CM00
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Wait until you see the one in rathmines, it is in the middle of the f**king pavement! it blocks about 3/4 of the available path. Doubtless, this will cause pedestrians to absently step into one of the busiest cycleways in the city. It’s all so unnecessary and makes my blood boil! If DCC wanted to support cycling in th city why not make it safer for cyclists to move around, this scheme is Sooooooooo counter productive.
The city also does not have a leg to stand on when countering illegal signage and the continued growth of temporary signs. I never realised I could be so enraged by street furniture!
@alonso wrote:
No landmarks, no variety, just monoaltitudinal (hey a new word – you saw it here first – hands off Frank McD) architectural vomit. The environmental elements of this development are most most welcome. In fact it’s a massive step forward by all (gushing, seemingly bought) accounts but the aesthetics are truly muck.
Absolute rubbish! Whatever your personal taste may be, the aesthetic of the project is modern, simple and sharp. I fail to see how it can be offensive and it’s certainly not ugly (vomit?!)
It is architecture responding sensibly to a brief. It’s appearance is driven by it’s programme, economic and environmental ambition and sense. Aspect, Block height, and arrangement on the site is strictly arranged to maximise the quality of the interior spaces, environmental performance, and efficient use of (what is admittedly) a green field site, although I still regard it as an existing “urban” site
Perhaps you would like to expand upon the “variety” you would like to see. I don’t understand why every project needs to be a “landmark” – can it not just be good background architecture? It was built at a lower cost to our environment than the Pattern book architecture being built in places like Tallaght, Dundrum, and Darndale at the moment.A lot of those schemes try -and fail- to be “different” with ridiculous paneling systems or “crazy” “different” curved walls – if the architects involved in such projects actually spent more time working on the plans and made a genuine attempt to fit these buildings into a coherent urban realm, rather than sticking “interesting” facades onto badly designed blocks, then we would be much better off.
Why not criticise all the bad architecture Alonso, why are you targeting one of the best of such schemes completed in recent years?! Sometimes I fear – and I’m not necessarily implying you are a part of it- that many incumbents upon this site are only interested in “cool”, tall, flashy, neon, curvy architecture
@alonso wrote:
yep all we need is a few more billion to spend on what would be a vanity project. It would be cheaper to dismantle the Custom house brick by brick and move it to Eden Quay than to build another rail tunnel under the Liffey!
Am I the only one not deeply offended by this bridge? I know it’s ugly but it fails to make my blood boil.
Not at all, Alonso. I feel it’s pretty acceptable and is extremely essential. Even without these mitigating factors, can you imagine the difficulties in getting the dart to a safe depth under the river, given the elevation it rides at currently through the city centre?! That would be a HUGE job, for only a superficial visual improvement.
I accept that it ruins a nice view, but I don’t really believe it is as big a factor in the division between the docklands and the city centre as, say, Pearse St or North Earl St/Talbot St are.
Incidentally, here are a few shots from weeks ago of the repainting and sandblasting.
If you look at the second from last picture, you can see that there are a number of holes in the marble. I believe these are to become fountain nozzles. It isn’t operational yet, however.
I think it’s quite successful really. A bit more green wouldn’t have gone amiss, but it is being used quite intensely already as a place to sit around in. It fulfills it’s original intent: to give life to the area.
With regards to the hotel, and courtesy of Manuel Aires Mateus website, here are some details of the hotel:
The aim of the project is to create an urban site, more than just designing a building. The proposal searches to found a brand new distinctive place, inside this vast area of future and sudden growth.
The project strategy is to establish a clear and powerful mark in the city. This mark is on the one hand a reference to Ireland’s topography and geology, and, on the other, a precise proposal for a unique urban settlement at Dublin’s Docklands.
The project is therefore simultaneously bonded to a primary natural condition and a refined civic ambition. But, most of all, the project takes an opportunity for reflecting on human life, its necessities, possibilities and wishes.I think their text speaks more about the project than their imagery.. what is going on in this cavernous space.. will it be secure?.. heated? controlled -i.e. no skateboarders – ? or is it just a hotel lobby, with them having left the furnishings out of their admittedly cool renders.
I agree, Phil. Personally, I think that the Ringsend flats are flawed, perhaps. But I’d never advocate their destruction in the interest of “putting something imaginative” there. They have Integrity and character. They are of Dublin and it’s past. The Ringsend Flats really do feel like they belong as part of the Docklands, which is more than can be said for most of the (decidedly) average, bland gated flats* which are being inserted into the Urban fabric.
With regards to the “Improvement” of the area, by removing the established community, however much you might dislike their existence in a “world class city quarter”, they are a part of this city just as much as anyone else, and there are families living there, IN THE CITY. This is what all Urbanists want and strive for. It is a stated objective of Dublin City Council. If you advocate the removal of these people, to be replaced by transient 1-2 bedroom apartments, then I strongly disagree with you.*In fairness, they could be a lot worse. They do ignore their context quite spectacularly, although this is probably as a result of Developer pressure, and the ineptitude of DDDA to Masterplan with any conviction.
Wow, great shot Radar. Very chic. You really get a sense of the scale from that angle. Didn’t realise how powerful the green strips were going to be but they’re pretty hot too. looking forward to checking this out. 😎
The last photograph shows the point at which the plane is supposed to extend into the water. While I agree that it could be a nice “feature”, I think it may have been economised out of the project. To be perfectly honest I don’t really think it is neccessary, as it offers little in terms of usability.. (Diving board?!)…
At the same time though, the paving hasn’t gone down there yet, so it may yet happen. I do have some photos of all the pylons/pillars lit up. I’ll endeavour to upload them in a few days.
The building on the left of the square continues to grow on me. The cladding/glazing shimmers interestingly no matter what the quality of light is, and it should act as an enticing backdrop to the pillars. A “Fresh” shop is opening in it sooner rather than later; That should help activate some of the space in and around the Basin, and not before time too.
Work is indeed progressing well, walked past the other day and loads of the posts are up, with their red cladding. They still look very “plastic” and sorta disney in a way, but will look very impressive lit up. The red resin landscaping and angular seats/planters are also coming along.
p.s.
These acupuncture sticks look familiar ? 😉
Ah yes, I remember it. Was almost like a country cottage. I think they were piling? when I walked past there the other day. They had one of those large, vertical drills anyway.
