RE: Central Bank
December 3, 1999 at 4:56 pm #704714poc75Participant
Does anyone out there have an opinion of what has been done to the front of the Central Bank. I am outraged. I see that area as a public space where people meet. This is now severly limited, and the spacial quality of the area ruined. The design of the railings is itself appaling and not in tune with the style of the building, it resembles to me a effort at a contemporary Classical style.
December 3, 1999 at 5:06 pm #713020MGParticipant
As a public space, the plaza was limited due to its windswept nature and complete lack of focus with the exception of the steps to the bank. It was the steps as focus that caused the Bank to fence in part of the plaze to prevent foreign bankers having to walk over beer, curries and much worse.
Although the railings may be at odds with the design of the building, they really cannot be blamed for the destruction of the public space, as it was never very successful in the first place.
December 5, 1999 at 2:30 pm #713021fgk.Participant
It is true that the entrance plaza was unsuccessful as a public space; it is also true in my view that the visual asthetics of what is presently being constructed is unsuccessful. A more adventurous approach in the design of these railings perhaps with a complete contrast in stone colouring would have been a more ‘authentic’ gesture.It is high time that artists are co-opted at design/concept stage as a matter of policy. space
January 5, 2000 at 9:09 am #713022MGParticipant
Since my previous comments, I have seen the railings and they’re far too fussy in design. They contrast poorly with the strong bold horizontals of the bank.
January 5, 2000 at 1:01 pm #713023
I totally agree MG. The Railings are a cheap version of Georgian from what I saw from the road. Unsuitable.
January 6, 2000 at 2:28 pm #713024Rory WParticipant
I agree with John & MG about the treatment of the railings, but from what I have seen the entire scheme looks wrong.
1) The railings do not match the existing railings between the commercial buildings and the back of Blooms Hotel.
2) The shape of the overall rails in plan is non-symmetrical with that little kink taken out for the golden tree (money tree) or whatever its called.
3) The stone is too polished and is a contrast with the existing materials.
4) What the hell are they doing with those little cone things aroung the trees?
5) That block shaped thing for the fire escape from the car-park (Sam Stephenson had said that the fire-officer had said it was ok to get rid of this escape – so why is it still there?), It looks like they are going to have pagan sacrifices on it (and there probably will be some on Junior Cert results night!).
All in all it does nothing for the building and its environs, if anything it takes away from the composition as a whole.
Just my thoughts.
January 6, 2000 at 4:17 pm #713025Paul_9000Participant
Point 4 above certainly,
That can go for starters and maybe sand blast the stone. I think beyond that it would be over pricey.
Also why did the water fall have to go?
January 6, 2000 at 6:25 pm #713026
That’s a terrible pity. It was a very very refreshing sight on Dame Street during the summer. Especially when the street felt a bit grimy.
January 7, 2000 at 8:35 am #713027AnonymousParticipant
Ahhh come one John, that was a poor excuse for a water feature…. and just created an ugly block on the corner of the site as well as somewhere to store rubbish.
January 7, 2000 at 9:51 am #713028
It was a water feature though and fitted the shape of the bank itself. I suppose any twit could have made it more interesting and lighter whilst holding to that consistent approach admittedly
January 7, 2000 at 8:31 pm #713029dc3Participant
Yes the railings are fairly grim all right.
Dont like the new Liffey foot bridge either.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.