-Donnacha-
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
there were 2 excellent theses done on that site by Bolton St. students this year – one was, as previously mentioned, a monastery and the other was a music school.
What do people have against the new “cool chic cafe-bars.” I understand that the destruction of some older, traditional pubs in Dublin and everywhere else to make way for something completely different is worthy of concern. However, what type of establishments would people prefer to see being built from scratch? or in converted buildings, not previously pubs? Theme bars that create authentic Oirish atmospheres?
James, all i was doing was engaging you on some of your arguments, by offering an opinion. As for your comment about the futility of using a site such as this for debate, it is only a forum for discussion in which views are exchanged and people learn etc.In relation to the ‘locals’ debate. Often, established residents assume their opinions ooutweigh blow-ins and outsiders, while, in fact, every resident in a particular area is a citizen with equal rights. A person living in Smithfield for 2 years, for example, has the very same rights as someone resident there for ten. In addition, I saw a newspaper article about a man in Cork County complaining about the fact that he was refused planning for a house extension, and was baffled because neighbours on both sides had received permission in recent years. The reason he was so vexed was because one was Chinese, the other Italian. The Examiner obviously sympathised by giving him this platform. Now, James can u see anything worrying about that at all? On a general level, residents often tend to, conveniently fall into a role of victimhood and siege. Cites are not fixed ‘things’, they are a process of continual change, urbanity is about community, not selfishness and narrow concerns.
To James,in relation to your first post.
1. High rise can facilitate higher densities. Why do C.B.D.s usually attract higher buildings? Demand is higher, values and costs increase, skyscrapers accommodate more users in same space, cost effectiveness and economies of scale.
2. You suggest to Greg that he should apply to UCD or Bolton Street so he can be educated in architecture. Presumably, (and I do recognise your sarcasm)those without architectural qualifications should refrain in commenting about such matters. Perhaps, according to this logic the ‘locals’ should automatically do the same.
3 Although An Taisce has a very important role to play in conservation and architectural heritage, it also appears to be the best line of defence against ‘good’ development in this country.
“Collaborative Planning-Shaping Places in Fragmented Spaces” by Patsy Healey, published by Macmillan, 1997. in the Planning-Environment-Cities series.
This develops the communicative-collaborative planning model and reflects new institutional realities of contemporary society.To original question,would it have anything to do with people’s perception of high rise and living conditions? For example, the two most famous “high rises” in Ireland are Ballymun in Dublin and Blackpool in Cork City, both were badly planned, hastily erected and short term solutions to a housing shortage. People, in Ireland automatically seem to associate height with negative social consequences. The argument often put forward is that new high rises will become the slums of the future, the usual scare tactics. In addition, high rise developments often mean apartment development, which many people object to on the basis that they do not correspond to the provisiontraditional, family oriented social structures. Although it is ludicrous to suggest that the destruction of the family unit is in any way associated with apartment life, people readily associate it with modernity and all things evil. I know this is only one of many factors, however I do believe that it influences some people’s opinio
i totally agree with greg f…im not an architect (musician)but i can tell you some major bum notes are being played out in dublin city!! whats with all this conservatisim? where are the ideas? it just seems so depressingly backward .ive lived in many countries but this one(im irish)is, despite “celtic boom” still a developing nation with a serious famine mentality within its decision makers.
you only have to look at how dart stations are signposted on the platforms!..two small signs on each platform indicating the station name….half the punters on board cant see the sign(if its night time forget it!) ..this is an example of a monoculture in action…completely inward looking
dont get me started on the roads!what are they thinking? third world style signposting?
residental architecture in ireland is got to be a joke? …i live on the coast road to howth and fail to see any house which even nods to the sea in its design.houses are being demolished and rebuilt in the same fuddy duddy style as before…..lots of bedrooms please !!space? whats that?youre WEIRD!!!…anyway i live in hope ..maybe as more people travel and are exposed to inspiring buildings they will commission new projects from up comming irish architects
keep the faithCork, will shortly face a similar dilemma being experienced in Dublin at present i.e. that of the need for taller buildings/high densities v’s local’s, An Taisce’s fears and so on. Some people here are quick off the mark, and probably have protest posters printed already. For example, Urban Initiatives are engaged in A Building Heights study for Cork City and are creating a strategy for the city’s docklands, the only significant city centre site which remains undeveloped. Cork, due to its land shortage needs higher buildings..fact. However, I hope it can learn from the mistakes in Dublin..but I doubt it. I read an article by Jo Kerrigan last week (in the Examiner)who was trying to rally locals into protest…about projects that are only at a conceptual stage presently, the Green Party recently recommended that no new buildings in the city should be over THREE storeys! This is the situation architects and planners have to face, a society so pathetically opposed to anything innovative, that we have the most mundane cityscapes in Europe. Did people protest and complain when other tall buildings were constructed in the city eg. St. Finbarr’s Cathedral, Shandon etc. They were courageous, unusual, TALL, higher than surrounding buildings etc. Today, they are treasured. Are we more conservative now than we were 100 years ago? Local authority planning departments and Bord Pleanala should be encouraging height and adding floors to proposed schemes, not the opposite. Anyway, Cork’s situation will be interesting in the next few years, and could shape the city’s morphology for a long time afterwards. Also, I do believe that in Dublin, An Taisce is letting the city, and its people down, and so called ‘planners’ in that body should think about what they are really doing to a city with so much potential. People are right to be angry about it. Perhaps we should petition An Taisce to call for a reduction in height of old churches cathedrals etc. because they impede our views of the suburbs.
This decision confirms that the policy of An Bord Pleanala remains committed to low-rise, suburban sprawl out of Dublin. How long more can this near-sighted, gutless policy be condoned. Even from a design perspective, which is less appealling, the proposed Smithfield tower, or the inevitable swarm of semi-d’s in the country? Does An Taisce have anything to say about what implications low-density, low rise will have, it means more cars, pollution, traffic congestion, ineffective public transport etc. An Taisce, An Bord Pleanala, I firmly believe, will one day be exposed for these HUGE failures. Do we want an American or European urban model? L.A. or Barcelona? Take your pick.
if you go to somewhere beautiful like the lake district in england youll see how ireland would have been without bungalow blight, what a shame
Yes, Dublin should be the source of pride for every person in this country, as our capital city and should also as our ‘representative’, internationally. But, I always wonder why there is such a panic about ‘having the tallest building’. Greg F., you ask the question..”Dublin should have the tallest building, Why not?” But you fail to say Why? In addition, I believe that the reason that people outside Dublin who criticise the ‘bias’ that Dublin is shown in terms of investment etc. are not merely jealous or typically anti- Dublin. Dublin is a primate city, the most extreme case in Europe. Primacy is a problem, which can be disastrous. The overdevelopment of Dublin, outwards, in a continious low-density suburb is a negative for national development and for Dublin, and is one of the least- planned capital cities in Europe, Athens aside. The French realised that primacy would stifle national development, as did Denmark…and resultingly introduced balanced regional development strategies. Great ‘second’ cities in Europe like Barcelona, and Lyon didn’t sit passively by, as Madrid and Paris dominated national development. Limerick, Cork shouldn’t either. For Dublin to say no to investment and development from time to time will not only be beneficial to the ‘provincial’ cities, it will benefit Dublin too. Greg F. the population of Ireland is presently approx. 3.8 million, Dublin does not have 1.9 million yet, even if you include satellite towns in Kildare, Meath, Wicklow, Louth. p.s. as a ‘provincial, I am (and want to be) proud of Dublin, but I also want to hold the same pride in relation to our other cities. Apologies for the scattered reply.
much better than carphone warehouse, and most eircell stores anyhow. But our streets are overloaded with phone shops presently, and I’m just wondering, how many will remain in 5 or 6 years time?
Andy,
excellent reply,thanks… however the ‘insecurity’ topic- i was addressing that, not at you as an individual, but at what I considered as a general attitude towards Dublin’s architecture. It was not a personal remark.Andy, why should anyone from Dublin feel the need to ‘have’ a building to ‘outstrip Cork and Belfast in terms of “vitality, confidence and prosperity.” Honestly, the fact that those two cities contain buildings that are taller than any of the capitals should not generate a feverish attempt to throw something up. Does a city hold pride by having taller buildings, just for the sake of it…how about having buildings of high design quality, architectural merit, beauty, whether they be high or low? I agree that Dublin probably should be witnessing the construction of much taller buildings, but for reasons aside from because the ‘regional’cities are embarrassing us etc. Build them because they will look good, inspire, accommodate people and jobs. Dublin’s tallest (Liberty hall)was an attempt to introduce height to the city for sake’s sake and I think it is one of the most boring buildings I have seen. Dublin’s vitality and confidence will not emerge from it casting jealous eyes elsewhere or by half- hearted efforts to make statements that supposedly re-affirm its status.Nothing has to be “proven”, where is the insecurity comiong from?
[This message has been edited by bunch (edited 09 March 2001).]
Marx, I honestly think that we are a lot dirtier than other Europeans. Its a wider attitude to waste where we are going wrong. People often believe that if one has an item to dispose of in a city street and no litter bin is convenient, that we are then entitled to leave it on the ground. we should bring it home, and stop pointing fingers. I also believe that the argument that its a tiny minority who create the huge litter problem is pretty outdated. Dublin is a dirty city..extremely dirty, it has a reputation amongst tourists as being filthy, the cause of that problem are those who do it. not those who fail to pick it up.Cop on.
A small minority throw their rubbish on the street, most people put it in a bin! Observe people in the city centre and you’ll see that very few litter the street, thus, why do we see so much dirt? Because the Corpo don’t clean up properly – the job is always half finished or the “it will do attitude”, which IS very Irish. I don’t believe we are dirtier than our European neighbours.
PS: ….THE STREETS WILL BE SPOTLESS UNDER SOCIALISM!
In relation to the points about personal taste and planning.Planners are not architects, and do not receive training in any ‘architectural sense’.This does not automatically mean that planners are tasteless either. The poor standards of architecture particularly along much of Dublin’s quayside, are as much a reflection on the standards in the architectural profession in Ireland as anything else.However, I think that it is pointless to start blaming individual groups of people, when in fact, it is the fault of a whole system that encourages and permits blandness, mediocrity and underwhelming architectural standards. For example, the time- limitations attached to tax concessions in Designateed Areas since 1986 resulted in hasty planning decisions being made, and in consideration of the economic climate at that time, it is understandable that attracting private capital to the inner city took priority over design standards.These urban renewal programmes were introduced by the Dept. of the Environment with a sense of urgency. Today however we have a radically different situation, there is intense competition for space and that should ensure higher standards.While taste is not the privilege of a select few, high urban design standards should be enforced as much as possible. In relation to considerations of local’s opinions. If local people appear to be automatic in their opposition to anything unusual, tall, or striking it reflects poorly on planners, and architects alike. The merits and attractions of ambitious developments need to be demonstrated to ‘Locals’. They need to be given evidence from other European cities, e.g. educate people that high density does not equal congestion and/or deprivation and that it can have very positive environmental, and social effects, that uniformity is not ‘good’ in terms of urban design, and that ambitious architecture should be encouraged whenever possible. In any case, these last few points…i hope do not come across as being condescending or patronising, if they do it is not the intention and means that i could have presented them more effectively.
Here we go again, the public are not at fault for the litter problem. We are not a dirty nation. It is the Corpo’s fault! Marx, cop on a bit. That attitude has excused our dirty ways for a long time. While u are correct in what u say about management and resources, but imagine if people in our cities began to realise that they don’t have a god- given right to dump where ever they like, the task of keeping the cities clean would be easier, less expensive. Our local authorities have many many better things to do than wasting huge monies and man hours, on picking up our litter. I’ll ask u one question Marx. Honestly, who is at fault for Dublin’s, Cork’s, Limerick’s litter problem……is it really the ‘authorities’ or the public?? Your first message seems like a bit of a cop- out that’s all, and it excuses the public from any responsibilty whatsoever. Does every European city really create the same volume of public litter that we do? I don’t think so.
[This message has been edited by bunch (edited 22 February 2001).]
