Forum Replies Created
June 23, 2003 at 3:19 pm in reply to: Special Olympics #731715
Yup, was a good show. Nice to see that sometimes we really get it right.June 23, 2003 at 12:51 pm in reply to: O’ Connell Street, Dublin #727853
You can’t out right ban certain buisnesses but you can use the carrot and stick approach. Introduce facade guidlines and building upkeep that would make the area less attractive to the lower end of the market.
Get a couple of flagship high-end shops into the area through grants and subsidies and it will begin to regenerate itself. That’s the tactic being used in alot inner city area’s on the continent.June 23, 2003 at 12:47 pm in reply to: Dublin Alley ways? #727610
Is pissoirs just the french for alleyways?
Actually it sounds alot worse.June 23, 2003 at 12:03 pm in reply to: O’ Connell Street, Dublin #727850
It was my understanding that there is a masterplan in existance that is being phased in gradually. For example the regeneration of Henry Street, the spike etc. Granted, this may not be extreme enough to transform O’Connell Street into the country’s first avenue but its not quite the chaos that it appears and it is in the middle of development.
A gradual upgrading must be preferable to an over night clean sweep that may not be so well considered. I was living just off O’Connell Street last year and we all got a copy of the plan in our post boxes. It seemed fairly reasonable, nothing earth-shattering, but then I suppose the Spike is the coup-de-grace.
As for policing, Graham I think your right, that’s more of a city wide issue. Singling out O’Connell Street for tougher measures may cause more problems than it solvesJune 23, 2003 at 11:48 am in reply to: olympic statium #731699
Originally posted by notjim
hey, do remember there was a plan to put up a spike or something up on o’connell street, they should have gone ahead with that, does anyone know why they didn’t, its so typical of the lack of imagination in this country.
Naz perhaps you should take your own advice about only posting if you have something intelligent to say!June 20, 2003 at 6:04 pm in reply to: O’ Connell Street, Dublin #727848
although….. I could just keep posting these ‘talking to myself mailsJune 20, 2003 at 6:03 pm in reply to: O’ Connell Street, Dublin #727847
oh wait it must be a 100 posts thing…..
dammit there’s only so much pretensious wittering I can do.June 20, 2003 at 6:01 pm in reply to: O’ Connell Street, Dublin #727846
AndrewP how come your a senior menber now ………………..oh the injustice.June 19, 2003 at 4:17 pm in reply to: grrrrrrrrr #727675
There, you see, I knew you’d come round in the end. Don’t you feel better!June 19, 2003 at 3:49 pm in reply to: grrrrrrrrr #727673
Disrespectful to Calatrava????? WTF?
Anyway since when did design begin and end with whether the thing stands up and looks pretty? You have more of a responsibility than that!
As for not hearing about similar problems with other designs.
It seems in the course of this bridge’s contruction there has been alot of stuff brought to light that we didn’t know about this designer.
At the end of the day I don’t think they should alter the bridge at all. If you get hurt its your own tough luck (put up a sign so the can’t get sued or something) but its a failure in urban design and it should be considered a failure for the architect.June 19, 2003 at 2:57 pm in reply to: grrrrrrrrr #727671
Originally posted by GregF
Here’s psychology at work here now …..you don’t like the bridge hence you’re argument of ‘it’s not the childrens fault but the designer’ .
Actually I drew attention to the fact to emphasise the opposite.
Anyway I could use the same logic for you if you like the design. Its a bit of a nonsensical aurguement.
As for social problem v design problem, this is a fairly big fuck up for it to be the publics fault entirely. And I don’t buy it. Like I said, its a grey area but in this instance the man just didn’t think the thing out.June 19, 2003 at 2:28 pm in reply to: grrrrrrrrr #727667
Perhaps there’s been a bit of a digression, the issue should not be about so- called knackers or whether we should lock children up!! or what the ethics are for architects to even entertain such theories!.
Its no secret that I do not like this bridge but however much we scaremonger and moan the population of inner city Dubiln is no worse than many other capital cities in my experience.
Therefore if a problem like this presents itself almost as soon as the thing is up and open then the responsibility must lie with the design and the designer.
Come on.June 19, 2003 at 1:33 pm in reply to: grrrrrrrrr #727658
??June 19, 2003 at 1:28 pm in reply to: grrrrrrrrr #727656
Originally posted by GregF
Na…….no way snobbish bud……I am of such stock which fully qualifies me to give out about such. No pretensions here.
And there I rest my case.June 19, 2003 at 1:05 pm in reply to: grrrrrrrrr #727654
Originally posted by GregF
We want people to interact…….by scaling
the bridge (ah yea …like the way they scale the Eiffel Tower).
…..hence you end up with graffitti ridden, litter strewn, vandalized, treeless, no go areas of a city….as Dublin has suffered.
….the amount of vitriol aimed at kids…..Kids? more like little monsters. The makings of tomorrows gurriers.
Responsible parenting is the keyword here……and it should bear no relation to poverty. Poverty of the mind morelike.
….where’s the child catcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang!
By the by..tomorrows gurriers.?……..nice
…snobbish and upper middle class all in one obnoxious phrase….
(The irony being that the first person to get hurt will probably be a drunk Trinity student!)June 19, 2003 at 1:03 pm in reply to: grrrrrrrrr #727653
All I’m saying is that this is an inner city area and that people climb on urban structures all over the world (Its not just Dublin kids and the pointless attacks on their behaviour add nothing to the arguement)- is it imposible that Calatrava could have forseen that this would be an issue. Its seems on the contrary that he provided young people with a challenge.
I’m sorry but that’s where we should draw the line for architect’s responsibility-
wilful bad and ill- considered design.
Your right – if they fall it does serve them right, I don’t disagre, but there are levels of acceptable risk and I don’t think this is acceptable from a design point of view.June 19, 2003 at 12:23 pm in reply to: grrrrrrrrr #727650
We design structures for the way people are not the way we wish society to be.
This was an element of the brief that wasn’t addressed, and in fairness hardly a surprising one, I’m amazed at the amount of vitriol aimed at kids who are just messing around in the environment in which they live. That’s what we want people to do- interact. Its probably the only part of this design that’s sparked my interest, but it remains a design issue- not a social one.June 19, 2003 at 11:22 am in reply to: grrrrrrrrr #727647
So it would seem that Calatrava has landed us with a structure that has not taken into account human usage or its surroundings………………..June 16, 2003 at 11:14 am in reply to: Santiago Calatrava #727421
I have to swallow the bile and say it looks really classy there. Those sweeping lines and shadows are great.
But then you can’t see the buildings in the backround or even water- its all design and no context…….I live to hate another day.June 3, 2003 at 4:48 pm in reply to: Dublin? Where? #726956
Latvians must not be the seasoned opportunists that we are.
Anyway I thought Russia’s backround was really weird – just a long street with lots of traffic if I remember correctly????