ctesiphon
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
A for me too.
But why isn’t Grafton Street even under consideration? Its omission is even more glaring looking at those maps. The shortest, straightest route is the only one not illustrated.@PDLL wrote:
The beauty of postmodernism is the difficulty in defining it – it is as slippery as an eel. I know in the world of literary, visual and musical arts, postmodernism does not necessarily involve any reference to classicism per se. Rather, it involves a rejection of master narratives (unlike modernism and victorianism) and a sense of frustration at the difficulty of ‘coming up’ with something new. To that end, it revels in re-hashing the past, in juxtaposing styles that may or may not sit comfortably together (consider, for example, the drawing together of different musical traditions and cultural images in Madonna’s new hit ‘Hung-up’). From my understanding of the issue, in architecture that can involve the sowing together of different architectural and cultural referents and artefacts, some of which can have an explicit connection with the architectural traditions of the local area but are not necessarily informed by any concept of classicism. :confused:
Replace the word ‘classicism’ in my last post with the word ‘architecture’- it’s what I meant originally anyway (the classicism thing was with reference to Mannerism).
I agree with you about the distinction being that between accident and design. Postmodernim relies on the knowing bending of rules or accretion of features of various periods, rather than on inadvertent juxtaposition and unintended deviation. That was why I disputed the Galway building’s credentials.
I’d also agree with the ‘frustration’ argument, but not with the rejection of master narratives. Or rather, postmodernists may claim to be rejecting master narratives but even in such a claim they are partly embracing them. Or did you mean that they are rejecting the concept of a master narrative? which I think is fairly true.One other thing- I don’t see Madonna as postmodern. Desperate, yes]art[/I] in her appropriation. So I think the point you make is a good one, but the artist you use to illustrate it is a bit wide of the mark.
*runs to google “Hickey’s Lounge Bar” and “Louth”*
At least someone knows where they are, someone with a bit of… influence. 🙂
Aside from schools, of which there are quite a few, the only other academic institution I can think of in the area is the Milltown Theology place opposite the top of Belmont Avenue. Hardly the makings of a new academic zone? :rolleyes:
Yup- that’s the shop I saw. A lovely corner of the town indeed. Thanks for the pics.
Still not sure what the family connection is to the shop. I was just talking to my mother and asked her if her brother had a shoe shop in Dundalk. He’s the last of the family in the shoe business and has a couple in Dublin that I know of, but she wasn’t sure about any further afield. The name would suggest a connection (it’s mammy’s maiden name- of good Monaghan stock!), but she thought either that it might once have been in the family from my grandfather’s time when they had shops in quite a few towns around the country (though the lettering looks far too recent), or that it could be a cousin who runs it, though we’ve no Dundalk relations that I can think of. I should just go in and try to get a discount- I’d find out pretty fast if there’s any connection. 🙂
I’m intrigued by those glass screens. I’d like to think they’re somewhere safe, but chances are they’re tarting up a pub somewhere. You seem reluctant to divulge…
There’s an office block on Mount Street (Lower or Upper? The non-Peppercanister one) by Andrzej Wejchert that is undeniably Postmodern, a term I understand as being close to Mannerism (Italian 16th century version), in that it is playful and ironic and depends on a basic familiarity with the ‘rules’ of classicism. This building has columns flanking the main entrance that support no pediment or entablature, and a cutstone arch that is missing its keystone, to name two features. I actually quite like it though I’m not usually a fan of Postmodernism, but I know it’s not universally admired.
It’s opposite one of those horrible pubs (Howl at the Moon?) near the Merrion Square end of the street.I’m not sure if I’d class the Galway Crystal place as pomo- I always thought it was trying to be the real deal of classicism and failing miserably rather than having any jokey classical allusions incorporated. Not so much tongue-in-cheek as tongue-hanging-out.
Got lost in Dundalk last night having taken the wrong exit off the M1, but it was a good opportunity to see some of the recent developments and older buildings in the town (though we didn’t see The Marshes!).
Quick question for Graham:
You mentioned above the Carroll’s buildings: “the old factory on Clanbrassil St, and its striking Edwardian office building there too.” We passed a building with a fairly elaborate shopfront and the Carroll’s cipher 🙂 over the door, which is now a shoe shop- was that the office building to which you refer? Part of the reason I ask is that I think the shoe-shop owner is related to me.One other thing- we were in town for a gig in the Spirit Store, and I just wanted to say, what a great pub, venue and location. I knew it was on the quays, but had an image of urban quays a la Waterford or New Ross, not a working fishing quay with boats and mud flats. Should have brought my concertina for the sea shanties. 😉
Without wishing to go further off topic:
The main reason for the divergence in UCD between the original plan and the current layout was the termination of Andrzej Wejchert’s contract as coordinating counsultant for the whole plan around 1985. His original plan was for a dense, almost urban development with buildings ‘plugging in’ along the pedestrian mall over time, with each building being no more than a ten minute walk from the others.
In the 1980s, in addition to waving goodbye to Wejchert, UCD bought Roebuck Castle (now the Law faculty) and Richview (Architecture) on the perimeter of the campus, effectively burying any thought of placing those faculties within the main campus. Then benefactors and the college admin combined to place such facilities as the Biotechnology building (and latterly the whole ‘Life Sciences’ area) away from the main centre. This was at least in part driven by private finance and the desire to keep the ‘research’ elements separate with their own entrance. The worst offender, though, must be the O’Reilly Hall- not a bad building, but located on the only large piece of green in the heart of the campus- akin to putting a hotel on St Stephen’s Green. Now we have a campus that is almost as dispersed as the suburban area it calls home, with the areas not occupied by buildings now covered by surface car parking.
I still think much of the campus is a success in planning and layout terms, though- it must be one of the few developments from the 1960s (British New Towns, Toulouse-le-Mirail by Candilis, Josic and Woods [recently in the news because of the French riots], etc.) where the separation of man and motor was achieved successfully, mainly because critical mass of pedestrians was pursued and maintained.There was an interesting booklet published by the Tuairim group in the 1960s that assessed the possibility of the college remaining in the city centre and it makes a very strong case for this. UCD’s move to the suburbs not only robbed the city of an academic axis (as pointed out in the Irish Times letter last week, referred to above), but also paved the way for other institutions such as Alexandra College and Wesley College, to name only two, to move. How different our city would have been with two central universities and substantially more schoolkids, not to mention the residents that might otherwise have stayed.
If that doesn’t make an argument for keeping NCAD in town (to get back on topic 😮 ) I don’t know what would.
I don’t think it’s a matter of persuasion. There is a very real fear among civil servants (even allowing for union hyperbole) that the ones who choose to move will be sidelined in promotion competitions etc, and that a two-tier system will evolve.
Also, many civil servants are not originally from Dublin but moved here to take up their jobs and have since put down roots in the city (or, in most cases, its hinterland, due to house prices, pay scales etc- I used to work with them). In addition, there is no guarantee that a worker would be ‘decentralised’ to a location near their original home, and anyone who has ever tried to get the train from Cork to Galway knows what a futile exercise it is. At least in Dublin, they are usually only one journey from home (getting home for the weekend is still very much a feature of life for many younger civil servants). Only when we have a decent nationwide public transport system should such a policy be considered.
However, I also think it’s fundamentally flawed, as it runs counter to the National Spatial Strategy, which at least had the merit of being based on planning rationale (hubs, gateways etc.) rather than vote-getting potential as with ‘decentralisation’.
In other words, ‘Decentralisation’ is a politically motivated shambles that should be put to bed forever, but the current govt is too stubborn to do so, and it will ultimately be shooting itself in the foot if it tries to force the workers to comply. And the longer it goes on, the worse it gets, as regional towns are experiencing a development boom driven partly by their expectations of the influx, so in 10 or so years we’ll have a glut of unlettable office space and three-bed semis scarring towns that should never have been duped into a rosy, Parlon-flavoured future.PS Decentralisation is a misnomer- technically it means the decentralisation of power to the regions, which is categorically not a feature of this proposal.
As one of the main movers behind the foundation of the Project Arts Centre, and as one of the instigators of the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage (and more generally the Dept of Arts Culture and the Gaeltacht, as was) in his capacity as advisor to Michael D Higgins, Colm O’Briain has had a very positive impact on the fabric of Dublin and on the wider built environment field. If true, it’s a pity he’s decided to nail his colours to this particular mast.
I can’t see how it would benefit NCAD in any way other than financial (assuming they own the Thomas St buildings), though the last time I was up there for the end of year show in June I was struck by just how overcrowded the buildings were, confirmed by friends who are studying there or have studied there in the last few years. Perhaps they can’t afford to expand on the site?One other point, slightly off topic- I’m a fan of much of the UCD campus, mainly the original Wejchert scheme. The problems with the campus layout today stem from a combination of administrative ignorance and benefactors’ pride (“Here’s a million quid, as long as I can choose the site.”). Although I agree that it should never have moved from the city centre in the first place- President Tierney and his fear of the Protestant sphere of influence (see The Destruction of Dublin for detail).
Here’s hoping the NCAD administration sees sense.
Oh I don’t know PDLL- I’d take the smell of the brewery over the smell of manure any day. I know very few people who find the smell unappealing, though I do know one person who disliked it so much he moved to London.
As for Guinness’s reasons for not developing, I haven’t the faintest idea. Perhaps there was little incentive in the days of development doldrums, and then when land values started to shoot up they decided to sit and wait. It must still be rising in that area, I’d have thought.Lex,
There seems to be a strip of land about the width of the Liffey immediately behind the boundary (see the google map above) that is ripe for development, moreso when you consider that the traffic will eventually be reduced along this stretch (see Devin’s DCC extract) and the trucks that park there routinely will be removed. No doubt this strip could be widened if the site layout were to be rationalised internally; quite possible as most of the noteworthy buildings are further up the hill.
There could be a problem with views southward over the industrial land, but this might be offset by the sunshine. 🙂
I’d also like to see more of a plaza created in front of Heuston Stn- some sort of square through which runs the Luas rather than the messy junction that currently occupies the ground.
There could be an argument on the quayfront for buildings higher than the standard quayside 4 storeys too, though I’m not suggesting towers! And this would be subject to their deference to the setting of the station itself. Any shadow would be cast over the river, and they’d have the benefit of views over the Croppy Acre.
If not privately developed for mixed use, I see no reason why Guinness couldn’t build a decent hotel instead- it would be close to different modes of transport and the range of amenities in the western part of the city- their own Storehouse (number 1 in the league), IMMA, Kilmainham Gaol, Collins Barracks, Phoenix Park, etc.
This is all off the top of my head though and it’s a year since I last walked that stretch of the quays. Another visit might make me think differently…EDIT: I’ve just remembered a development in Cork (no doubt you’re familiar!) that won some sort of prize last year, where a series of buildings (3-4 storey?) was set almost perpendicular to the river with higher ones behind. Something like that might work, though I think the Cork site was deeper and shorter (i.e. not as elongated as the Guinness strip).
Do you know the one I’m thinking of?So that’s why you took the apartment opposite Heuston Station, Paul. 🙂
I agree that the brewery is part of the fabric of the city and I too wouldn’t like to see it gone, but I think its physical effect on the quays is pretty powerful and depressing. Perhaps there could be a case for building along the perimeter (which seems to be used predominantly as parking from what I can see from the bus), thereby preserving the historical land use, the smell and the key industrial buildings while humanising the quayfront elevation (incorporating the aforementioned little house, obviously)?
EDIT: Cross-post with jimg re the quayfront strip- great minds etc.
I believe Guinness considered such a move within the last couple of years but decided against it. I don’t know what the company’s rationale for its decision was. It’s a pity as you say, as that stretch of the quays is one of the bleakest of the whole stretch (except for the funny little ‘house’ set into the boundary wall), not to mention the dead canyon of Steeven’s Lane. I’d be of the opinion that it should be apartments or mixed-use rather than exclusively offices, though, and I’m not sure I’d agree that all of the industrial buildings are ugly- some of them have a stark functional beauty that I’d like to see incorporated into any future scheme (though it’s a moot point at this stage).
EDIT: This link was posted on archiseek back in August. Don’t know if you saw it, but they’ve obviously been thinking along the same lines.
http://www.udi.ie/osud/00003/index.htmlDo you know who prepared the conservation report, publicrealm?
However subjective taste may be, I would have thought architectural merit was a measure more objective. 😉At the risk of inviting ill-informed opinion from the anti-conservation brigade, I think there’s an argument for ‘protecting’ new builds, whether in the form of a ‘closure’ rule whereby no changes can be made for, say, 10 or 20 years, or in the form of providing a selection of options (designed by the original architect) from which owners can choose their replacements. In the latter case, personalisation – an critical right for the image-conscious society in which we live, where many now see their exteriors as reflective of their interiors (both architecturally and personally- jeez, I’m sounding awfully like Richard Sennett now!) – would be facilitated within design parameters, while an element of overall design cohesion would be retained.
I’ve always had a hard time understanding why people buy houses they don’t like and then spend big sums remaking them in their own image, even when choice was more of a feature than it now is in today’s ‘wherever I can afford’ culture. Is it location and, by extension, status? The price of former local authority houses in Dalkey would tell you as much, as would the existence of Dublin 6W, as would the recent argument about the apartments in Swords/Malahide. But I digress…
Ultimately, this argument comes down to a) aesthetics, as there is no environmental reason on earth why someone would use pvc over timber, and b) a discussion on where we draw the line between the right of an owner to private property and the right of the general public to an inoffensive public realm (i.e. the duty of an owner towards their neighbours). But this is Ireland, and me feinism will usually win the day.For the record, the ‘quote’ above is a compilation of segments of various posts of mine cobbled together by garethace. (Although it still reads better than many posts on this forum.)
Other than that, I don’t think I’ve anything to say on this one. Anyone else? Any of the ‘instrumentalist’ contingent? Come on, you know who you are…@Devin wrote:
ctesiphon, there doesn’t seem to be any record of the architect.
Thanks for that, Devin.
Your sweeping generalisations and deep character analysis make it hard for me to keep my word on holding my tongue.
Which “certain kind of ‘design environment’,” have I grown up in now?
And what are the “patterns and thinking” of which I have absorbed too much?
At a guess, I suspect I have more design training and familiarity with the architectural side (as you see it) than many architects working today. Also, my suggestions come from first-hand experience of the planning consultancy side rather than from any ‘design environment’ as you might believe.I can’t even really dispute your forking argument as I disagree fundamentally with your characterisation of planning as some sort of ‘code’. As I said before on the thread you linked above, it’s not simply a mechanistic button-pushing, number-crunching exercise.
Also, I have “grown up in a tradition where the traditions got split”? Meaning they were once as one? Whatever similarities either profession has or had to some 19th century ideal, such a romantic notion has long since passed into history.I’m not arguing that we should have infinite sub-groups in a Babel-like cacophony. You seem to think that I’m putting this option forward only to further fragment the built environment field(s), whereas the point I made above was to do with the removal of some key tasks from biased actors, nothing more than that (a bias that would be more common in a world that lacked the necessary professional separation, IMHO).
It is possible for different professions to have different areas of expertise but still to be able to communicate effectively with each other. Doctors and nurses, drivers and mechanics, solicitors and barristers to name just some off the top of my head.I find it oddd that, on the one hand, you extol the virtues of efficiency, while on the other hand you seem wedded to the anti-specialisation argument. Don’t you see this as contradictory?
Have you checked the Development Plan?
http://www.sdublincoco.ie/index.aspx?pageid=1000
