What is "good architecture"
- This topic has 35 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
A few weeks back, I posted the topic of “Yuck”.
How do once “amazing” buildings end up being criticised? It would be safe to say that much we deride now was once regarded as beautiful and imaginative.
Do we class new buildings as “great” because they are new and haven’t stood the ravages of time? Rarely have I heard mass criticism of new buildings…only when they become out of date, so to speak.
For example, I loved Jervis Street SC when it opened. Now I class it as just another SC, with no merit whatsoever.
The dreaded Hawkins House was lanched in a blaze of publicity in the sixties…..
Any thoughts?
You loved Jervis Street SC??? Hmm. It’s big and spacious on the inside, but a bit too big and bricky from the outside, and the tower thingy is a bit too lego. Good SC though, and I’ve no real gripes with the Henry Street bit.
Hawkins House brings me back to the footage I saw of its models from the 60’s. And indeed, HH actually looked excellent in those models, really really cool. I’d mostly blame a “lack of love and caring” for HH’s demise. It’s still a big powerful building, but no-one loves it, and this has made it sad. Perhaps it also looks better from the air than it does from the ground.
fjp
but will we all laugh at Temple Bar in a decade or so, and ask for all the modern stuff to be demolished?
What do people think of UCD in Belfield? (in archictectural terms only!)
Joke or good architecture? The arts block is very functional – but would it be regarded as a fine work?
Its a valid point about the neglect of buildings in this country – I was taking a walk around Christ Church yesterday an the Civic offices phase one facades are absolutely manky – made the building look worse than it already is. We have a serious problem with keeping things clean in this country – once something is built it’s left to rot – what’s the problem with cleaning every so often?
it might just be a question of passing fashions. for example its cool at the moment to dress up a building with timber and aluminium louvres. look at me and fantastic modern well detailed brise-soleils (sp?). but in 50 years when the wood is rotting, the aluminium is tarnished and the new muslim government doesnt care enough to maintain them, what will people think?
havent seen much of ucd but its great that their are still green field sites in dublin and the money and initiative to create something intersting. it remains to be seen if the same bravery will appear with the development of grangegorman.
my two preferred buildings in dublin in recent times are the new trinity library and the gallery extension. how will they weather against changing fashions and new thoughts on design? in the end does it really matter? i think we should design for today and leave tomorrow to be sorted out by our successors. they’ll deride us but they will suffer derision in turnOriginally posted by J. Seerski
What do people think of UCD in Belfield? (in archictectural terms only!)Joke or good architecture? The arts block is very functional – but would it be regarded as a fine work?
Is the arts block functional? I always found it difficult to navigate. It’s a sure indicator of poor design if you have to tack on a system of lines painted on the floor and giant letters hanging from the ceiling just to get people around.
As for the rest of UCD, during my time as a student there I never found much to elevate the spirit, architecturally speaking. I enjoyed my days in Earlsfort Terrace more, where I also took classes.
One thing in Belfield I liked was the covered walkways. I don’t know why that idea is not used more in this rainy country.
I also liked the Engineering block with its naturally well-lit atrium built around a salvaged beam engine. The office corridors are dark though.
Taking a wider design perspective, Belfield is still very poorly served by public transport.
UCD in terms of the Arts block/Admin building is functual enough, Its the interior decor that is the problem – bloody brown tiles and poor lighting make the place look dark but hey it was the 70s, and it hides the dirt, still the place does the job. Like any building of its size it makes perfect sense to someone who is in there daily but when people come across from other faculties (or outside of the college) they don’t know there way around.
On the topic of UCD the Civil Eng department are finally moving to Belfield this summer (presume Ag and Medicine will be following ?!?) so it will be very very interesting to see what will happen to the Earlsfort terrace building… was based there for a few months and its location must be the best in Dublin with the Iveagh gardens and Stephen’s Green so close… the building itself has MASSIVE potential but the current layout (of the college section) was destroyed to a great extent by the NCH which split the building in two forcing one up and over their entrance… that said I’m sure the NCH would love to have the library and maybe now they will get some more space. The building really had been let go, with some of the offices in a pretty bad state….
As mentioned this does seem to be an Irish trend, build it and never touch it for decades and then complain about it, like people expect buildings to take care of themselves.
The situation here in Sweden is totally different – a friend was just complaining yesterday about the constant building work going on around her… i.e. they are refurbishing the bathrooms and corridors of our building now, having done a job on the outside about 2 years ago, while they are also doing up the exterior of the building where she lives, and her husbands offices are also being done up…
The thing is in all these cases the buildings were in pretty ok shape and could easily have survived so to speak… but the buildings are kept alive by this constant upgrading… a really good system and I’m sure if you look into “life cycle cost analyses” etc etc it probably makes perfect financial sense as well…
By the way does anybody know of they have extended the engineering building to take Civil Eng (and Ag?) – presume they must have had as Civil had pretty big labs in Earlsfort…
Regarding Belfield I’ve always hated the exterior of the Eng building… although O’Reilly Hall is one of the few STW building I like… will never get over what they did to UCG !!! 🙁
I totally agree, if you compare the Jervis S. C., which to my knowledge is run by a UK management company and any other Irish shopping centre that’s over a few years old. The Jervis is constantly being spruced up, be it a repaint in the corridors or as at the moment they are adding wooden panelling to the entrance to the car park. They are constantly improving the users experience. Compare this to say Nutgrove or The Square which where leaders in shopping centre design when opened and have just got grubby and outdated.
At least public buildings can cite lack of funds for the lack of maintenance but as for commercial building it’s just greed and short sightedness by the developer/owners although there is an argument that it’ll cost them in the long run.
I think we deride old buildings in this country caise they’re kept in a disgraceful condition – look at County Hall in Cork – it looks great in the sunshine from a distance – but the closer you get you see the black onthe concrete – the peeling of window laminated covers – the colums crumbling – etc etc etc. Exactly the fate that awaits DCC offices, Central Bank, Millenium wing of Nat Gallery – the manky walls say it all – the beginning of the end. Eventually they too will all resemble County Hall/Hawkins House.
Our crappy damp weather probably doesn’t help.
Talking of new buildings and how they’ll wear and how old ones are often dirty brings me back to the discussions about the new trinity library … last time i was down Nassau street (a while ago) i seem to remember thinking that the older buildings where the entrance is had been cleaned up and were not that obviosly different from the new building i.e. it looked like the old concrete building had a good scrubbing and looked quite well & matching in somewhat with the new. Might make a good photo – old vs. new.
I remeber when i lived in Cardiff a couple of years ago a lot of old buildings were getting cleaned – and when i went back recently it seemed that anything old had been cleaned incl. one mixed stone building that i had remembered as litterely being black with dirt.
As for what makes ‘good’ architecture – not sure but i think i’d be beware of anything that looks really up-to-date and possibly part of a trendy style i.e. in fashion – ‘cos more often then not, the more fashionable it looks the sooner it dates and possible be over critised for being recognisably out-of -fashion.
It’s the old problem of just accepting the way things are in this country in terms of fading buildings. For example the firm that I worked for was a global entity and the offices were bright, modern and the interiors) updated to the highest degree (by architects) every few years. Transfered to an Irish owned firm in the same business. Offices built in 1983, last updated in 1983.
The problem of not cleaning buildings in this country is also hugely damaging architecturally. Look at the hundreds of buildings on the like of Camden St, even
O’ Connell St where the brickwork is simply painted over to hide the dirt. Admittedly, all done in the 70s and 80s, but it is appalling looking, esp in contrast to ‘what could be’, ie if the paint was removed and the brickwork restored.But the main issue is that it is only older stone buildings that are deemed as needing to be cleaned in this country, any thing new(ish) is considered, well, new! Regardless whether its manky or not.
I’ve just read “Yuck” also by J Seerski. What’s the best new building in Dublin then? Surely not the new gallery that looks just like one I recently visited in Edinburgh. I’ve always thought that modern architecture in Dublin was well thought of, that building looks like a step back. All those meaningless slots!
Good question! I think the Millenium Wing of the Nat Gallery works from the inside – cool to see that much space created and used for effectively – the facade on the outside – yawwwwwwn. Seen it before in a slightly different colour.
Indeed.
It seems that the “oohs” and “aaahs” last for only a few days. When the Schuh building was completed on O’Connell St., it was greeted with initial enthusiasm. Now, all the talk is negative.
I like the AIB and IFSC block in the IFSC – they seem to stand the test of time. Much worse is the STW Citibank block. Bland bland bland.
I tour around a lot and have visited Dublin a few times, usually staying at the Morrison. Just along the road on the opposite bank is a Civic Office building, sorry I don’t know the architect but I guess it was built maybe five years ago. Anyway I think it is very good indeed. A very satisfactory solution to what must have been a complicated brief on a difficult site and next to the Cathedral and the river.
Recently I visited Glasgow and stayed at a hotel called the SAS Radisson because my ususal hotel was fully booked. It turned out to be a blessing for this building is an absolute stunner. Again, don’t know who the architects were, apologies I am not a designer just passionatly interested in modern architecture and the usual standard of hotel is banal to say the least, so that’s the resaason for staying at the Morrison. This Glasgow hotel though must be the best hotel I have ever seen.
http://www.glasgowarchitecture.co.uk/framesetnews.htm
just stumbled across this lead on the hotel building in Glasgow
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
