ctesiphon
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Nice work again, Graham. I was never even aware of the almost perfect symmetry of that terrace- was it meant to be symmetrical / was it originally symmetrical? I can spot only a couple of variations between the two halves (roof urns and a couple of ‘missing’ windows to the north of the Savoy).
I walked up O’Connell Street on saturday night and for the first time ever I began to have a feel for the end result. I don’t mean this as either a compliment or a criticism, but it really did feel like a street in another city. It’s amazing how much the removal of the trees has changed the feel of the place. Surprisingly, it actually felt more enclosed than before, which was the opposite of what I was expecting- something to do with both sides being visible simultaneously?
One thing, though- it still looked like the aftermath of a kids party with all the rubbish. 🙁@Punchbowl wrote:
More ‘interesting’ than ugly?
Certainly not ugly. I’ve a great fondness for that whole Lombard Street West area (that is it, no?), much of which is based on the ‘variations on a theme’ feel of the different streets. The original buildings were subtly different, and many of them have been further altered with such features as this bay window. I wouldn’t usually argue from this point of view, but in the case of Portobello and environs I think it’s a cornerstone of the character of the area. (Though I could do with less PVC and aluminium, obviously. 🙂 )
If that’s your ‘hood, Punchbowl, you’re a lucky old so-and-so.@PDLL wrote:
This is scaremongering – high buildings DO NOT have to be ugly dystopias although perhaps given the social vision in Ireland this is probably what we would create.
Agreed that they don’t have to be ugly dystopias, PDLL, but scaremongering? I don’t think this is what the tall lobby is arguing for, nor is it what I’m arguing against- it’s really outside the terms of reference of this debate.
However, the thrust of a few of the messages in recent days on this thread has been that height is the answer to the densification problem, but for height to solve this, our simple rules of thumb such as plot ratio and open space requirements would have to be largely ignored. The type of development seen in the pictures is not the inevitable result, but it is a vision (the illogical conclusion?) of what unrestrained growth can lead to- the reductio ad absurdum we would do well to keep in mind.Also, I just wanted people to see the pictures, which are nothing short of staggering.
@Thomond Park wrote:
I remember the security guard in the IFSC they used to call ‘robogaurd’ he was a complete psycho when Lower Mayor Street was under cranes he’d jump out in front of tipper trucks stopping them to scream at them there was a three ton limit on Georges Dock and if he ever saw them again……..
Or the security guard in Meeting House Square who once told us not to move the benches with wheels? When we explained that the wheels were there to allow the beches to be moved, he told us to put the benches back in their original positions when we were finished… 🙂
(Apologies for off-topic reminiscence.)
Following a tip-off from saturday’s Guardian, I found this. Food for thought?
Linda- In essence, what I’m saying is that densification is the issue and I don’t see high rise as the answer. I won’t try and improve on Frank’s summary of the rationale or on Graham’s preferred strategy above.
PS I don’t mean to sound patronising, but if you’re going to hold a strong point of view, you just have to be prepared to defend it (and the tone of the defence is important too if you want to get your message across). Differences of opinion aren’t meant as personal attacks. It would be a dull site if we were all here just to confirm our prejudices and congratulate each other on our impeccable taste.
Now if you’ll excuse me, there’s a pint in town with my name on it and a half hour cycle between it and me, so I must away.
All this jumping between the ‘Dublin Skyline’ and ‘Point Village’ threads has me all dizzy of a friday evening. But the (ahem) more intelligent debate seems to be taking place here (so it’s obviously where I fit in best 😉 ).
It has been mentioned in passing by other posters, but it bears reiteration- tall buildings are generally uneconomical to build. Their positives are relatively few- international profile, landmark role (nothing to do with quality, I mean simply acting as a geographical landmark)- compared to their negatives. Further, their role in a city in providing residential accommodation is questionable, given the open space requirements, our national love affair with the private car (I’d love to believe it, but I can’t see ownership dropping appreciably just because we live closer together) which must be stored somewhere, etc. There is more of a case to be made for their use as office accommodation, but I wonder how we’d view them in 20 years when the office market has outgrown its suburbanisation phase and we’re all teleworking from our personal think-zones, and emails are automatically generated by our subconscious… Sorry, I’m getting carried away. But you get my thrust- would we be faced with the issue of what to do with all those obsolete towers?
What gets me is that there seems to be two camps arguing for height here- the densification lobby, with which I have a good deal of sympathy, and the ‘height-for-height’s-sake’ lobby, with which I have no sympathy.
Everybody that proposes skyscrapers here is being accused of wanting them just for the sake of it from what I can tell. I don’t want them just for the sake of it.
Linda- may I ask why you do want them, then?
Rjajc- I can’t agree that we should be trying to compete with the big world-players. An anecdote, if I may: a few years ago, when the Caravaggio ‘Taking of Christ’ was on display in the NGI, an American tourist was vox-popped on the radio for his opinion, and he said that while he liked the painting, he could see many more Caravaggios in Rome, and the same went for other artists who were far better represented in US galleries than they often were in their home countries. He said that the reason he visited national (and other) galleries in cities not renowned for their standing in international art circles was to see the art that local painters had painted, the kind of regional variations that, say, MOMA or the Met in NY can’t provide. He saw this regionalism as the very strength of these second tier galleries, rather than something to be ashamed of.
I think this has an application to the current debate. Dublin has a character peculiar to the city, as does Cork, Waterford, etc etc.- it can be seen even in the varieties of Georgain architecture they each have. However, it can’t be seen in the different tall buildings approved/proposed for each place. Anything that undermined the individuality of each should be resisted.
Two other things:
1) One of the things I liked most about Edinburgh when I lived there was the quality of the flats in the tenements buildings- ours had four bedrooms, two bathrooms, kitchen, sittingroom and small study, with 14 ft ceilings. There is nothing in Dublin remotely like them, more’s the pity.
2) Lexington:
in fairness to Cork City Council
Didn’t you mean “in fairness to Cork City Council, like“?
(Sorry, couldn’t resist. 😮 )
Don’t know the building, but if it’s a Protected Structure (as seems possible from the name) then the planning Authority (Cork CC?) has powers under the P&D Act 2000 to compel the owner (and/or occupier) to act, though if the matter is (ahem) only cosmetic then I’m not sure if those powers are all that applicable.
If it is in an Architectural Conservation Area or an Area of Special Planning Control, then similar provisions exist regardless of whether the building itself is a Protected Structure.Perhaps shame is the best weapon? (i.e. if the other buildings on the street show this one up in a bad light.)
@ShaneP wrote:
I would like to know if anyone could provide further inforamtion on this competition, ex.-
Has there ever been an Irish entry?
Is it possible to submit entries from non-participationg countries?
Why is Ireland not currently involved in the competion and how might this be changed?
Has the idea ever been discussed by the AAI, RIAI or the Department of the Environment?I was a member of a group that entered Europan 5 in 1999 or 2000. It was fun, but we didn’t get the scheme finished in time and it was a bit of a rush job in the end (only reason I can think of for our lack of success :rolleyes: ).
As far as I know, we entered through the UK as Ireland wasn’t a member.
One thing I do recall was that we needed our scheme ‘rubber stamped’ by a qualified architect as none of us were then qualified (and some of us weren’t even architects!). But sure all that’s in the regulations.Hope this helps a bit, and best of luck if you enter. It was great fun, and I think the more imagination that goes into your scheme the better- it is run by the Dutch after all.
@Paul Clerkin wrote:
For those not familia with this:
http://www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/dublin/islandbridge/drsteev.htmYou may remember it from the architectue definitive stamp series in the ’80s.
Paul,
I note you mention in the description the corner ‘brabazons’- should this be bartizans?
(Sorry to be a smartarse.)And where the hell is that!
Looks suspiciously like Pearse Street (or vicinity) in Dublin. Am I way off the mark?I’m pretty sure ‘soffit’ refers to most downward facing surfaces, i.e. the underside of a (usually) horizontal member.
(No giggling down the back!)Heard that item on the radio today too, Graham (and thought of you 🙂 ).
@Graham Hickey wrote:
There’s also hoopy brackets up there on the underside of the entablature (is there any less mouthful-like term for it?) probably left from 1988, positioned in the midst of the Greek scrolling, though pretty obscure all the same.
If it’s the underside of the entablature you’re referring to, it’s called the soffit. If it’s the hoopy brackets, then I’m as stumped as you are. 😉
What a great site!
I want one of those, mammy. (Preferably the rucksack house if you’re listening, Santa.)I’m a little confused- is it temporary buildings, or pavilion buildings used as ‘marketing suites’, or regular pavilions?
I’m thinking of the Casino at Marino, the Serpentine Gallery in London (Hyde Park?), the associated temporary pavilions at the Serpentine including structures by Libeskind, Ando and others, the pavilions in St Stephen’s Green, etc. Am I way off the mark?
What’s the reason for this request? It might help in answering.@Thomond Park wrote:
I believe that the intention of the design was to always have many people milling around this space, I do believe an Italian Piazza to be any less a Piazza just because there are not events on.
If that was the intention, then traffic should have been kept fully clear of the ‘plaza’ area. As it is, there’s hardly more than a few seconds at a time, at least during the day and evening, when the road is traffic free.
A better parallel to draw might be with the Ramblas in Barcelona, which has a very wide median, and very narrow traffic lanes either side- one to each side, I think. The kerb is higher than on O’Connell St, more clearly delineating the boundary between pedestrian area and traffic area. (Though come to think of it, don’t most pedestrians in Dublin just wander out at gaps in the traffic everywhere, not just where they think it’s sanctioned as with the almost flush footpath/road surfaces on O’Connell St?)
@Thomond Park wrote:
If it transpires that the central median of O’Connell St has simply replaced Car lanes with bicycle parking what will the point have been?
A small victory for cyclists!!! 😉 (Sorry, facetious I know, but I couldn’t resist. You are, of course, right TP.)
PS A clarification of my earlier post- when I said “The central part of the street in front of the GPO”, I didn’t mean the median. I meant the area bounded by the boxy trees, running the full width of the street. (Lest there be any confusion.)
@Paul Clerkin wrote:
A museum to Flann O’Brian in one of the underground toilets!
actually now i thinl of it – this is a good idea – in the toilets underneat Moore on Westmoreland St / College Street
Is this a reference to the gap in the hedgerow in ‘The Third Policeman’? Just wait until the trees are so overgrown that the jacks is hidden, then slip through an opening when nobody is looking! With any luck, it might even connect directly via a black hole to the bar stools in Bowe’s, and a pint with the man himself.
Those extracts come from the ‘Dublin Parking Bye-Laws, 1962’, on the Statute Book site. Are there others I’m not aware of?
You mention that “O’Connell Street is a Plaza”- I think I’d disagree. The central part of the street in front of the GPO has the potential to be used as a plaza, but under normal circumstances it is still a directional street, with traffic lanes, footpaths and pedestrian crossing points.
This is one of the problems (IMHO) with the O’Connell Street redesign, as has been mentioned before on this thread. People now seem to think that the GPO area is a pedestrian free-for-all and wander out from any point and at any time that is convenient for them, often with dangerous consequences. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve had to brake suddenly on my bike or swerve to avoid pedestrians ambling around the GPO section with nary a care for us poor self-propelled two-wheelers. 🙁
Perhaps there would be a case for introducing a bye-law concerning parking of bicycles when the GPO area is in use as a plaza , i.e. when pedestrians could be legitimately milling around that area. However, I would be wary of any measure that further reinforces the mistaken assumption that it’s a pedestrian priority zone at all times.@Thomond Park wrote:
I’m not so sure Morlan that it is legal, I’m sure if you scratch deep enough you’ll find a set of bye-laws that prohibits bicyle parking in undesignated spaces.
Perhaps I’ve yet to “scratch deep enough”, but from a cursory examination of parking bye laws in Dublin it would appear that what are known as ‘pedal bicycles’ are exempt from most provisions regarding parking in the city centre.
Go to http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZSI11Y1963.html and do a ‘CTRL + F’ for “cycle” to see what I’m getting at. A few examples:
4 —(4) (b): no vehicle (except a pedal bicycle) shall be parked in a parking place during the relevant hours for a continuous period which exceeds one hour
5.—(1) No person shall park a vehicle (other than a pedal bicycle) for any period during the relevant hours in any portion of a street mentioned in column (3) of Part I of the Third Schedule to these bye-laws.
6.—(1) No person shall park a vehicle (other than a pedal bicycle) for any period in any portion of a street mentioned in column (3) of Part II of the Third Schedule to these bye-laws
And especially:
11 —(1) (f) a pedal bicycle may be parked on a footway provided that it does not interfere with the free movement of pedestrians on the footway
____I wonder if it has something to do with the fact that cyclists are common law users of the road whereas motorists and motorcyclists are licenced road users?
It’s certainly not Palladian. At 1717, it would be too early by a handful of years, but stylistically it’s well outside the parameters- not symmetrical, naive detailing, etc. Queen Anne is close, but it also has echoes of that peculiar form of classicism prevalent in France in the 17th century- Jules Hardouin Mansart, Louis Le Vau, etc.
It can be “Queen Anne style” without being of the period too, remember; Ireland often had a time lag where architectural styles were concerned.
Proto-classical?
