Charlie

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Stephenson – poacher turned gamekeeper? #711697
    Charlie
    Participant

    J. Lobb, That’s right I DO blame the architect. Yes the powers that were had a lot to do with it, but the majority of Mr. Stephenson’s architecture that I’m aware of is awful – with the exception of the Central Bank. And those resposible in the ESB for the desicration of Fitzwilliam St should be shot. Maybe the building there would be acceptable if it was stuck in some industrial estate. Shot too should most of the Corpo be for the Wood Quay disaster which has only recently been masked by the half decent STW building.

    Paul, I agree that this thread has gone off the point. For my part of the ranting, I appologise!

    in reply to: Stephenson – poacher turned gamekeeper? #711694
    Charlie
    Participant

    Sam Stephenson seems to have done more than any other architect to screw-up Dublin architecturally. A list of the crap he’s designed would proabably overload this message board.

    in reply to: interesting….. [ Calatrava ] #714596
    Charlie
    Participant

    If this photo impression is accurate, we are in for it bigtime! This design is totally out of place at this extremely narrow stretch of the Liffey. Its height looks set to obscure quayside views up or downriver. Such an intrusive design should never have been proposed, in my opinion. Surely we can a have modern design that is also in proportion with the site?

    Alas, this whole thing symbolises the idiocy of the city planners who have already destroyed big chunks of what was once a gracious and attractive city.

    in reply to: skyline #711616
    Charlie
    Participant

    I agree that the uncontrolled sprawl of Dublin into the surrounding counties is a problem, but not one that is a direct result of low density in the city. There is an undeniable demand for suburban housing and the developers are right to capitalise on that. Where they are wrong however, is in the appalling design of ALL of these suburban estates. The 3/4 bed semi looks roughly the same as it did 30 years ago & that’s just not good enough for the prices being charged.

    As regards Dublin’s ‘precious’ skyline – it hasn’t got one. Parts of Dublin are really beautiful, but there are more areas that are mediocre and even more that are just disgusting. Fitzwilliam & Merrion Squares – lovely. Go north a couple of blocks and you find yourself in one of the nastiest (architecturally & otherwise) areas of the inner city (around Pearse st, Macken st & surrounding quays) where urban renewal has meant the building of god awful 2 storey corpo houses in inane clusters, surrounded by derelict warehousing.

    I am in favour of the Georges quay development, & the NCC plan. I would like to see tasteful high rise being built to best utilise the remaining areas of the docks. This would have the added benefit of adding interest into the monotonous skyline that seems to merge into one with the sea in that area.

    I don’t ever want to see the offensive architecture of Sam S. in Dublin, the bunkers of Wood Quay are a disgrace. However the building proposed by Cosgrave & designed by SOM looks marvellous as do the outline sketches of the NCC – these are proper modern alternatives to the pseudomodern rubbish erected in Dublin thus far.

    I know many disagree.

    in reply to: George’s Quay #712961
    Charlie
    Participant

    I direct you to the end of an article on 29/12/98 “Ten appeals lodged against Dublin high-rise” By Frank McDonald, Environment Correspondent, Irish Times.

    “…The city architect, Mr Jim Barrett, took the opposite view in his much briefer report, arguing that the scheme proposed by Skidmore Owings and Merrill had distinct advantages over an earlier office development planned for the site, because of its mix of uses.

    His concern was that, if the high-rise scheme was rejected, the developers could still go ahead with the earlier plan, which was given a 10-year permission in 1990. It would consist solely of offices, in a cluster of seven blocks rising to a height of 60 metres…”

    Having viewed that scheme in the then Dublin Corpo offices – I can assure you it was not pleasant on the eye.

    I think this is further grounds for not throwng out the Cosgrave/SOM plan.

    in reply to: George’s Quay #712959
    Charlie
    Participant

    What is so wrong with the proposal? Is it just its location?

    I think it looks pretty impressive.

    I think it would be far more interesting to see it built rather than letting the site be vacant for another 3 years until some opportunistic developer comes along a sticks an inane 5 or 6 storey yellow brick apt./office block there to placate those who view the current project as being far too big for peripheral, wee Dublin.

    in reply to: higher and higher #712949
    Charlie
    Participant

    I think is sounds like a pretty exciting development – it should enhance the docks as much as the Waterfront Hall enhanced Belfast, (or more so – given its importance).

    Does anyone know, by the way, whether the appeals to the SOM George’s Quay revised plan are likely to be upheld or quashed by An Bord Pleanála?

    Quashed I hope. Granted the height is a bit dodgey given its proximity to the main cultural centre, but I don’t think a project of this quality should be rejected. After all, they have reduced the tower by 20m to 80m, which brings its scale down significantly.

    Anything would be better than the vacant lot that is there currently.

    in reply to: New pillar! #711681
    Charlie
    Participant

    Its really bizarre. Every time I look at a photo of it I think of hundred reasons why I think its a disater and yet within a few minutes of further looking, it seems to endear itself to me. Can’t wait to see the real thing!

    I agree that it’s a shame that the winning entry was foreign – a bit like old Nelson!

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)

Latest News