foremanjoe

@apelles wrote:

All the hacking this church has recieved over the years has certainly left its toll, but the thing I find most objectionable about it would have to be the rough dirty grey plaster dash sprayed onto the main ceiling areas & up into the dome. Ironicly enough the Church is built in an area in Westport called ‘The Shambles’.

Coincidence apelles, not irony. Has Ed Byrne taught you nothing?

And go easy on Praxiteles, I fear that if you take his churches and their perceived import from him, he may be left with nothing. Poor soul.

On a more relevant point, tis an awful shame about the loss of that gothic facade.
It would tie in very well with the clocktower and the octagon in the town, and would no doubt enhance the appeal of the already beautiful mall.

@Global Citizen wrote:

Totally off topic here but I have to get this off my chest.

THIERRY HENRY IS A CHEATING BOLLOX. :mad::mad::mad:

Now – Back to seat colours.

That’s not too far off the point Dude, after all he was the architect of Ireland’s downfall.
Paul McShane has to be culpible too though, he got caught wrong side.
In fact, I’m not sure that fella even knows where the right side is.

@johnglas wrote:

Oh God; it’s bad enough to be bored by football everywhere else, we now have an extended ‘discussion’ about whether or not you can see the pitch if you stand up, or go on tiptoe, or lean sideways, or stand on somebody’s shoulder….
However, unlike the beautiful game, Gaelic is just a lot of country boys who can’t keep their socks up running madly all over the pitch, knocking lumps out of one another… Never saw the attraction, myself.

You’ve also never watched Kevin Kilbane/any Sam Allardyce team play ‘The Beautiful Game’.

@reddy wrote:

This is rubbish. There’s a healthy dose of criticism not cynicism on the site.

I agree that there is a large amount of criticism evident on these fora, unfortunately the majority of that criticism is projected towards individual contributors, with the cynicism being reserved for the architecture.

Architecture is such a subjective field that even in real world situations it is impossible have a conclusive debate on the worth of a building. Add anonymity and subtract physical interaction and most debates spiral into pointless mud-slinging contests. If one was to judge the architecture profession by the squabbles evident on this site, a positive impression would be a very improbable outcome.

(This isn’t directed at you reddy, it’s just a generalisation.)

@reddy wrote:

I think they just chickened out on engineering something amazing. It can be done. (I’m sure it was money related but still…)

Looks so inelegant now. 😡

Agreed reddy.
I think anyone watching the recent World Athletics Championships and comparing the slick roof on the Olympic Stadium with this blunt example would have to feel a little agrieved that more care was not put into it.

Again the comparison with Thomond is telling in the position of the truss in relation to the roof, in Thomond the truss sits above the roof and gives the stadium its strong outward expression. Unfortunately in Lansdowne the truss lurks suspiciously under the roof and makes no positive aesthetic contribution to the stadium.

Tis a pity.

@Starch wrote:

though I’m still not convinced by the roof structure…..it’s looks like it will indeed not offer a complete unobstructed view of play

I think you may be right Starch, those nosebleed seats will just about have a full view of the pitch judging by those photos, it would be like watching a match with your hood pulled down just above your eyes, only you can’t push this one back up out of the way!

In general though the stadium is starting to look really exciting. The structure and cladding system are intriguing, especially the semi-open cladding around the back of the stands.

How about an ‘Outlaw’ museum?

How big would that have to be?