garethace

And John probably sets in place most of the mistakes and problems that will just haunt that web site for years after John has left the camp to find greener pastures.

It is the same in database design, where often businesses relying completely on a database system for records etc, will just employ some hack working with them for a year, to throw something together – and the rest is history.

Normally the biggest mistake made by amateurs, is they just go around the whole asking/interviewing everyone what they want to see in the companies web site – so that is what you get at the end of the day – a web site, which is nothing more than a template or survey, for what ‘everyone in the office’ wanted.

Yes, it may keep everyone in the office happy, and satisfied their wishes have been granted – but it doesn’t necessarily provide a web site image to the world, which works.

Originally posted by roskav
Quite like this by FKL
http://www.fklarchitects.com/

Yeah, definitely easy to navigate. I love the tiny little squares along the top left hand side, which allow you to get around the site painlessly.

On the Ros Kavanagh site, I think, something like the little squares in the FKL site, would be easier to navigate – these huge drop down menus, and shere quantity of good images etc, does get a small bit tiring. Nonetheless an excelent database of graphic and photographic content displayed there. And that is the problem right there.

For some reason, I feel like I am at what should be a photographic database of the Irish Institute of architects. I.e. the site doesn’t feel like it is the front-end presentation piece of a single individual – but of a huge organisation.

I feel that in general, in the architectural profession in this country, that all too frequently the pressure seems to be, to present yourself to the whole world as a huge massive corporation of designing uber-power, whereas your practice might only be a couple of hairy-arsed guys trying to do a job in a small office somewhere.

I.e. Don’t fall into that trap of ‘inflating’ youself out of all proportion. My favourite example, is one particular architect I worked for, and who had a terrible attitude to teamwork – but when on the telephone to his client, he would constantly refer to ‘we’ will do this, ‘we’ can do that, which I suppose sounded more impressive to the client. But to be honest, the guy had such an attitude, he couldn’t work with any ‘we’ anything – if he was honest to his client, he could have just say ‘I’ will see what ‘I’ can do for you.

So don’t allow your site to say ‘we’ this and ‘we’ that – try more to just say, ‘who I am’ . And be content to say that, and run with it from there. Just my opinion. I mean, FKL are quite a nice size of practice, handling a lot of good jobs etc, – they could drown you out with images and so forth – but yet their web site, makes you feel it projects less an image of a corporation, and more an image of a very personalised, special service to an individual client. Not like, ‘we’ this, ‘we’ that.

I have to say, I am partial to this expression of clear volumes and strong clear slit openings in the landscape too. If handled well. A bit basic in terms of design development maybe, but nonetheless a good strong expression relative to the power of the landscape again. This image shows us a quite simple bungalow type design, but still it manages to be a little bit more. Dunno how this would weather here?

I am a real fan of the Meier house designs, this was his very first. This probably is denser in terms of accomodation, but nevertheless, manages to project that same simple strong expression. In our rural context, even though we no longer live off the land, doesn’t mean we forget those roots.

Something about this, which kind of scales better in an old agricultural environment. I mean, when you have this settings, why spoil them with imation anything? Why not just endeavour to be more honest about form and volume? That response in the image is restrained and pretty honest I think.

Of course, there are other elements
in the landscape, like trees, which are really part of the architecture too. Those crazy snow montainy people? A cross between some expensive rucksack and a house!

Japanesse tearoom a la moderne? German Huff houses are like these too. Outdoor room use or perhaps a quiet space away from it all? Landscaping, water, quietness. In hotter climates, certainly this idea is part of the definition of a house in the landscape. What does the house in the landscape represent for you? A safe snug protected place perhaps?

This reminds me of a cut down version of the Beckett Theatre in Trinty. Plain honest expression of timber post and beam. As Kahn was used to doing, one strong aperture, which defines a ‘room’ inside, people are orientated inside, by the strength of the great window. Usually shutters etc, would be used to vary the opening on bright/dull days for light and avoiding glare etc.

Okay, lets include Mies with another different but sucessful interpretation of post and beam in a house for the natural landscape. A similar interpretation here.

typical one of wilderness development, driven by having cars, and lots of home entertainment, web access etc, in the USA.

If I get any more extreme rural developments, I will post them. I think some of these may work as retreat type places, like the ancient Cistercian monastery etc, but as new residential developments…. ?

Outer Suburbia?

same?

Open space as part of scheme.

Some things like this, have integrated well into places like Rathgar Road etc,I think.

Perhaps not pretty in some peoples’ eyes, but definitely sustainable as development I think, on smaller available plots.

another one;

I dunno, how to calculate densities on FARs for this but, I think you get the idea.

And another attempt at density.

High density, low cost.

I think that Wright was very good at doing this sort of thing here.

Perhaps suitable for a number of smaller apartments nowadays on suitable site, circa Rathmines or similar? Certainly would be contextual anyhow.

Another kind of place,

sunnier,

Or here.

Or this.

Cross of ancient and modern at high densities. Kahn who first started trend in this.

Goind even further denser in FAR;

Similar idea.

We certainly haven’t built like this in Ireland since the times of the Eucharistic congress!

This type of development, is attractive, as it actually manages to create a strong definition of a street I think.

Pastiche probably,but still good amount of accomodation packed in.

As this one does;

The sort of thing which drove Temle Bar development style.

Which, I believe was new at the time here in Ireland.

Docklands? Notice how elements like that bridge in the background, are important perceptual landmarks in such a place.

Handsome looking attempt at very high density.

Another one.

Now many new jobs in new wtc? Or old ones for that matter? Terrorism is the anchillaise heel of these developments these days.

http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans/firm_c/indv_2.asp.htm

This couple of pics here, tends to emphasise the scale of what we are talking about too. Not in a good way, but a very representational way, no less.

http://www.renewnyc.com/PhotoArchive/timeline.shtml.htm

Libeskind VIZ-ualist

Fraternal towers.

http://www.cyburbia.org/forums/showthread.php?t=10464

Number 51?

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/02/06/1075854028808.html

successful interpretation of the spatiality of darkness.

http://www.cgarchitect.com/gallery/image_spotlight.asp?galleryID=18431

Once, your attention is drawn to real architectural things like light as an element of architecture, view, openings, enclosure, circulation in the time dimension as an element of architecture, open public space as an element of architecture, darkness as an element of architecture (as in Temple Bar restaurants), time as an element of architecture (you cannot see a whole building at once, but you know your way around it in 4 dimensions) . . . . you begin to see that these couple of basic design issues are all around you.

The inversion of this skill in observation, makes a good designer – a designer with the ability to separate the important issues from the bullshit ones. To in turn, strategically concentrate time, effort and purpose of their own endeavour and that of others, on the key areas. Easy? No, not always.

I like this web site too, which has lots of … CLickSome of the most simple interventions, making pretty dull, everyday streets much, much better in Asian cities. Street look like you could eat from them too. What Temple Bar might have been? Small people need to be considered too, especially near to places where mums/dads might wait for buses, LUAS etc. 🙂

But in residential too –sometimes, the treatment of edges and intermediary spaces. The provision of open space in a city by use of density and higher buildings. Libeskind VIZ-ualist Just click on the images to get the full resolution version.

People tend to just forget now, that the curved street actually made a new street where there was none, and thereby connected up the two new squares by a pedestrian route. Also people tend to forget another nearby open space, created around the central bank, which is perhaps a lot more awe-inspiring now today, than the actual building – although the way the building suspends high over ones head, sort of creates that space too.

I think that both the IFC and the Mellenium Gallery extension are sucessful too, because they opted to create streets/spaces within their volume. Powerscourt of course, and St. Stephens Green shopping centre were all early approaches towards creating new kinds of urban spaces – it is the same now with the Dun Laoire approach – you are giving the site back to the city, as well as using it for other purposes.

Liffey Board walks ditto.

http://urban.cccb.org

Give the images a while to download, site a wee bit slow, but wonderful range of projects in all sizes and budgets. We just don’t have a tradition in this country of thinking about urban space like they do in that web site. I hear you about, not having traveled either – I am perhaps in the same boat – if I had traveled a bit more, it is good to actually experience some of the designs featured in that web site.

saw that at RIAI web site today

by the way, do not forget good urban spaces either, this one at Rathmines, will be a great improvement on what already is.

It is not always necessary to have an actually building as you favourite piece of architecture. I think a lot of people are actually having difficulties with the Dun Laoire competition entries, because a lot of the entries about creating memorable, widely known good urban exterior spaces, as actually creating the buildings themselves.

In a way, La Vilette is not actually a building at all. Does anyone care for that stepped street in temple bar, or the curved st?