May 10, 2002 at 11:04 am #705304KennyParticipant
just read the book “building for government”
pow 1900-200 , interesting opening review by M.O’Doherty .. Quote : “the buildings created by the opw as a government agency are particularly expressive of the aspirations and identity of the state”.. acting in an advisory capacity to the government it would appear that the objectives on which the opw are structuring their design ethic is not being implimented by the planning authorities, i refer to the fact that most new government building are being developed in a modern language and at the same time the offices which are housed within these new structures are advocating
twee vernacular for our towns and villages ..
whats the angle?.. our commercial buildings are contemporary but our homes are not…
architectural advancement for government and obligatory time warp for our homes… the johnstown museum a prime example, inside V outside…
May 10, 2002 at 11:39 am #719005deepnoteParticipant
I am so conflicted, I hate this just before an election.
May 10, 2002 at 7:45 pm #719006DARA HParticipant
What documents are you refering to kenny when you say that planning dept.s are advocating ‘twee architecture’ for towns & villages?
It is important to note that planning authorities (and i presume you mean through development control when you infer plannings influence on design) cannot force people builders etc to produce well designed & or modern/ stylish houseing.
Another thing to consider is that its easier to keep most people happy with a twee style house i.e. ‘Vicwardian’ ‘Tudorbethan’ ! then with very modern & contemporary units.
Housing & planning authorities however, do often try & produce good quality public housing nowadays – generally not cutting edge, but a cut above your average pattern book pastiche housing estate.
Did you see the article in last weeks IRL. times property supplement about a new modern looking, housing scheme for Dublin city council – in Cherrybrook i think, & by a firm of architects.
Pre-planning meetings between planning departments & architects (and skilled technicians etc)to find out departments attitudes to modern designs in different sites could be a way of achieving more modern looking developments – i’d say a lot of planners would be happy with this too (if they can spare enough time!?).
p.s. how is it that you are a senior member after only 12 posts?!?
[This message has been edited by DARA H (edited 10 May 2002).]
May 11, 2002 at 9:04 am #719007KennyParticipant
dara h, thanks for your response.
the documents i refer to are the “county developement plans” which we can all view and have the same “UNDEFINED ” word repeated over and over “vernacular”.. what exactly is it in 2002. surely it changes with time.
more importantly i refer to the images displayed on planners office walls, images of the same old modified bungalow bliss stuff with their cross bar windows for measure, which i may add are promoted as being ” designs which have been successful in application “….
you are correct that the housing authorities produce good quality public housing , but the authority is Not the mass population, they are in the minority.
your comment ” easier to keep most people happy in twee style houses” to me sounds defeatest.. its like saying we should continue to issue an architectural sedative , they’ll never know the difference…. wrong , irish people travekl the world , we’re not blind, you know the difference between car models … are houses so different ?……
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.