you…. God is in the details and all that…. suffice to say you havent addressed any point I made , you merely took exception to the manner in which I made it… and thats whats sterotypical, among other things..
I didnt make a simple dismissal of their work I pointed out some glaring defects in it, (I merely mentioned a handful, believe me there are dozens more). Outside of any merit derived from breaking new design ground buildings also have a practical purpose to perform especially for the people who use and look at them. If a building fails as a functional entity then I find it hard to justify it no matter how revelutionary the design is.
Dont talk about interpretation of the site ether, I know for a fact that ODT waned to demolish the existing Quaker building that was there. How interpretive is that. None of their award winning buildings sit well in their environment. Most structures of that size will have inherent qualitys and appeals simply because of their sheer size, the skill and talent lies in architecting the appropriate solution, something ODT fail to do, they simply drop
a brick from outerspace on a site.
I believe ODT take their influence from simple craftsmen, they look at the very basics of what joiners, masons, tradespeople do, basic forms of what these people will construct day to day, they spruce it up with some verbage and then present it as some fantastical interpretation. You just have to look at the buildings to see this.
Big deal they got an RIAI award, that doesnt prove anything and says more about their peers than about ODT, as the greeks said you can judge a society by its heroes , maybe the same can be applied to RIAI. Next thing you know you will want us to ‘celebrate’ an architect who designs flyovers for motorways with a seat on Aosdana… oh shit they just did that.
February 16, 2006 at 4:33 pm #763097
The Ranelagh School was built directly opposite the Georgian front door of Deirdre Kelly one of Dublins leading heritage commentators who in her very qualified opinion decided that it would sit well in the context of a Georgian Terrace and nearby Square.
What have ODT done to you you appear to have a hell of a chip on your shoulder in their direction.
February 16, 2006 at 7:18 pm #763098
ODT have wasted alot of taxpayers money and also destroyed a number of beautiful sites…
but to answer your question they aint ever done anything to me…
Your response falls into the same bracket as previous respondents… stereotypical…
Im still waiting for someone to respond to any of the actual issues I raised regarding ODT buildings,
their design, detail , and the fact they leak…
so far all Ive heard is that Ive been ranting and have a chip… blah blah blah… very sensitive types out there all together.
February 16, 2006 at 7:28 pm #763099
Any leaks would be attributable to the building contractors and should be receoverable as inherent defects; I have seen no evidence that ODT buildings have a higher incidence of inherent defect than any other architects but suspect that the reverse is the case
February 17, 2006 at 11:49 am #763100
I was wondering when that old faithful would be trotted out, ‘any defects, its the building contractors fault ‘,
your an idiot. The architects specs for Letterfrack where followed but they didnt allow enough of an overlap on the cladding and also un-treated timbers are basically unpredictable in their movement.
The defects in ODTs buildings are design fault. They offer up all this sophistry about the at one with nature element to their buildings, but they dont actually understand the properties of the materials they work with.
Theres a bit of the Emperors new clothes syndrome to it all, and that includes alot fo the work going on around us.
Heres a question for you TP,
For a couple of hundred years artists have travelled to the west to avail of the wonderful light, the colours, hues and shades it throws up as the sea sky and land combine to offer a unique inspirational experience, you only have to look at a Paul Henry to see what unique spectral properties exist out there. But also on a practical note they have had to deal with harsh elements, ie the cold and damp.
So if you were putting a drawing studio in a design college where students are sitting at a desk not moving about much would you
A) Locate it strategicaly where this inspirational light and its thermal properties are availed of, or would you like ODT
B) Put it virtually underground encased in cold dank concrete and dependant on flourescent lighting
Oh hang on I know it was the building contractors fault.
On top of the defects that we both agree exist in their buildings , although Id blame the architect, you fault the sub-bies, in my opinion I find their buildings uninspiring and passionless, but then as they say
opinion’s are like assholes everybodys got one.
February 17, 2006 at 12:32 pm #763101
I don’t respond to trolls generally but in your case I feel that you should be removed from this forum
February 17, 2006 at 1:05 pm #763102
Well as I have said consistently in my responses, Im still waiting for someone to correct me on the assertions I have made, up to now Ive merely been vilified for being the harbinger of some harsh but honest truths
which leads me to believe that my comments have been well founded albeit crudely put….
So TP if Architecture is a religion does this mean I have crossed the cartoon line with you….
February 17, 2006 at 1:13 pm #763103
Don’t mistake lack of engagement with lack of correction your assertions are so wide of the mark most wouldn’t contribute. Your assertion that construction defects are not attributable to the main contractor are not supported by caselaw which is where Letterfrack should be heading if there is any water ingress after such a short time.
In relation to this award it is totally justified as was there selection to represent the RIAI at the Venice Biennial
February 17, 2006 at 2:18 pm #763104
If my claims are so wide of the mark … then wouldnt it have been much easier to correct me rather than continue my public tongue lashing…
Foot, shot and yourself… comes to mind, your countering your own claim by saying my comments have lacked engagement, Ive had plenty responses inculding your s , none of which addressed the issues I raised
ie. the building defects and also the fact no-one has countered those claims.
And come to think of it , if you respond again then your previous claim about not replying to “trolls” (which was a rather purile comment unbecoming of a member of the RIAI) will be called into question.
Regarding the leaks, considering both the Furniture college and the Glucksman are plagued with leaks, does this mean that both these contractors are to blame or should we lay that at the doorstep of the only other common element in this (besides the H2O!) and thats ODT.
You are annoying me know because your not reading what I say, I never said there were construction defects per se, I said there were design defects, if the spec say use untreated timber and the cladding spec does not overlap enough the best builder in the world cannot prevent leakage. Anyways surely regular site inspections be the architects would have picked up on these issues before completion.
The biennale piece was embarrassing, any apprentice 1st fix carpenter would have designed and knocked that up in his sleep.
Yes I know they have won many awards, that has been stated a number of times, in fact thats the main component of the argument to contradict what I have said. Thats kind of a given considering the thread title!
Awards mean very little, evey sycophantic organisation has them .
At this stage I hope someone can demonstrate in some empirical manner where the cracks lie in my logic, cos I just dont get the ODT work.
February 17, 2006 at 2:26 pm #763105
Design defects are a matter of opinion
Construction defects are a matter of fact
If you don’t get it you shouldn’t lampoon it and your assertation that you are capable of understanding clarifiaction is far from proven given your use of words such as idiot foot shoot etc.
The biggest embaressment here are your unbacked accusations supported only by your scattergun approach to discourse
February 17, 2006 at 4:11 pm #763106
1. Awards are not only a consequence of quality but of political influence. One might discount early AAI awards because of the narrowness of the constituency.
2. Architects must take some responsibility for performance, at least designing so that a building might hope to perform in the real world.
3. The Biennale project suffered from a lack of technical and architectural coherence with a mixture of constructional methodologies, which either illustrates a naivetÃ© about such things, a desire to subvert them or an essay on the total disconnect between architecture and the methods of building.
4. In an world lacking differentiation in professions, art and other realms, architects have attempted to regain a rarefied platform by the use of the new, the original act, the difference. unfortunately this usually means that in order to be different extremes of expression are rife, leading usually to 2. or 3. hoping to get 1.
5. The ranelagh school suffers from many of the same difficulties in 3. Disconnected elements, the brick blockhouses on the corner, the steel framed stoa to the rear, the playground (roof) facing the wrong way, the timber extensions to the rear and the stone/concrete fire escape (after-thought it seems) to the front.
6. 1. is possible especially if you desire to be considered part of a particular milieu and thus Ranelagh owes a lot to Bonell & Gill and other Spanish, proto rationalist modernist work. However these are quotations rather than a piece of writing in its own right.
7. Ranelagh pushes the modernist objectification of function (via Stirling & others) into the realm of post classical thinking, with its two bays, large formal room at the middle which places it well within the post modern body of work, while not admitting it. Certainly better than the woeful Children’s Court and IFC but still short on the coherent thread.
8. Where is disappoints however is in the lack of embrace in the user, the child and while the children offer much praise, it is relative, since what can they compare it against and certainly it is better than a tin shed which it replaced.
9. Being critical is not useful. It is better to illuminate so that people can make their own mind up. Generally I am not a fan, the work tends towards the shallow projection of image over content and the disappointment continues. A good graphic in a magazine does not architecture make.
February 17, 2006 at 5:22 pm #763107
February 17, 2006 at 6:12 pm #763108modular manParticipant
Generally I am not a fan, the work tends towards the shallow projection of image over content and the disappointment continues. A good graphic in a magazine does not architecture make.
I would have to say that in my opinion ODT are one of the few practices in Ireland if not in Europe who have, for the most part rejected trying to sell an image. I have always found that their work is far better in the flesh then it looks in magazines and demands a certain respect upon inspection. Even visiting an exhibition of theirs a few years ago it seemed that their concern was with the exploration of space through models and sketches rather then flashy 3d imagery. (The drawings tended to be extremely simple and showed no more then was necessary.)
I would argue that if any of their buildings project an image of shapemaking there is generally a very considered reason and it has not been an arbitrary response to get into some magazine.
Having said that, I do not think that they are above criticism.
February 19, 2006 at 12:20 pm #763109
ThomandPark I think Tubby the little dog who died when the Tacoma Narrows Bridge fell into Puget sound might take exception to your comment below. Or maybe you think that was down to the builders and not the bridges inherent design faults that caused its collapse.
Design defects are a matter of opinion
Construction defects are a matter of fact
TP your far too sensitve, a few months in the trenches working with the brickies and chippies would soon roughen your edges, or have you assumed the role of some kind of language police ensuring the debate doesnt cross the bounds of social and politicaly correct speak, you only have to look around you to see where that has gotten us all.
Thanks Shadow now I understand better why I dont get the ODT buildings.
February 20, 2006 at 11:37 am #763110
I have done my few months on sites and yes they are a hardy bunch; however I was lucky enough to work with true professionals who didn’t cut corners and didn’t sub jobs off hence the architects plans worked.
November 26, 2009 at 3:22 pm #763111BostonorBerlinParticipant
I see the glucksmann gallery storeroom got flooded destroying alot of the art in storage.
Handy that to have a subterranean storeroom in a building next to a river. :D, and the canteen got a battering too.
Thanksfully the ARt that is that building has survived, must have been the millions spent on it that saved its edifice, maybe more should have spent on the structure .
I know its the builders fault, those bloody shuttering carpenters always messing up the deign flaws, structural indequacies of Irelands great raft of iconic CT buildings.
November 26, 2009 at 4:19 pm #763112
The Glucksman Recovery Fund
November 26, 2009 at 6:31 pm #763113
Agreed with Bostonorberlin on the basement storage next to a river, not really a great idea
November 26, 2009 at 8:01 pm #763114missarchiParticipant
architecture goes underground art is risky underground…
November 26, 2009 at 8:48 pm #763115
“The Glucksman Recovery Fund” Is this a joke? Is it not insured? If not one wonders about the logic of building in a flood plain if insurance was not possible and worse if insurance was not available to build a basement, or is it because there is a basement that insurance was not possible. Questions questions……….
December 7, 2009 at 9:17 am #763116BostonorBerlinParticipant
The Glucksman Recovery Fund
Heres a list of what will be the top donors I supect
RIAI Best Public Building in Ireland 2005
RIBA 2005 award winner European category
2005 Project of the Year, UK Buildings Services Awards
Sustainable Energy Ireland award
Best Modern Building in an Irish City 2005
UK Civic Trust Award 2005
Shortlisted, 2005 Stirling Prize
One of the 1001 Buildings you must see before you die (or before the river floods again)
I used to think “Architecture – How Genius disfigured a practical art. “
now Im just thinking “Architeture – How Stupidity disfigured a practical art”
December 7, 2009 at 10:56 am #763117bitaseanParticipant
I’m jumping back to the Ranelagh School here but I pass it twice a day on my cycle into work and sometimes when I’m coming from the canal (and you see it as you turn the corner) I wish it was extended to form a terrace twice or three times its current length. I just find the proportions f**king lovely! And its the only building that I know that I wish there was more of, which I reckon is as good a compliment as you can give an inanimate object. So while some of the comments regarding bad detailing may hold water (pun intended) the overall positive effect is has on the city far outweighs any negatives.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.