FIN
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Originally posted by GregF
architectural history books out so as to learn a bit about architectural heritage so as to appreciate it more.appreciated yes, recreated no. absolutely stupid to do that. progress is what’s needed not harping back to yonder years. ” why weren’t they great, they can build houses” f**k sake. it’s time do look to the future. this is what has dublin the kip it is. it’s a low level dirty city that most people dislike execpt for a few.
now i know i’m going to get abuse for that statement but it’s time someone woke you from your slumber. it’s a kip and while it is improving it has a long way to go and maybe when they were first built they might have been nice but not now. they are outdated, dull and contribute nothing to modern society.Originally posted by GregF
You are from Galway, therefore you ignorantly say that!what has me being from galway got to do with anything? the fact the georgian houses are a mistake to keep execpt for 1/2 so people can get on a tour bus and see them or the fact that i believe that it’s a huge mistake to rebuild some on some terrace? these are poxy houses. if a bungalow was destroyed would you want them to recreate it? same difference. they were a style for a forgotten era and so should be left there and more modern houses built to accomodate people from this era because the way we live our lives, spend our leisure time have changed immensly.
“The ESB’s planning application for a major office development in Leopardstown opens up the possibility that the damage it did to Dublin’s “Georgian Mile” more than 30 years ago could be undone.”
“The board claimed that the late-18th-century houses were structurally unsound and commissioned Sir John Summerson, an English architectural historian, to condemn them as “simply one damned house after another”. “
” it would be possible to rebuild the 16 houses – both inside and out – thereby reinstating Lower Fitzwilliam Street and atoning for what was probably the worst single crime perpetrated on Georgian Dublin. “the only crime is that they didn’t knock the whole f**king lot of them.. what a disaster if they rebuild them. talk about not learning from mistakes of the past.
that’s very true. being the fact that u don’t get pissed on every time you go outside the door there it’s much easier to have lots of pretty plants near instead of the dull evergreens we get plagueing houses here.
nice rendering alright.i am a definate canditate for road rage..i even get path rage…when ever someone is slow or cuts in front of me walking i mutter something very polite at them!
personally i think the listing of such rubbish is crazy. only good buildings should be listed..eg old churches etc. knock this crap down and provide modern facilities. then in 50/100 years do it again..to keep these crap is just for the sake of keeping it. absolute nonsense.
well organised opposition. lol. does it disrupt any monuments or is their quite vocal opposition just because it’s near and it’s a few tree huggers saying”not in my back-yard” ?
i like the two..1 in aus and the other in us… the third..i agree with u..it’s daft but from only a render i will say that it may work…some derivation of the design and it could be workable. depends on the site. if it was sloped then u may get away with it…
sounds like experience so i will believe you as i have no idea of the structure. would e-learning cut the need for so many buildings?
the big-wigs are just scared of a new form of learning. it’s pathetic really. they should be embracing it with open arms.they should be listening to the people on the ground. as usual too many chiefs, and not enough indians.
firstly, gareththe ace…i might scrummage around for that book, i am sure we have it here somewhere. thanks. and the building has to suit the setting. basic learning for architecture, i believe anyway.
and phil. as i am interested in it, but by no means an expert, and consider it necessary for architect’s it should be given it’s due in college. to answer ur question i would consider it strongly for large scale developments where my simplistict approach just wouldn’t do but smaller ones then it would have to be up to the architect as i presume the client might think u crazy if you wanted to bring in a sociologist as a consultant. to hire one in a office! can’t say that i would really. consultant yes, paid staff member no. unless i was doing large urban scale dev.’s or competitions all the time then it might pay alright.
i agree. i am the sort that for a proper design i need to interact with the area. (now i do design without even seeing the site but i don’t think it works) and that means getting out there. unfortunately this doesn’t seem to be standard practice. people are too busy nowadays and our climate isn’t best suited for extended stays out doors but i still think it’s necessary. when i was in college i used to spend hours just hanging around the site. i’m sure i looked strange but sure i believe it worked as i saw who people reacted to different things. that is why i also believe that sociology is intrinsically liked with architecture.
i was reading in the times yesterday that even though the fai are putting up money there is still some trouble with ownership rights. basically that the fai will still have to pay rental. this may de-rail efforts.
and is there any other images apart from the widely available one. like how it looks from a pedestrain point of view..etc..well said. architecture is about the experience of a building and in the wider context the city. a successful building is one that integrates the person and the city into one. someone just versed in cad/viz won’t be able to properly marry the two as all they know is flashy elevations and trying to get the most amount of space into the smallest of sites. a shame as this could be an historic shift in the profession away from the end users of our creations.
