garethace
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Since the only way possible to ever suceed in this profession is to communicate well. I.e. Anyone who might choose to use computers as their tool, is leaving themselves wide open to accusations of being ‘the computer geek’. It has actually reached that level now.
Agreed, fast as hell too – web designers definitely knew how to optimise their code for download speeds in that case.
Pity other sites aren’t able to do likewise.
I remember when I first paid for my own computer, software and training back in the late nineties – I started to do my own jobs etc, etc. Then when I worked in practice, on computers, I will admit I behaved very defensively about what I knew about the computer, and how to use it.
I remember there was a computer given to the project team, consisting of two members – myself and another girl, who also had basic CAD skills. Now, instead of organising the day in two distinct halves – one in which I would sketch and she could draft in CAD, and visa versa – I totally monopolised the CAD workstation – and therefore, while she had to do some CAD too, she couldn’t and had to sketch all day long.
We as skilled VIZ and CAD users tend to do this far too often and not even be aware of it, until years afterwards when looking back. Hence the title of the thread, Let’s nuke the computer whiz.
But Trinity college is still one of the best places to lose your new bicycle unfortunately and the short walk to the Garda Station in Pearse Street, doesn’t make that experience feel any better either I can tell you. Speaking from personal experience in December 2002.
But I think if DIT was more organised together in one place, it could operate as Trinity does now – as a university and also as a very pleasant public place in which to enjoy open space and people generally just walking and talking. To an overwhelming extent it tends to police itself.
I mean, you cannot divorce public park and public usage – they are not exclusive – one supports the other. I think that the Daniel Libeskind or SOM entries for Carlisle Pier could be very interesting if sited someplace like Belfield or Trinity or a potential DIT campus at GrangeGorman, where you might get the numbers of bodies using the schemes as were described by the CG renderings.
A university is generally an ideal program to combine with ‘open spaces’. This fact of course has been completed ignored in the way in which DIT has been allowed to develop as an institution. Notice in Belfield, the way the football fields almost miggle with the buildings at this stage.
Originally posted by ewanduffy
Could it be that people don’t know if these parks are public or private or even private but we’ll turn a blind eye to you being there (like Wilton Park). Not knowing whether or not you will be turfed out keeps people away.Sorry to say this, but that sounds exactly like some of the colleges DIT own around the city now, where so few people are rattling around inside these very expensive facilities, that the security guys seem to have gotten paranoid about everyone who walks through the doors now.
I often notice, how Trinity college can just get away with a couple of goons who need to have very little interaction with the general student populus – and Trinity is right in the heart of the city – a quite sizeable campus. Whereas DIT seem to need goons in every little rat-hole they own all over Dublin. I think goons would out number staff in some institutions now! 🙂
I think it is very much part of the Irish culture not to stray onto urban lands unless they are sure that it is public property or a school etc.
An architect I knew built a kindergarten not long ago, and decided to take his all new €900 digital camera with him one day to take pictures. He had to stand back very far to get a good angle of view of the front facade. But then he noticed that he was standing inside in the scrubbery, pointing a camera at a kindergarten and the teacher and pupils were all staring out the window at him.
So he jumped in his car and drove off, without photographing anything. 🙂
I agree with your argument and, although I am only a second year architecture student, I can see that the movement of computers into the industry has many detrimental effects. Is this the fault of the person who knows how to use them or is it a misguided intention of those in charge (“movement towards the future”)?
Generally though, because these VIZ guys have spent so much of their own free time sitting down learning the techniques required etc, and often financing purchase of computer, pheripherals and software by themselves, they tend to be very ‘over-protective’ about what they know, and their status within an architectural practice. I mean training alone cost me in the region of €1500 back in 1998, and I didn’t even go the whole hog with 3DS VIZ etc – I did finance the cost of the training myself though, without any architect’s support.
The original alignment for the pedestrian bridge (Jervis Street/Meeting House Square) would indeed have created much greater connectivity (sorry about the pretentious word), but I’d prefer the Howley Harrington bridge design any day to the Group 91 bridge, which was an architectural conceit (does an “all hail group 91” thing exist on on this site???).
That is very good, you have managed to construct a decent and clear piece of communicative writing there. You have separated the issues excellently:
1) Aesthetic value of Group 91 bridge – I agree with you, I didn’t like it at all – it was crap, even if it did try to be ‘stylish’ etc, etc. The same guy did the lamps up in Smithfield too btw, and many think those are a bit over the top too.
2) The placement of the Group 91 bridge though was far superior. No one will actually use that new burrowed tunnel after a while, and just opt to do the ZIG_ZAG maneuvre instead, which is a disgrace in my opinion, considering these public projects do cost as much as they do and are ‘once off’.
It is well worth noting, that Group 91 in their original planning submission to the council, made only one small mistake, which did become their undoing in this matter. They didn’t draw their site boundary over as far as the opposite bank of the Liffey to Temple Bar. Instead opting to just draw the boundary along the mid-course of the Liffey. Meaning, when they came to building the Poddle Bridge, they didn’t have any jurisdiction on the opposite bank of the river. That is how DCC eventually won – on a technicality.
Apparently, sources tell me that DCC were quite miffed about not being part of the whole Temple Bar thing, and went out of their way to enforce their dominance in this small matter. It was unfortunate that such a public project, with so much potential to improve north/south connectivity in the broader context of Dublin city, became engulfed in such political bashing – but such is life. DCC only know one trick you see – this tunnel burrowing idea, which was kind of novel in the 1980s but has since then gotten very tired indeed. But what do DCC do? They continue to pull this one trick they know, out of the drawer every time they need to actually think.
I think we need to try harder to separate issues in that manner here at Archiseek – it is only a point about communication, but would lend increased weigh and value to contributors writing here. It is definitely harder to do and requires more work, in an effort to express oneself properly, but it is worth practicising – it gets easier with practice – being able to juggle the various strands of an argument about the built environment.
Archiseek is thought of by many people out there involved in the built environment, as an aesthetic ping-pong match, a group of ‘style-police’ like the Georgian society or something at its lowest and most ridiculous. However, the opportunity does exist here at Archiseek to expand one’s own awareness of the many strands associated with problem solving in the area of the built environment – a lot of which I never even knew about until visiting the board here at Archiseek. I am sure I do not stand alone in that experience.
About time someone started this thread, it should be a major issue from now on in Dublin and Ireland as a whole to highlight the whole issue of what open spaces do exist within the city, town or village and decide which ones are worth keeping, partly building on, or just abandoning altogether in favour of use as building land.
Somewhere in all of this, compromises I am sure will have to be made and it is up to the architectural community to appreciate this as much as possible. Who knows, maybe some new opportunities to create open spaces might happen in the future and thereby compensate in the longer run, for some of the spaces lost over the years. This is a whole topic I think is very worth while discussing.
A big problem in major towns around this country is the way in which cars all gang into the central square area, or other open public amenity space to use it as a carpark. This might have worked perfectly in the days of horse fairs etc, et – but not for vehicular today.
Then at nightime, when all the cars have disappeared you are left with this huge open space, which doesn’t appear to have any other use associated with it – apart from vandalism generally and junvenille upstarts making it their ‘territory’.
Some cathedrals of commerce well worth looking at here:
Good explanation about the history of commercial rental space in Dublin btw, that is a very, very, very useful observation to have about Dublin city.
I don’t have a clue what a rating base is – I guess that is because I have restricted myself to just designing architecture all my life. 🙂
Drop in here for a sec, if you want:
http://www.cgarchitect.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000496
See exactly what I mean. 🙂
In parallel to that of course, the house was changing too. Where once, that said lawyer could have had a home office, with a servant and a cook to provide tea for clients, regular meals and cleaning duties etc, etc. The idea of the servant in the house, was beginning to fade out.
Sherlock homes and Doctor Watson – two men in a room together all day long? 🙂 Now I guess they would be more likely to be housed in a high tech Sandyford office in front of computers all day long.
Perhaps you can shed some light upon something for me here. For years in this country we have done the typical irish thing – just provide a very, very limited amount of office space in Georgian terraces in Dublin city. Which haven’t changed since the 1800s.
Then when a shortage of office space comes about, what do we do? Yeah, you’ve guessed it, exactly the same thing as we done with houses – put up the price and keep out the bottom bracket of course. So office space, like residential accomodation achieves this class status like everything else in this country. Everything about Ireland, is tiny in scale and very expensive to boot.
In my general posting or just this post specifically.
Because if the problem, is with my posting in general, then I might agree with you. In fact, I might even do something about it.
But in the case of this post specifically, all I can offer is that, I don’t take any prisoners – but I have followed the Poddle Bridge and Aftermath saga since the mid nineties.
So I can assure you, you are not talking to someone who is up their own arse, or any place else in regards to this issue.
BTW, I have mentioned now and again, that I like the boardwalks. At least they got the positioning of them correct, and that is why they perform such a crucial function now.
You are really just being immature – if the only argument you could come up with, was that attempt, respectfully.
Right lets talk about this thread at CG Architect. I made a couple of posts there too:
http://www.cgarchitect.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000496
I think this is why they always had structural engineering and technology classes in Bolton Street! 🙂
LOL! 🙂
Respectfully, I am too long at this game to get worried with arguments as weak as that. I don’t have to even agree with an argument, to enjoy it – just as long as it interests me.
With all due respect, come back when you have something more to offer. My suggestion, would be to read my post carefully again, examine the situation in question, and carefully try and present an argument that would contradict what I have argued.
That would be interesting at least. The above response just isn’t, sorry. To tell you the truth, I find it difficult myself to get up off my behind, and look at things – but it is always worth it.
A book you might be able to dig up in Boton Street Library or someplace is Edmund N. Bacon, Design of Cities – a good reference to build up a decent response around. I haven’t even read much of it myself, but the pictures in it are still worth a hour or two.
