Forum Replies Created
Its great!! One small niggle….is the steel blemished in places? I saw section 3 on it side yesterday and it seemed sort of blemished or pocked in places. Suppose that wont be visable from afar.
Does anyone agree that it could have been designed with a wider diameter at the base. The street could have taked a slightly bulkier base and still it could have tapered nicely. Just seems a bit narrow to me. Still , it has it beauty too! Roll on the lighting up ceremony. Im hoping to wake and find that they got all 6 sections up by morning.
What’s a ‘fizzbag rating’ ?! What a wonderful phrase…where does it come from?
Ir saddens me that some many buildings – indeed whole stretchs of streets, come to mind. Yes Hawkins House et al should be pulled down without delay or ceremony. I dont think even the most radical makeover could justify its existence at this stage.
Its equally sad that two great theatre music halls were torn down to accomodate these monstrosities in the early 1960s, the Theatre Royal & The Regal Rooms. (see Art Deco Ireland website). Just think what utility the city would get from these grand old entertainment venues in 2001..
Alas, we cannot live our lives in reverse….which is why forums like this should continue to criticise bad buildings. Look at the recently erected legoland profile along virtually the entire of Parnell Street. I have seen bemused tourists wandering up it after stumbling off O’Connell street. What a vivid , filthy picture it paints of bad inner city planning and social deprivation within a few paces of the city’s main throughfare [no great object of beauty either].
Also Pearse Street is a disappointing introduction to the City Centre from the south east and the recent redevelopment of the Fire Station together with the hideously oversized and grey Trinity Student Res at Westland Row, both conspire to confirm the architectural miscellany and banality of a once potentially attractive street. TCD have a lot to answer for since they have single-handedly deadened the life of the street by buying up virtually everything from Westland Row to College Street and turning the facades into sad, closed down victorian streetscape.
Smithfield and the HARP area in general – once promising plans are turning into more Zoe-Dev-like 4/5/6 storey pidgeon hole blocks that make the Glasgow of old look like Barcelona! No room from slender, attractive landmark tower there.
Temple Bar is increasingly looking like the BEST new thing to happen to Dublin in decades – think what you will about its commercial usage though.
Whoever owns the red&yellow brick making factories not to mention the uPVC (in all hues) window makers must be zillionaire
It may not shine over on the pavements on that side, in the shadlow of the buildings, but it shines on the river in late Spring/Summer.
~We’re not the best on visual symmetry here. Most of the vistas in the city are ruined by adjacent buildings, ususally of post 1950s construction. O’Connell Bridge House – that ruins the view of D’Olier/Westmoreland from O’Connell Street and is of a quality that wouldn’t be out of place in a south London industrial estate. The state sanctioned desecration of The Theatre Royal & Regal Rooms that gave us Hawkins House etc..
The mess that is the Civic Offices @ Wood Quay…..The absolute dross surrounding the Four Courts….most of the late ’80s/ early 90s ‘regeneration’ of the quays…not only the logoland apt blocks but things like the Statoil Station up near Guinnesses…..
I have walked the length of the Boardwalk twice in each direction. Overall I think its a welcome addition. However, I in common with other contributors to this forum, have reservations about certain aspects.
Those lights! Surely they wont last?! And the plywood joinings will hardly last the test of time. In fact, the overall impression is that the general materials used suggest that there could be a question mark over the longevity if the walk in its present form.
Its no Embankment and the dead Liffey is no Seine! But the boardwalk is a good attempt at imrovement. Lets hope they just improve IT over time.
Finally, wouldn’t it have been farsighted had they livened up the South Quays by building the Boardwalk on the other bank as well?
I hope the Liffey renaissance has a long way to go……
There appears to be preliminary site work in progress at the Archers site. I drove past there today, 15/09/00, and although I didn’t get a good look, I saw a crane in situ. Does anyone else have further details?
I think it is too early to judge the merits or not of the Smithfield Plaza ensemble. They shouldn’t have had the grand opening so soon after its initial completion because I think peoples’ expectations of this newly created area are a little high. So far, its all a little dull and grey. But it could change. The view from the Chimney shows that there’s little in the immediate area to hold peoples’ interest unless they live there or are interested in Whiskey distilling. I think it is petentially a very pleasant residential area; for the newly arrived ‘gentry’ that are buying the fancy apartments. Some civic ocassions could conceivably be given a good stage by Smithfield. Otherwise, its too far from the really central parts of the city, where we should be first concentrating regeneration project [from a civic perspective].
Secondly, I think the locals are enjoying the ability to object about “something” – high rise in this case. Its natural for a community to want a degree of power. They have been consulted little thus far about Smithfield. However, I dont think the planners are thinking of setting high rise precedants in the area. The one tower that is planned is very much a landmark – and will only have one apartment on each floor. I think they wont succeed in halting this. It is far too pretty and intrudes on very few.
Thirdly, College Green should be dug up, tunnels laid, and then totally pedestrianised. It would undoubtedly become the heart of Dublin and would complement O’Connell Street on the one hand and Stephens Green on the other.
The wigs in Trinners will repave the front square in green, white & orange cobbles before they remove the railings that
protects them from the marauding barbarians on the ‘College’ Green!!
Two left hands?! Whats wrong with being left-handed?
go back to the Stone Age, Barney.
There is no provision I know of to prevent people jumping over the railings, which are low. I f people want to jump, they can jump of any bridge over the Liffey, easily.
re: lofty’s remarks.
For starters, there’s no way that the RTE Mast at Montrose is anything like 120m (c.400ft) It looks to me to me more like about 200ft (c.60m)
Secondly, I cant believe the person who is small minded enough to seriously perpetuate the ‘northside/southside’ crap in relation to the Spire or anything else for that matter.
To that kind of person I would say , get out more, stop being so petty. See the world. See that Ireland is TINY and therefore to talk of this psychological divide that is the pissy Liffey is only laughable. True, it makes for good natured humourfor locals but it should end there and not enter a reasonably serious forum like this.
The fact tat hte building is there at all is a pity – not because the building is in itself bad, but because its so totally out of place there that it ruins the view in all directions.
Whoever gave that permission originally if still alive should be shot!July 18, 2000 at 2:08 am in reply to: The Abbey Theatre – should it stay or should it go #717714
For viitors to this site who have not been to this building:
The Abbey as seen from the corner of Abbey St. looking down Marlborough St.
Cross section plan from front to rear of building.
Frontal view from Marlborough St.
The old Abbey, before the 1951 inferno.July 18, 2000 at 1:46 am in reply to: The Abbey Theatre – should it stay or should it go #717713
I must say that if the interior of the Abbey was better, more spacious and less cinema-like, then the poor exterior could be accepted. However, the whole thing is not at all what a National Theatre should be. It would be impressive if it was of the rank of a small independent theatre company or a town hall or municipal theatre, but as the country’s most important venue for staging Drama, it falls short of its players’ reputation.
Ive spent many pleasant, often memorable nights in the current Abbey & Peacock and would be slightly sad to see it go. But I would prefer that it was totally rebuilt on an enlarged site, for the sake of national pride and the fostering of Dramatic Arts. The current edifice seems to have no lasting architectural importance.
If, as it is said, The bridge is a List 1 structure, then it is a scandal that there are plans to alter it AT ALL.
The conservation work that took place at the Botanic Garden’s Curvlinear Range re-used the same iron. They just stripped the rust and reconditioned it.
If that’s what they’re planning for the Hapenny Bridge, then fine. Its long overdue. Anything more than that (and maybe the removal of the horrible tarmac surface) and there should be public lynchings of those responsible for whatever outrageous renovations carried out.
Socialism isn’t too successful at producing great cities.
You really dont need any replies – as you have already got all of the answers, it seems.
Clearly, you are anti high rise for Dublin. Full stop. There is little point in me going on for pages about why I think you are wrong. You & I are diametrically opposed on this one it seems.
I will try to get a life, maybe I’ll put it on my New Year’s 2001 resolution list.
This is the problem with online forums. People are attacked for expressing their legitimately held opinions. However, I can’t say that anything you said has had a altering impact on mine.
I am not an architect. I didn’t think you had to be to one comment on architecture. I attended much of the Spencer Dock hearings and closely followed the Georges’ Quay hearing through an architect friend who did attend it.
I do not know your architectural pedigree so I shall not comment on your opinion of high rise in Dubllin only to say that it superficially at least, doesn’t seem to be like mine. I have been a keen observer and enjoyer of architecture (very little of the latter in Ireland of the 1960’s -> ) for many years, and I do feel entitled to voice my opinion; that is pro high-rise in this city in certain areas. I basically feel that it will mainly have the aesthetic effect of adding some interest and vertical emphasis to the skyscapes of “wincingly” banal areas of our skyline, that would barely do justice to the most depressed post-industrial town in Northern England.
The DDDA makes me laugh when it talks about the uniformity of height in its latest Docklands scheme. God, who says small minded insular, aesthetically ignorant Ireland is gone? It isn’t.
One point I half agree with is when you talk about the developer led market that currently prevails. I feel that this scenario has a far more adverse effect on mainly residential developments [as in “legoland yellow brick squat apt. blocks”] and in the suburbs than it does on landmark mixed use schemes, which whether they are subjectively or objectively liked or disliked by people like you and me, tend to be comprehensively thought-out and thier plans properly vetted by the “authorities” (not that they prove to be authorites on much at the moment!). Maybe its a neccessary evil. If there weren’t the big developers, who would produce our Eutopian planned City? Its basic Supply and Demand Stuff.
By the by, I hope this message in response to yours, is in no way offensive to you personally. I do not know you nor you me, and there’s nothing worse than being insulted by strangers on this wholly impersonal world wide web.
I think they were going to do something a few years ago on it but abandoned it on cost grounds. It would be a great anchor feature for the brewery and would definately become again an improtant landmark. Hows about a lobby group from this site to at least see if Guinness are or would consider it for the greater good. Not that a commercial organisation is likely to care about architecture.
Just what is this City’s problem with regard to high rise?
For sure, they shouldn’t build skyscrapers alongside low rise heritage sites, but what’s the betting that the residents of Ringsend & Sandymount etc.. with get a bee in their bonnets about this tower (no doubt because their view of the dock cranes and twin chimneys at poolbeg will be interrupted!)
Budding schemes like this are often reported in the news media, but only a handful seem to get past An Bord Planala or the High Court or whatever the anti-high rise lobby / local cranks / An Taisce / ……employ to squash such plans.
Look at what is being inflicted on Dublin at the back of George’s Quay? And they call that good architecture? Hmmm. The SOM design was far superior (going by model comparison).
On a more general rant, I have never seen another city like this one, that objects to quality schemes like the ones above, and then allow tons of those awful legoland yellow brick squat apt. blocks (who were obviously built by savages who didn’t even know what the word architect meant). Not to mention a city whose planners have about as much idea of cohesiveness of design (the redeveloped quays, par exemple) as a melting Mars bar.