February 21, 2001 at 9:33 am #704953Paul ClerkinKeymaster
Just looking at the image of the new Barrow Street Development and thinking how bland it is…
AN office development of 11,200 sq.m., beside the new DART station at Barrow Street in Dublin 2, has just passed through planning without objection and is expected to be completed in Autumn 2002.
February 21, 2001 at 10:58 am #715725
I bet it’s blandness was why it was given the go ahead in the first place.Putting it bluntly, nothing too challenging for the poor auld planning approval dimwits or locals.
February 22, 2001 at 11:34 am #715726MartinParticipant
………….It’s no wonder that architecture seems so elitest and its because people like you.
People that have that sort of atitude towards the ‘locals’.
Don’t dismiss people who can’t do verbal gymnastics or who may not be totally visually aware as regards art and architecture……….. you’re a graphic designer, but you probably weren’t always one. would you have appreciated the cold front that you are putting up now back then, when you weren’t an artist……but trying to get interested.
Get of your pedistal…….your pessimism and inferiority complex is doing no one any favours……….even yourself.
February 22, 2001 at 3:26 pm #715727DARA HParticipant
GregF, maybe youâ€™re been a bit too blunt eh?
As for planning staff â€“ well, Iâ€™m presuming that they are fairly restricted in their scope when it comes to turning down applications purely on aesthetic grounds. Then again, one recurrent theme in â€˜planningâ€™ is the question of when, why, and how planning officers should/must (not?) become the â€˜arbiters of good tasteâ€™ â€“ thatâ€™s a whole kettle of fish in itself. Personally, I do not think that the illustration provided portrays a building that is REALLY bland, I will admit however that it does not appear to be overly awe-inspiring.
As for the â€˜localsâ€™â€¦ how about a bit more in the way of public consultation i.e. consensus/ collaborative planning etc.? It can help smooth the road sometimes, towards the fruition of the more controversial developments and in the long-run can save time and money.
Martin, Iâ€™m not sure that GregF has an inferiority complex, there is no shame in wishing for higher quality and lamenting when it generally does not appear – which I think is what GregF feels (Ireland is not exactly a Mecca for outstanding Architecture and Urban Design)!?!
P.S. Apologies GregF, I do not mean to psycho-analyse you!
February 22, 2001 at 4:43 pm #715728
I thought I made a perfectly valid point.
If you are aware of the planning system and have noted what’s been approved over the last number of years (well since the start of the boom) you may have noticed that safe little developments that are not too radical in appearance comprising of cosy red brick, eclectic in nature with references to the past and stunted in height get given the go ahead with no problem. This is somewhat dishonest in design terms, is’nt it. Looking at the the general public’s negative attitude towards recent proposed developments too one should ask is it justifiably well founded criticism on their behalf or sheer bloody ignorance.
To add, you don’t have to make absurd comments refering to certain psychotic or neurotic hang ups to further your point….. could that be described as immature student talk.
[This message has been edited by GregF (edited 22 February 2001).]
February 22, 2001 at 5:34 pm #715729-Donnacha-Participant
In relation to the points about personal taste and planning.Planners are not architects, and do not receive training in any ‘architectural sense’.This does not automatically mean that planners are tasteless either. The poor standards of architecture particularly along much of Dublin’s quayside, are as much a reflection on the standards in the architectural profession in Ireland as anything else.However, I think that it is pointless to start blaming individual groups of people, when in fact, it is the fault of a whole system that encourages and permits blandness, mediocrity and underwhelming architectural standards. For example, the time- limitations attached to tax concessions in Designateed Areas since 1986 resulted in hasty planning decisions being made, and in consideration of the economic climate at that time, it is understandable that attracting private capital to the inner city took priority over design standards.These urban renewal programmes were introduced by the Dept. of the Environment with a sense of urgency. Today however we have a radically different situation, there is intense competition for space and that should ensure higher standards.While taste is not the privilege of a select few, high urban design standards should be enforced as much as possible. In relation to considerations of local’s opinions. If local people appear to be automatic in their opposition to anything unusual, tall, or striking it reflects poorly on planners, and architects alike. The merits and attractions of ambitious developments need to be demonstrated to ‘Locals’. They need to be given evidence from other European cities, e.g. educate people that high density does not equal congestion and/or deprivation and that it can have very positive environmental, and social effects, that uniformity is not ‘good’ in terms of urban design, and that ambitious architecture should be encouraged whenever possible. In any case, these last few points…i hope do not come across as being condescending or patronising, if they do it is not the intention and means that i could have presented them more effectively.
February 23, 2001 at 9:16 am #715730
That’s very well explained Bunch and I agree with what you say.
February 23, 2001 at 2:36 pm #715731MartinParticipant
Ok, Greg, maybe I said a bit too much or touched a nerve, but that comment about students was below the belt.
I agree that developments since the start of the boom haven’t been exactly awe inspiring …..but refering to the public as being dimwits,may have been a a bit blunt as Dara put it.
I also agree with bunch about educating the public about the merits of ambitious developments………….. like you do and yet you refer to them as being dimwits?
February 23, 2001 at 3:30 pm #715732RoisinBParticipant
Very well written Bunch, you hit the nail on the head, some very good points.
As for Martins views I would agree although I wouldn’t be as, let’s say militant about it.
As for greg I think that you are beginning to contradict yourself as Martin has said,
You want to educate them while at the same time call them dimwits, not a great climate for educating don’t you think?
However this whole topic shouldn’t be devoted to your unneccesary comments.
I do think however that we are discussing a problem that is rooted throughout Ireland, and one deserves further discussion.
February 26, 2001 at 2:22 pm #715733
The Irish general public are ‘dimwits’ regarding architecture which is why they need to be educated! Let’s have more arts and culture education in schools.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.