-Donnacha-
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Good idea.Dara. I heard recently about a proposal by U.C.C. to build a ‘green’ building in Cork somewhere, near the new marine college. Keep my eyes open on that.
who is to say that a Gehry building is environmentally unfriendly???
Unsustainable development is unused and
short lived development wasting resources
because of continual redevelopment.Gehry’s buildings are if anything over used
and are designed to last!!!thanks Paul for the picture of the Duffy site. I notice the artists impression tells
a few lies about the shadows cast onto
Smithfield. The lamp standards themselves cast shadows half way up the Smithfield village before sunset so imagination what these 6-8 storey blocks might do???Gehry has recently finished a building in Berlin at postdamer platz. It had to hanker to all the berlin planning requirements and yet it is another piece of remarkable architecture. This time the contrast is with the exterior vs the interior. Gehry himself
claims its one of his best buildings. Maybe there an element of bad tradesmen blaming their tools here????I have been to the Gugenheim in Bilbao and the first thing one has to notice is first the appalling ugliness of the city of Bilbao and the one single jewel in the middle bending over backwards to sparkle in the
sun. Gehry is the master of contrast. Mimics
have being trying to copy his antics further down the road with ridiculous results. Gehry to my mind is a virtuoso architect with a great imaginantion for both interior and exterior space. The museum is similar to a great gothic cathedral but with the added element of surprise. I found the building despite cul de sac type planning functions very well. The gallery spaces were varied and the exhibits felt at home in the building. One observation about some architects work is the attention to toilet design. Richard Murphy puts all his effort sometimes in proving the toilets are exciting. Gehry is better than this. The toilets were quality but not expensive. The exterior of the building is quite remarkable but the landscaping is a little crude. The building is adjacent a river but he still included outrageously dramatic reflecting lakes. Its over the top in ways but it leaves a very strong memory imprint.On a more particular note and to be more specific, who do we consider,be it Irish or
International to have an approach to architecture with the type of charge and energy befitting Dublin if in an ideal world the planners were not even an issue????
A formualaic Richard Meier, Scot Tallon Walker or a more flamboyant Zaha Hadid, Gehry,Steven Holl or even a technophobe like
Foster. Your callWhat type of programe would you give him??
Would it be bucket loads of tiny apartments,
a tall tower perhaps, a hotel-conference even..Or would it be more cultural? How about
a project that would actually relate to the
“Locals”? Something very “Dublin”, something
more pertinent to the monthly horse fair.What would you give him. The entire west site
at Smithfield or just a part of it?Try to imagine what his reactions would be..
The new Law Society building is a badly
proportioned piece of work not deserving
the aforementioned plaudits…Why is new Dublin architecture so restrained
and lacking authenticity??? It always seems
like a poor man’s version of our superior
European contemporaries.The West side site is a real opportunity to
complete the Plaza but I have to agree with JK and say that the current proposal
lacks imagination and social purpose, an
altruistic concern so many Irish people
have pushed to one side now that they do
have the money to spend. As for the huge
lamp standards, what is an appropriate response from the west side site??? Perhaps
a Dublin version of the “Ramblas” could yet
be created.Generally, I agree, but some people will prefer not to give full names and remain committed to a decent debate. Anonymity may also encourage some to be more open in debate as well. However I do think that it can lead to others abusing it also.
[This message has been edited by bunch (edited 26 October 2000).]
Why so John White? I do not use my ‘full, real name’, would that be a problem? (I’m not being smart by the way.)
[This message has been edited by bunch (edited 26 October 2000).]
I disagree,
It depends on the site itself doesn’t it? Websites that are likely to attract immature teenies who feel very brave and often become involved in slagging matches, are doomed. (well ,their forums are).Have a look through some of these posts, I do not think that they are meaningless, or vacuous, the opposite in fact. People who like to cause ‘trouble’ in a post are more likely to be put off if totally ignored, and/or outnumbered. I stumbled across this site only recently, and find the forums excellent, and useful also.[This message has been edited by bunch (edited 25 October 2000).]
M Yarwood,your’e right, the opera house did not address the river frontage at all. The reason for that was that the building was designed for a different site, on The Western Road, where Jury’s Hotel is now, near U.C.C. It would have been positioned so that the front of the building faced the southern channel of the Lee, and the Western Road, and in fact that infamous Northern Wall would not be visible at all. Due to objections about location, particularly from regular users of the Opera House, who campaigned for it to be built on the site of the old Theatre, it was decided to move it back, without changing the design.A totally ridiculous idea.Putting the four-sided illuminated Toyota advertising signage on the roof was worse.
‘john white’, in relation to the start of this post, about london and dublin.
I totally agree with you on what you said about variety, and the ‘mish mash’ effect, and the architectural virtues it brings. I think this is a central issue in Ireland at the moment, in relation to architecture, design, and planning. We have long been held back by a constant reference to streetscape, heritage, and creating uniformity in building design.
people often argue that placing a ‘glass and steel’ contemporary building next to a historical building demeans the latter, when in fact, the opposite occurs. Often buildings are emphasised through visual comparison. Uniformity in streetscapes in my opinion, bores, and is far from aesthetically pleasing.
For example, in Cork City the revamped front to Cork Opera House may be described as a ‘modern’ building, which radically differs to it’s neighbour, the Crawford Gallery, in material used, colour, street location( it juts out onto the street, whereas the crawford is set back). This now is something Cork can be proud of and has dramatically raised the profile of it’s neighbour. It is a triumph in the sense that is a courageous design, it influences the buildings around it, and the plaza it overlooks. Remember, the Opera House almost closed 5 years ago, remains cash strapped, and now a major feat has been achieved. In many of the city’s streets there is a ‘mish-mash’ different heights, colours and shapes, medieval, classical, Georgian, modern, all of which combine to give a sense of heterogeneity, diversity, and difference. Admittedly, a lot has to be done yet, but examples are being set. In this country, we need creatiom, not imitation. What do ye think.John, I think that it is often misleading to talk about countries with individual styles of architecture. The example you gave of Spain is a useful example. Gaudi is not an example of Spanish architecture really, is he? Firstly, was he not a Catalan, more so than being Spanish?. Secondly, his work is extremely distinctive and individual, and I don’t know if we could say that he represented anything more than himself, like Spain. Is it better to talk about Spanish architects, Irish architects, than Spanish architecture, Irish architecture?, because of generalisations that that ca lead to?
By the way I thought what u said about London and Lonndon was spot on.
