garethace

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 20 posts - 41 through 60 (of 947 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Design Conceptualisation: The Rise of CAD #762548
    garethace
    Participant

    Thumbs up! Though the renders are simple, they are good at communicating an idea. Keep it up. I like it when designers join forces with the digital paintbrush. That normally produces a result worth looking at. Even if it lacks the professional touch of the full-time visualist. When you separate designer and visualist, all you get is the visualist’s ‘view of design’. It lacks some of the depth a full-time designer can draw upon. A good visualist needs a very cool rationale. The visualist will say, how many pixels do I need to render? What is the cost of producing those pixels? How much time do I have to manually fiddle around with those pixels on my screen? Same with architectural photography. A good architectural photographer must think about selling those glossy magazines covers, not creating good architecture. In other words, a sound business brain is needed to be a visualist or photographer. All credit must go to Frank McDonald and what he has managed to accomplish with his publications. But it is architecture seen through ‘the lense of journalism’. Frank I realise, is in the business of selling words.

    The planning community here in Ireland, have made attempts down through the years to circumvent the architectural profession. It seems with computer aided visualisation, the planner might finally succeed. Insisting that visualists, are the ones to provide a true and real impression of architecture. It is all about making the architect smaller and easier to deal with. The visualists have not complained. As long as planners continue to wage war, the bank balance of visualists is only getting bigger. Architecture itself, is the ultimate loser. It suffers from a lack of intelligent input, from both the architect and planner. The trouble with visualisation, is the planners think they can become ‘designers’, inadvertedly, without having to go through the pain and suffering that is Architecture School in Ireland. The digital technology of rendering images, available at competitive prices, means that planners can now insist, that every project receives the ‘visual treatment’ – a bucolic blast of feel-good indie pop.

    Brian O’ Hanlon.

    In most people’s vocabularies, design means veneer. It’s interior decorating. It’s the fabric of the curtains of the sofa. But to me, nothing could be further from the meaning of design. Design is the fundamental soul of a human-made creation that ends up expressing itself in successive outer layers of the product or service.

    Steve Jobs

    http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/s/steve_jobs.html

    in reply to: Building Types: Leisure Centers #763922
    garethace
    Participant

    I should relate the above post, with this piece from Irish Construction magazine’s web site, about PFI. As schools are another form of public building, which are in constant need of work and renovation, like public leisure centres often are. The problem with any of these building types, is that they can be reduced down to the level of a ‘science’, built in rapid sucession according to some prototypical design, and it doesn’t leave a lot of scope for architects to be involved. You can get some idea from the Leisure Centre post above, just how important the scientific side of building is. Funny thing, is how both Herman Hertzberger, from Holland and Carme Pinos from Spain identified the school as an important building type, when they spoke in Dublin to the AAI.

    Brian O’ Hanlon.

    As the Government’s enthusiasm for Public Private Partnership grows, Ministers will do well to study the experiences of their contemporaries in Britain. The British Government is rolling out an extensive network of education facilities under its Public Finance Initiative (PFI).

    However PFI has come under scrutiny for a number of reasons. Because schools are designed and built in batches, there are concerns that standard school layouts cannot meet the unique needs of different communities.

    Facilities management issues may also overshadow education provision. As well as this, British architects are critical of the programme’s lack of creative design.

    As our spiralling population (five million people predicted for 2020) puts incredible demands on the education system, a quicker roll-out of school buildings is urgently needed here. But is PPP the way forward?

    in reply to: Fair Play to Starbucks #763820
    garethace
    Participant

    Modern music store, looks like this I reckon,… any opinions?

    How can the store equivalent of this, even try to compete?

    City cores might be great for selling coffee in mugs, but cannot compete with cyberspace, as far as selling music goes.

    Brian O’ Hanlon.

    in reply to: Fair Play to Starbucks #763819
    garethace
    Participant

    Gee, is global culture really that predictable nowadays? It sounds as if you can describe a city such as Dublin from across the Atlantic, better than most people I know here can. The city as designed for automobiles. Wow. So close, to what Dublin is. Thanks to an inflated importance of the traffic engineer, and a lack of architects or other ‘spatial designers’ being involved in the debate. If there even was a debate. As a general point, and to make debate possible at all – I feel strongly that architects should be encouraged while in school to understand how code affects the environment we live in. Visa versa, I think that people educated in writting code for urban places, should have a basic appreciation how design can somehow make it all fit together. You do need the designer, otherwise it is pointless. There are certain things you cannot ‘code’ your way around. Otherwise, you are left with gaps, where things should join up. Take the following for instance,

    In the historic cores the parking ratios are less and everyone complains about the lack of parking. Usually some behemoth shopping center(s) is sitting close serving the core business of the community and providing lots of free parking.

    I think that is why projects like the LUAS, lightrail system here in Dublin have gained such a position of importance in the recent years – to somehow try and redress the imbalance created by the suburban betemoth shopping centre, and make city cores accessbile once more. As if the city core, is a place where all people should want to go. Dublin bus company failed to do anything much, after decades of campaigning, advertising and influence over the operation of the city. Today, Dublin bus has competition in the form of a new younger upstart, the Railway Procurement Ajency or RPA, for short. Which has become a very sexy and powerful institution in its own right, with its own attitude and way of doing things. The unfortunate thing about ‘competition’ between these too gorillas, is that wherever light rail stations are made, you can associate that with a tendency for Dublin bus to pull out of the area, and leave it all to the light rail. They are afraid of direct confrontation, and have become territorial with each other. Each one sticking to areas, where they can play up their own advantages. This seems the exact opposite to what you want. As pointed out by other posters here on the thread – you do need bus and rail systems interlocking with each one another, in loving, cooperative embraces. Rolling gently about in the dense undergrowth of urbanity, like two mating gorillas, as opposed to territorial competitors. To obtain the most efficient and best overall use from public investment in transportation. In a time of rising inflation, Ireland has a duty to cooperate when and where possible.

    It needs to be pointed out, that one function of LUAS and Dublin bus has been allowed to overshadow all others. Over zealous use of PR to wage war on both sides. The apparent ‘linking’ of shoppers to the various retail centres. This one function, has been ‘done to death’, especially around the holiday season, for ‘publicity’ reasons. The over-emphasis on that function, has prevented people from looking much deeper into the possibilities presented by transportation in our city, of allowing the debate to take place. Emphasising one particular ‘cool’ function of transportation above others. Going to high street at weekends, or this-centre-or-that, to spend your weeks earnings on ‘all new shit’. This is really a debasement of the concept of public transportation and the very people who want to use it. It displays a depressing Irish characteristic, of seeing everything from behind the wheel of an automobile. In Dublin city, we are bringing thousands of foreign workers in every year. We thank them for coming here, by giving them a pretty useless transportation system. Sometimes, with a loosy attitude towards service to boot. In Ireland, we are guilty of having blinkers to transportation. The car is for getting to work, while the LUAS or bus is a cool novelty item, for going to parties in the evening or going shopping at weekends. This is an over-simplification of the whole problem, I feel. What is lacking in Ireland now, is an organisation or individual with real insight, into how different modes of transport need to fit together.

    Yeah, the Dublin bus company has been around while. In later day, the bus service would have tried to fill a similar role to that of light rail now – trying to link up shoppers with their favourite high street. As a result of that narrow-ness of thinking, we have a series of bus-passges which are designed to carry people from the car-oriented suburb, into the high street. Like any project, transportation being no different – the important thing seems to be getting people to work and think as a team, rather than all pulling in all different ways. What we do have is governments who regularly use transportation to orchestrate large scale PR, on TV, on radio and in print. I began this thread to mention the behaviour of the taxi driving community in Foster Place, trying to establish their iron grip on that territory. I have discussed the personal automobile, the surburban shopping centre, Dublin bus and LUAS light rail system. I think you can agree, that urban transportation resembles a study into a gorilla behaviour in the jungle, the hard-fought battle for survival.

    Starbucks likes to nest among these places on corners as well as at transit locations.

    I also noticed something with ‘record’ stores – (gee, I still call them record stores, even though they are really CD stores nowadays) sometimes when in the city centres – the big HMV idea doesn’t work at all. I notice where they have stores on the main streets here – selling thousands of CDs and DVDs, the que at the counter is a mile long. Just walk down the road, and drop into a small store and you can usually get what you want, without the que. So it isn’t always handy to be big in the music retail game. I mean, if you are even inside the HMV store itself, and are waiting in a que, for ten minutes to get to a counter – that is just not fun to me. And being big, on main street, they are probably losing business as a result. Because they have to staff the place, just the same, on slow days. While on busy days, the existing staff aren’t able to cope with the sudden surge in customer volumes. That is why I think online, is probably suited to selling music – because digital network bandwidth is the only thing able to cope with surges and drops in customer demand.

    While I am on the topic, of all things global, I might as well mention construction too. Which appears to be going the way of prefabrication and about getting greater economy of scale, with more predictable quality/costs/timescales. The building industry here in Ireland was organised around a lot of separate trades for a long, long time. This makes projects hard to schedule and predict in terms of time and cost. You are seeing a lot of projects, re-designed to avoid, bottlenecks and time overruns. We will probably end up with a different Irish construction industry than before.

    Brian O’ Hanlon.

    in reply to: Fair Play to Starbucks #763817
    garethace
    Participant

    1000 sf of retail shops need 5 parking spaces at an average of 325 sf per car (US standards of course)

    Can you combine spaces nearby the shop with reserved spaces around the corner, or how in a parking lot somewhere else. How does that work? How far away can the car be parked to maintain that average? I mean, in the US, don’t a lot of office workers and apartment dwellers keep their autos parked permanently in a garage, removed from the actual complex?

    200 sq. feet per car
    325 sq. feet per car
    384 sq. feet per car
    625 sq. feet per car
    1000 sq. feet per car

    I understand the logic of this sliding scale to obtain the various ratios. Yeah, 200 sq. feet per car is a lot. I imagine that in Dublin, given the small size of apartment dwellings now, and the wide availability of cars for personal use in denser parts of the city – residential use here in parts of Dublin, seems to equal or exceed that of retail use – in terms of car parking required. That is precisely what has happened in Ranelagh, the place is just stuff with automobiles, you can hardly see the street anymore with all of them. With its small narrow streets with high density terraced house living.

    Indeed, Ranelagh looks a bit like that image of the Volkswagen garage in Germany, except done horizontally rather than vertically. I must get some photos to post up here actually, it would be useful.

    Brian O’ Hanlon.

    in reply to: Fair Play to Starbucks #763812
    garethace
    Participant

    Any one of you urban savy planning types, want to try and define a ‘clamper’ for me? ? ? Or perhaps provide a link to their website?

    🙂

    Brian O’ Hanlon.

    in reply to: Fair Play to Starbucks #763810
    garethace
    Participant

    The Village now had two LRT stations and Four Bus routes including the radial 18 route ALL of which should have been the focus,in Transport Terms,for mass movement into and out of the Village,with the private car being relegated to a much reduced role WITHIN the area from Charemont St Bridge to Marlborough Road on the East/West axis and Leeson Park to Mountpleasant Ave on the North/South axis.

    The area enclosed by that boundary,essentially the village would have benefited greatly from the halving of on-street car parking combined with the widening of the Kerbs in the Village itself and us of the former “Triangle” ( Now sitting there unused and mute testimony to a City Administration unable to deal with heaven sent micro opportunities,but full of desires for Multi-Billion madcap schemes).

    I am glad to hear someone at last, has managed to highlight the current state of Ranelagh village. Our apparent lack of capability as a nation to make anything out of these places. Ranelagh is something of a ‘clampers’ paradise. Clampers have taken to Ranelagh, in much the same way the taxi drivers invaded the urban space that was Fosters Place. The clampers strike me as ‘chicken and egg’ kind of guys. Becasue if people behaved and didn’t park illegally, then the clampers would be out of business. It is in the clamper’s best interest, to punish people in the short term, but have NO INCENTIVE to educate car users to behave better in the longer term, and to respect the urban environment. As far as the clampers are concerned, people parking badly, are heaven sent. Because the badly behaved car user in Dublin is their only source of revenue. 80 Euro for every offense, it is good work if you can get it.

    This is what worries me a lot about separate private and public bodies being set up, to deal with every aspect of the environment and its management. It seems we have ‘outsourced’ the job of caring for the environment in so many different ways – to so many different bodies and interests. You have a separate body set up now, just to deal with Road Safety, which has been granted all kinds of powers. Developers building in the city centre will tell you, 5-6 million Euro flows directly out of their site and into the pockets of Dublin city council. Just to pay for different fees, taxes, studies and reports. It has been allowed to get so bad, that developers are skeptical now about the profit margins remaining for development on city centre sites. I am disappointed and disheartened, to say the least, that Ranelagh village has become a clampers paradise – when it had the potential to become a transportation hub and centre, for the whole city. Our vision for how we develop our environment, is simply too small.

    As you have outlined in your post above – we seem good at taking those nasty ‘police’ kind of negative opportunities, but we fail to see the more positive opportunities. The nasty police kind of option requires us to set up some public service body, or outsource to some private company – and then the problem – is effectively taken out of our laps, it becomes someone elses. Pass the buck – that is what the Irish seem to be great at doing – as long as it doesn’t land in your lap, then you have done very well. Sometimes we see the opportunity in front of us, but we don’t want to take the initiative. This is why I mention the ‘developer’s dilemma’ – that of seeing a lot opportunites in Dublin to develop in a positive way, but knowing also, the fees and taxes the state will manage to extract from the site and the development. This is what gives an Irish developer, an incentive to by-pass Dublin altogether and go to Turkey or Beiruit or the middle of Africa!

    Instead of TRYING to move forward with a new and eminently achievable Public Transport centred vision what we have is Bus Atha Cliath REDUCING one of its main trunk routes the 48A and now looking at ways and means of rationalizing the other main through route the 11. Part of the rationale behind this it is thought comes from a Luas inspired downturn in Passenger Numbers,however I precieve that downturn as being more due to the lack of any structured Bus Priority measures along the South Side of the 11 route and even less on the poor old 18.

    I know from personal experience, if you are standing in Ranelagh at 8.30 on a weekend morning and trying to get anywhere on time, you can just forget it if you are waiting for a bus. Might as well phone work and say, I might make it by 10.30 – save a bun for me at the 11am coffee break.

    This lack of infrastructural support has led to journey times which are completely unsustainable by any rational minded customer,most of whom go off and buy a moped,bicycle or car…immediately adding to the misery of the Real Ranelagh.

    I agree, Ranelagh village’s situation is disgraceful – it is being allowed to slide downhill gradually. Blaming it on LUAS, is a convenient excuse used by transport departments not to look at the matter properly. The idea of passing the buck again, someone elses responsibility. There is an attitude that Ranelagh is only for a few tired and lazy students who leave their cosy beds at a quarter to nine and catch an 11B out to Belfield. If you go a 10 minute walk down the road to Donnybrook, the whole thing works because you have the width of street needed to accomodate a busy through bus service. It is interesting actually to compare the two.

    You can find something I observed here, Belfield Campus and Bus Service, about Belfield campus and the way in which bus routes have been organised to use Belfield as an unofficial bus depot. Because Belfield is just so large, as the quays along the Liffey are, or O’Connell St and West Moreland Street avenue is – you simply do not appreciate how MANY buses remain parked all day long in those places. Dublin Bus have always had a talent for spotting large open spaces all over the city, and using them as bus parks. Which really leads you to wonder, what are all of those people man-ing those vehicles actually being paid to do? ? ?

    But getting back to Ranelagh, one final observation I would like to make, is how coffee shops there in the morning do quite a good trade on ‘coffee-to-go’. I mean, you can place a car on a footpath there for 5, while you nip into a coffee shop and get your take-away. I do think planners should be aware of it. That coffee shops who target sites at corners and junctions, on busy routes, are really going to affect peoples’ behaviour in cars, so that people will park the car temporarily on footpaths etc – normally new Porsches – and use the coffee shop like a drive-through. This surely is the opposite to the way Ranelagh should be trying to go. Everyone I know says, they ‘like Ranelagh village’, but if they really did like Ranelagh village that much, they would see it has its problems and would be interested in trying to look more closely at the problems.

    If the Ministers were to allocate me a budget of €1.5 Million I believe I could devise and impliment some small-scale trafic and Public Transport centred measures which would reduce the Number 11 south side journey time by approximately 5 mins per bus journey at peak and perhaps more off peak allowing for an increased frequency throughout the day and into the night (A Must for a truly useable Village scenario)

    Not to mention the trouble with 11 buses getting through Drumcondra and city centre in the mornings. If you look at the 11B service from Grafton Street to Belfield, it is never affected as badly. The trouble for me, with the 11B service, is that is stops in Belfield and doesn’t continue going out further. This is my point really about Belfield and bus transport – when you have this large city campus the bus routes either side of it – decide to use the campus as a bus park. It is a nice and large, quiet place where you can hide many buses and have a good old snooze for yourself. If you stand at the East entrance to Belfield in the mornings you can count one bus every 10 seconds or so, turning straight into Belfield and parking there. If that isn’t a cozy option I don’t know what.

    We don’t seem to have the right eyeballs looking at our city and the way in which it functions – far too many toes you could thread upon, I assume. Far too many large egos and demi-gods. Too many separate public and private institutions which are worried about their own self-preservation. I mean, when you think about universities, and all of those buses travelling out to Belfield in the mornings with 4 students on board – you have to think of LUAS going through UCD, or going through DCU or the new DIT site at GrangeGorman. I hate to say it, but Tallaght Institute of Technology is probably one of those few campuses in Dublin now, which does have a proper, regular transportation system to service it. I don’t think buses are the correct way to think about servicing a University. Does anyone here know of university campuses that are serviced by a rail system, or light rail system?

    Mind you my plan would greatly inconvience those who “Stick her up on the kerb” and nip in for a Paper-Single-Kebab-Pizza etc BUT we have to Make some choices here if the Village ethos is to be meaningfully retained and expanded….

    Yeah, it would be a real shame if Ranelagh were to lose the Porsche driving yuppies stopping for take away at the village, while speeding out to Sandyford to work in Microsoft.

    Brian O’ Hanlon.

    in reply to: Fair Play to Starbucks #763807
    garethace
    Participant

    Howley Harrington’s revised Temple Bar plan included mention of Foster Place. As far as I remember, there was talk of opening it up to plug into the rest of TB, but just how this would be achieved is unclear to me. All of the buildings are of merit and part of the charm of FP is its enclosed nature- I’d be cautious about any measure that diluted this characteristic.

    Interesting observations there indeed, …plugging into Temple Bar, now there is a thought indeed. Long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away before the abomination of private greed that turned out to be Temple Bar, people imagined Temple Bar would be this pristine and other-worldly location, where people would not behave like people, but like some breed of cosmopolitan, urban-aware, sophisticated social animal. The truth turned out to be very different, and now we are all wiser, and understand what ‘plugging into Temple Bar’ would actually entail. I mean look at Grafton Street, black with people all day long. A real pity how Grafton Street was raped with people. If you were to link Foster’s Place with Temple Bar, no doubt, Foster’s Place would be raped too.

    This little gem of a street should not be connected to TB. The fact it’s a cul de sac is part of its charm.

    Similarly, well said. We should try to mention here, the behaviour around the Central Bank, and its use as some kind of teenage hang-out area. Usually, I associate that behaviour with a teenage pop concert or rock festival. But in front of the Central Bank, it appears you can have the same behaviour without any concert at all. Maybe we should think about teenagers, and their need to gather and be in one big open air space, in the way we design and build new parts of the city. It seems at a certain age, these young just need to get together and interact a whole pile, in ways, that cannot be accomodated through the use of nightclub, and other quite large interior spaces.

    No doubt at all, if Fosters Place became a linking space, it would become ‘owned’ by some other tribe or sub-culture. It would be like exchanging the taxi-drivers for some other monopoly of use. I cannot understand it, but the behaviour of teenagers screaming and shouting in front of Central Bank has escalated a lot since the hoarings went up around there. It is quite an interesting study in adolescent human behaviour. It wasn’t as bad when the skateboarders owned that space. I suspect strongly too, that the teenagers from the old O’Connell Street, have adopted Dame Street, in front of Central Bank, as their new abode.

    The Wesrmoreland St/College Green redevelopment will be very interesting. I really hope Luas line A is chosen and private motor vehicles are excorcised from this axis, along with O’Connell St/Bridge. The whole area would make a magnificent pedestrian plaza with Foster Place being a little shaded haen in the summer and a cosy enclosed space in winter, imagine those trees outside the ex AIB building as a bar/restaurant all decorated in twinkly xmas lights, lovely.

    I am all for keeping car access to Foster’s place. They manage to do it in many of the best European cities. But there seems to be something about ‘how’ the taxi driving occupation evolved in Dublin city, and similarly the bus transportation system evolved, that seems to be about dragging places down. Making them into the lowest common denominator – for some strange reason, people who drive vehicles around our cities seem to have pure contempt for their urban environment. You can see this similarly in suburban villages and areas, where if there is a video store or laundrette alongside a road, it is free-for-all for anyone in a mini-van with two kids to use the footpath as a parking lot. I understand the climate is bad, peoples’ lives are hectic and keeping kids in your sight is paramount. But something tells me there is more to peoples behaviour and lack of respect for urban places, when they are sitting behind the wheel of a n automobile.

    You can already see the pressure that Habitat is having on the pavement outside as more people fight for a limited space. And plans are afoot to open a second store in the EBS premises beside Habitat.

    The very worst these days, for my money, is the bottom of Grafton Street pedestrian route, with a busy bus route intersecting right over it going up to Suffolk Street. Using places like Dame Street and Suffolk Street, as bus stops, in the way we do, is not working very well. Just to complicate matters then,… and most of this was true of O’Connell Street in the bad old days,… was the taxi ranks getting ‘stuck’ in there aswell. In case, traffic plus pedestrians wasn’t hard enough to do,… you throw in bus stops and taxi ranks, and you really do have the chaos and mess that is, and has always been my experience of Dublin city center. I mean, at the bottom of Grafton Street, Fosters place, the middle of College Green and O’Connell Street in the olden days, were all taxi and bus parks, nothing else really. This is what you get when you form your whole ‘thinking’ around the internal combustion engine. If all you have is a hammer, then every problem becomes a nail.

    I don’t think Foster Place should be linked into Temple Bar whatsoever – it’s a charming little street, why spoil it by linking it into our “British Stag Night containment unit”. Trtust me the malignancy of chain restaurants and theme bars would soon creep in. The old AIB would make a fantastic high end restaurant, but it wouldn’t take off if it was tarred with the Temple Bar brush

    All very true, sad, but true. As I mention above, when we were all looking at the Temple Bar concept, when it was still just a concept in the mid 1990s, we were all still very, very naive. We considered that in Temple Bar, people would somehow behave better than you normally expect them to. That has not proven the case, and a lot of very trendy architects, who won awards in Temple Bar for their design – protested afterwards, about the facts, of how badly people can behave! As if people should behave better, just to preserve the dignity of the lovely ‘designed’ environment they are in. What I mean, is that in the early days of the Temple Bar framework stage, everyone looked at Temple Bar as some benign, inner urban development, which did not need any containment. People were suddenly, going to become so well behaved, they would naturally ‘respect’ their environment and surroundings. And all the Architects could build more Temple Bar areas, and win themselves more awards from the AAI.

    I was watching the movie ‘Doom’ last night, and found it funny, to notice the same issue there. The containment of creatures, with 24 chromosomes, who tried to break out of containment on Mars and come down to Earth via a space travelling machine. It would be a shame, if the 24 chromosome creatures in Temple Bar were to break through into Foster’s Place and infect everyone else with the same genetic mods. Nice point about the stone setts too btw. I will tell you, I give this one to the planning brains here. I didn’t see the potential destruction of Foster’s place, via linking it to Temple Bar etc, etc. I think the sensibilities of a planner, here, have proven to be more effective than those of an architect. In Temple Bar, the sensibilities of architects alone, were proven insufficient. This is a good place to mention, that Temple Bar, as an artistic and cultural quarter, (I know, don’t laugh) was an idea that came from cities like Paris in the 1980s. That ‘concept’ was championed by Charles Haughey, then Taoiseach.

    Brian O’ Hanlon.

    in reply to: Fair Play to Starbucks #763765
    garethace
    Participant

    I will get them don’t worry,

    Or anyone else feel free to post up a pic or two.

    But It just struck me this evening how obvious the point is – right in college green, where you just can’t ignore it. We need to pull up our socks,… big time.

    Brian O’ Hanlon.

    in reply to: Design Conceptualisation: The Rise of CAD #762545
    garethace
    Participant

    Which “certain kind of ‘design environment’,” have I grown up in now?
    And what are the “patterns and thinking” of which I have absorbed too much?
    At a guess, I suspect I have more design training and familiarity with the architectural side (as you see it) than many architects working today. Also, my suggestions come from first-hand experience of the planning consultancy side rather than from any ‘design environment’ as you might believe.

    Anyone who has come through the system, of being trained in one of the built environment professions – planning, surveying, highway engineering, architecture, landscape design etc, cannot be blamed for having absorbed the terriorial behaviouralisms of those organisations. Their disks have been corrupted even before the program could be installed. To really claim to know anything about urban design, I think that one has to go beyond the mere ‘fenced off’ mentality of those professions. Slowly but surely those groupings are losing their relevance and their meaning for modern society and ways of living.

    I can’t even really dispute your forking argument as I disagree fundamentally with your characterisation of planning as some sort of ‘code’. As I said before on the thread you linked above, it’s not simply a mechanistic button-pushing, number-crunching exercise.

    It is often a mechanistic button pushing exercise. Pedestrianisation is an example of rubbish code created by people who don’t deserve to be termed urbanists. Like take the xmas shopping environment at the moment – how is that a good environment? You go into a department store, which messes up the legibility of the internal circulation on purpose, so that when you get so exhausted you impulse buy, because you are so tired and confused, and surrounded by things with price tags on them. People should be given choice.

    Look at the mechanistic way that Dublin Bus drivers pull into Belfield campus in the mornings and use it as a bus parking depot? If you stand at the west entrance to Belfield any morning, you can count roughly a bus every 10 seconds pulling in the university, with two or three students on it. This strange phenomena created out of two pieces of code: firstly, a decision to build a university in the middle of a whole load of surface car parking, and second a vehicular transport system like buses riding along motorways ajacent to a university campus. We are surrounded by an environment created by different bits of code, which don’t fit very well together at the edges. Everyone is trying to build their own sofeware, but there is no overall operating system.

    Whatever similarities either profession has or had to some 19th century ideal, such a romantic notion has long since passed into history.

    I don’t think it a romantic notion actually. It is assumed that no one individual can know all of the knowledge there is to know. But David Deutsch has looked at that perception and challenged it in the first chapter of ‘The Fabric of Reality’. According to Deutsch, We are not moving towards fragmentation of knowledge, but rather away from it. All of the professions have indeed been organised around this notion, of greater and greater fragmentation. It was founded upon the believe that no one individual could possibly know everything. But as we move towards better and better explanations of the world, and how it functions, there is less and less need for ‘many theories’.

    Soon, you will have less and less theories, and maybe eventually, have one grand theory of everything. One example Deutsch gives, was when numbers changed from being Roman numerals to the Arabic system of decimals. Prior to that, the two systems for ordering numbers co-existed together, even though one was more cumbersome than the other. But when people realised the virtues of using decimal, there was simply no use for two numbering systems. In our understanding of the world, and the various people tasked with its design and building – we are moving away from specialists and towards generalists believe it or not.

    I urge you to investigate that chapter in David Deutsch’s book for yourself sometime.

    I’m not arguing that we should have infinite sub-groups in a Babel-like cacophony. You seem to think that I’m putting this option forward only to further fragment the built environment field(s), whereas the point I made above was to do with the removal of some key tasks from biased actors, nothing more than that (a bias that would be more common in a world that lacked the necessary professional separation, IMHO).

    If you believe that, then you are moving in exactly the direction, those biased actors want you to move. The reason ‘biased actors’ became ‘biased actors’ of any importance in the first place – was because they learned to melt together all of the different traditions. Separate headings like planning, surveying, highway engineering, architecture and landscape design. The real people who are supposed to own all of the talent, have become stuck and bottled up inside these ‘cages’ that they have created for themselves. I would compare it to when Bruce Lee managed to integrate all of the different martial arts, which grew over the centuries. Of course the various ancient martial arts traditions didn’t like that either. They threatened to take his life in fact, they were so perturbed by his teaching of this new ‘unified’ way of looking at martial arts.

    It is possible for different professions to have different areas of expertise but still to be able to communicate effectively with each other. Doctors and nurses, drivers and mechanics, solicitors and barristers to name just some off the top of my head.

    Not true, as my example of pedestrianisation, shopping, dublin bus transport system and location of universities points out – everyone is busy compiling their own software. The IBM 360 project in the 1960s, was a very ambitious project in its day. What is did was, write one operating sytem, that could run across all of the IBM computer systems. That was the first time, this was ever done. It created a platform for the computer industry in the United States, that allowed it to thrive for decades afterwards. We need the IBM 360 project, for the planning and environmental design of this country. We will not get it, as long as everyone continues to exist within their own little ‘product’ groups. See ‘The Mythical Man Month’ by Frederick Brooks, published by O’Reilly for more information on writing good resilient code. Frederick was the architect and project manager on the IBM 360 operating system.

    I will quote something here, from the Urban Design Group website, http://www.udg.org.uk, Issue 85. I think the book written by by Kelvin Campbell and Rob Cowan, is coming from much the same ideas and viewpoint as those expressed in the David Deutsch book, The Fabric of Reality.

    Despite the fact that all of these people are shaping our towns and cities, few will receive any training in how complex urban places work.

    Imagine if the medical profession trained its members to be specialists first. Some would become brain surgeons; some ear, nose and throat specialists; some paediatricians. A few would go on to do further training in the basics of physiology. Such people would be able to make the proud claim that, for example, they were not only expert in brain surgery, but that they also understood how the blood circulated and what lungs were for. The idea is crazy, of course. Such a profession would have dead bodies on its hands. But that is how the UK’s built environment professions are trained. We have dead places.

    I quoted some more of that Kelvin Campbell and Rob Cowan book here:

    https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=4463

    As I said, the real trouble with Archiseek, is that is isolated into its own little world – and many parallel debates are taking place not so far away from Archiseek discussion forum, but we tend not to listen to them quite enough. That is one of my few and biggest criticism of the Archiseek discussion forum concept in general, btw.

    I find it oddd that, on the one hand, you extol the virtues of efficiency, while on the other hand you seem wedded to the anti-specialisation argument. Don’t you see this as contradictory?

    There is a modern fascination for design by consensus and collaboration. Which has been fueled by technologies like email and personal computers. But there are also many pitfalls to look out for. One person should define the components of the project. One person should define clean interfaces for constrained collaboration. Because most of the ‘bugs’ in the system cluster at those interfaces. Like the phenomenon, of Dublin Bus making University College Dublin into their own private bus park.

    Brian O’ Hanlon.

    in reply to: Design Conceptualisation: The Rise of CAD #762543
    garethace
    Participant

    Dick Gleeson speaks a lot about planning applications, where ‘you are not getting it’. Meaning the materials, the treatment of the facade etc, etc – that comes easier to some designers than it does to others. So based on that point of view, some planning applications would be refused, because ‘you are not getting it’. Basically, it means the designer is asked to go off and ‘try again’ and perhaps the next time, pay a little more attention, and try and get it right. Planners are attempting to ensure, that projects receive the quality of design and use of materials, etc that the site and building project deserves.

    So if the balconies you used in your example are badly designed – it simply means the architect didn’t do their job properly.

    I think that sentence sums it up. I would stand behind what you have said there, that the architects sometimes don’t do their job properly. Even when the visualisation kind of underlines that lack of effort to work on the balcony expression or something – laziness on there part really – to try to work on something, that isn’t quite there. Of course an architect could say, the client didn’t give me the time and resources. But in that case, should an architect really put their name to it? That is the hard part, is the designer willing to put their name to it? Because, when the designer is willing to put their name to something that half-baked, well then, with the ‘pixel-pushing’ capabilities of graphic artists nowadays – literally anything will fly. Your designer, the architect is the one real safety valve you have in the entire system.

    The developer pays, but doesn’t get to choose. And doesn’t get to manipulate the results. Or the state pays- this would be a way of increasing the chances of objectivity, and would be justifiable as large scale projects will always have an impact on the public at large.

    You should realise, that the above statement speaks so loudly and clearly of someone, who can grown up in a certain kind of ‘design environment’, and absorbed a little too much of its patterns and thinking.

    The ‘White Slug’ point – well, you have a forking of the two traditions in Ireland – planners knowing the code extremely well – architects supposedly knowing the visual side of it. If the planner had more visual training and the architect more code-based understanding, then they would create much better dialogue, and come up with a better end result. But since you have this forking of the traditions of planning and architecture in Ireland – with both parties setting boundaries – then you have this split. When you have two distinct parties, it is easy to make it three distinct parties, then someone else suggests four distinct parties. And so on. All the while the interfaces of collaboration between the parties are becoming more complicated, and each one speaking in their own customised language. I think your suggestion about a non-objective third party just seems to indicate somebody who has grown up in a tradition where the traditions got split. And now having made it two distinct parties, it is so easy to suggest making it three distinct parties. And on, and on, until you eventually have so many different parties, that dialogue is completely impossible.

    America is a vast space, a huge terroritory. One thing we can learn from the Americans is efficiency. All of the CAD tools, this discussion thread is about – have been painstakingly grown and developed by American software engineers and masters down through the years. From the early 1960s, when Ivan Sutherland produced his ‘Sketchpad’ application to the present where the CAD industry is a huge American high-value software export. But the point about American efficiency that I most admire, is their effort to train the planning profession to think in terms of design as well as in code. Likewise, an architect in the United States has to think in terms of budget, costs and design. Unlike their counterparts here in Europe. The Americans have been like that from the start. Remember in Ireland, the Department of the Environment only cobbled together ‘Building Regulations’ in the mid 1990s. That was the very first time, architects were even asked to think about code as such. Prior to that, code was just for Boffins ‘who wanted to destroy their creativity’. In the United States, at least, the planner and architect can sit down and share more of the same language together.

    I think we need to think about this point in Ireland, and question what we want our planners and architects to do. To sit in completely separated compartments, on different sides of the fence – or communicate better with each other. The idea of suggesting a third split again, in addition to the splitting of architecture and planning – just seems to me, to be a suggestion from a person who has grown up, with the idea of splitting of traditions, firmly embedded in their thinking. Don’t ask me, to try and speculate what advantage that way of thinking might have. Because all I see with it, is inefficiency, confusion and vulnerability to corruption and mis-dealing. Our system in Ireland is too full of holes. Your strategy of fragmentation and forking just increases the vulnerability of the system – is is not helping the system – to stay immune from most corruption. That is the basic rule of interogation that cops use, to place all of the suspects in separate rooms and bounce false stories off of each of them, until someone cracks and gives the other one away. So out in the real world, you have hit men, employed to ‘take the other guy out’, and basically a mobster underworld is created. With a different compartment for visualisation, architecture, planning and the ‘money guys’ you are leaving the system wide open for the interogation to proceed, and rip what system there is, to shreds.

    Brian O’ Hanlon.

    in reply to: Design Conceptualisation: The Rise of CAD #762539
    garethace
    Participant

    I wonder if it wouldn’t actually be better to use somebody who didn’t have too much of an understanding about such things?

    Thinking out loud is good, that’s allowed.

    But I am thinking from actually being there in the trenches, with this kind of thing.

    If you leave it to people without understanding, I honestly believe, you will get building visualisations, that make no sense at all – except in the sense they are made from pixels. You could not possibly convince any client out there to spend money building this kind of balcony structure – it is like Stone Henge trying to be cool and modern. Uhhh!

    http://www.cgarchitect.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1622

    Brian O’ Hanlon.

    in reply to: Design Conceptualisation: The Rise of CAD #762538
    garethace
    Participant

    You still haven’t offered a suggestion as to who will pay the piper?

    Who is going to pay the non-objective visualist?

    I have offered suggestions as to how auctioneers and those associated with marketing budgets for large developments, have sponsored the work of a certain kind of visualist. And how that breed of visualist isn’t necessarily someone well trained in environmental impact assessment – or even caring about such things. They just want some of the marketing money.

    Also, the point about American Planners who post over at Cyburbia – is that in the States, unlike Ireland – the planners have a more integrated system – the planners there are urban designers – they have all spent 4-5 years at university, in a studio, with doing designs and drawings – in much the same way as architects do in college here in Ireland. So when you think of planner in the united states – that is a very different animal to the kind of planner you run into here in Ireland. I would argue that a lot of American planners are responsible for the design of the environment, and caring for it. They certainly seem aware of those things – if the discussion at Cyburbia is anything to judge by.

    So if you take this point, about planners in the united states thinking about drawings, designs etc. It is just a natural progression for them to use a simple digital visualisation tool like Photoshop or Corel Draw. That is the extent of the ability of most architects here in Ireland anyhow – as far as the digital tools side of it goes. I tried to highlight the dis-connection between the planning and architectural ‘TRADITIONS’ here in this thread:

    https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=4223

    How the two traditions in Ireland seem to have forked and grown apart more and more. Which doesn’t seem to be the case in other first world countries like America. I am sick and tired of Irish Planners pretending to be verbal and literary ‘Code-based’ professionals,… and likewise, I am just as sick and tired of Irish Architects, wearing their training in visual and pictograpahic representation, as if it were a pair of designer sneakers. While so conveniently managing to avoid the ‘Code’ because they call themselves ‘creative’ people. What is that? A ‘creative’ person, I mean? That we all have to bend down and pay homage to.

    We still don’t have a proper institution or school in this country that merges the two respective traditions of architecture and planning. The answers are to be found here – not in this wishful thinking for a third-party visualist. If you study the economics behind it – the visualist – is just an artist without any discerning capabilities or responsibilities beyond that of making money. Which in this case, comes straight out of the marketing budget for large commercial developments. The visualist I discussed this point with at CG Architect, is one of the most respected Illustrators in the United States – and quite frankly, his honestly about being in ‘marketing’ stands on its own. It doesn’t ‘try’ to be anything other than what it is.

    Brian O’ Hanlon.

    in reply to: Design Conceptualisation: The Rise of CAD #762535
    garethace
    Participant

    What does your response above have to do with the quote of mine that you extracted? I just saw your reply today but can’t see any connection. The point I was making was that the involvement of a third party would hopefully add a measure of objectivity to the process, rather than the devil citing scripture for his own purpose, so to speak. It was nothing to do with a capability disconnection between designer and technology. Am I misreading you?

    No, you are not misreading me, but I will take some time to draw on a few more points. Where is the budget to pay the non-objective third party visualist going to come from? Lets get the history straight here. If you do go back far enough, or know anyone involved in computer-aided visual impact assessment in the early days – I am talking about the 1980s and early 1990s – they marketed themselves to do the kind of job you describe. But they didn’t get anywhere. After a while, more and more graphic designers and CG people came on the scene looking for work. Their background primarily in producing ‘commerical art’. Those artists have not got the training and simply don’t appreciate the distinction you are making. These later, artistically trained visualists realised it was easy to go to auctioneers, and get some of that nice juicy ‘marketing’ budget associated with large developments. Why wouldn’t they jump at such an opportunity? But what it did, was bury that early breed of visualist who cared about the impact of the development on the environment – it became all about ‘pixel pushing’, and nothing to do with physical reality.

    I had quite an interesting discussion with a pixel pusher on this thread:

    http://www.cgarchitect.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1622

    I don’t know, I think the design of that facade was abominable, and I hope the planners stopped it. But when I tried to raise the point, it was a bad image to be using in the ‘Finished Work’ critique, I got into a much longer discussion about the purpose of visualisation in general.

    But the fact remains that the world still needs renderers and that our job, usually, is to help with project marketing.

    http://www.cgarchitect.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1622&page=2

    But, foolishly again, I will try to make it clear to you that I do NOT really care about the input an architect made in any given rendering. You seem worried that the ‘architect’ will get squeezed right out of the architectural rendering. I’m fine with ural rendering. I hope to shift my client-base away from architects and towards owners/developers.

    http://www.cgarchitect.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1622&page=7

    The fellow I banged heads with there, is from a long family of American Architectural Illustrators, and if you take the time to read through the thead, you will get the jist of things. I appreciate where he was coming from, but I also think there are dangers in what he is saying. I will leave it up to yourself to make up your own mind though. In conclusion, Computer-aided architectural Visualisation started as a kind of third party imaging service, that would be an exact representation of the final product. This comes from the traditions of rapid prototyping in industrial and mechanical design. Where you make a first prototype version of your widget, to test out a physical object, rather than a drawing. But after a while, the artists just exchanged their watercolours and air brushes for colour printers and silicon chips. Like how digital photography is replacing film negatives. The digital artists with no appreciation for architecture often, did the work fast and cheap. They didn’t understand anything about impact assessment or scale of buildings or the appearance of materials. They managed to push out the earlier kind of visualist – the one who cared about the impact of the building. The rest is history. Architects were caught badly, napping, here I feel – and they sacrificed ‘market share’ in the area of visualisation, to a bunch of pixel-pushers. Architects who tried to learn to push some pixels were soon pushed out of their own profession.

    The biggest trouble with artistically trained Architectural Visualists, now doing the visualisation – is they need to be dictated to – by somebody. As I said, it is like the early days in computing, where you had your high priests who took care of the ‘machine’ and people who approached the high priests by arriving at a service counter, and dictating instructions on cards. But that stage of mainframe computing did not last for ever. Eventually the person dictating an instruction, became frustrated by this service counter ‘barrier’ between themselves and the machine. Eventually, that barrier was removed, and then more and more barriers became removed. Until eventually you can interact with the machine – as we have today – have a kind of basic conversation with it. We can go even further, to where the computer and the human being become one and the same. I talked to planners before at Cyburbia about visualisation, and came to the conclusion – that local authorities don’t get the kind of budget necessary to use visualisation tools. Or even to employ others to undertake visualisation studies. Here is a good thread on Planners using Photoshop etc, a simple tools they seem to manage quite well:

    http://www.cyburbia.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7360&highlight=visualisation

    Here is a thread where I really challenged them, and got to the conclusion, as about lack of resources and what not.

    I’m not sure what you are getting at. Are you trying to insult some of us? I don’t think you are, but the way you wrote your post isn’t exactly the best way to invite some of us to engage in a productive discussion about using Photoshop and improving our technique.

    http://www.cyburbia.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7597&highlight=visualisation

    But fair enough, the planners didn’t appreciate much what I had suggested. But at the same time, the planners seemed to get a grip on Photoshop and Corel Draw, which is a hell of a lot more than many architects do.

    Brian O’ Hanlon.

    in reply to: Design Conceptualisation: The Rise of CAD #762532
    garethace
    Participant

    For either photomontages or 3D mock-ups to have any worth in the planning system, they should be carried out by a third party not attached to the developer. I worked in a planning consultancy and I recall one of the senior associates saying ‘We can’t use that one, but this one looks great! Do you think we could get [the company that produced them] to re-do these from a different angle?”

    Current thinking about 3D visualisation seems to reflect dis-connection between designer, and digital tools. Before personal computers, laptops and palm pilots, there were mainframes and minicomputers. Noone was allowed near a mainframe computer except a special team of ‘high priests’ who maintained the computer and cared for it. In the post world war II era, computing was ‘too expensive’ to allow people direct access to. Now a computer with more power is found on a livingroom floor. But years before the Playstation became a reality, the interface with a computer, was a clerk you spoke to at a desk. If you were lucky, you were permitted to submit ‘a calculation’ written on punch cards. The ‘high priests’ who cared for ‘the computer’ would feed the punch cards into the computer for you. The computer would serve a whole institution, and represented a very large capital investment. After a week, you would return to the big glass building, which housed the computer, and receive the results. This often involved ‘a business trip’ to a different country or state, because computers were so precious, rare and valuable. Sometimes, if a punctuation mark was misplaced in the code, you would receive a useless result or perhaps no result at all. You would have to wait for another week and hope the program executed properly the next time.

    Even though times have changed, architects still use 3D visualisation as if it were the 1940s. You don’t need creative people involved in this process of running back and forth. All you need is a team of bureaucrats to ‘go fetch’. In the old days, the trip to the big glass building, was treated like a business trip for executives working in banks etc. The bank purchased computer time on the mainframe to calculate interest rates etc. Nowadays, any member of the public, can look up interest rates on the internet. In the architectural practice in Ireland today, we hold onto the notion of the ‘high priest’. Because older architects in charge are more comfortable with the separation of a designer from technology. It preserves a neat and organised view of things, appropriate in the post WWII era. The architectural designer, or masterplanner has to wait while the high priest massages the computer code into a result everyone ‘is happy’ with. At the end of this very long and expensive process, a kind of deal is struck, where the client goes off with the image. Having paid a computer administrator for computer time and expertise with a ‘digital airbrush’. This method of computer usage, is a long ways from the interaction the architect has with other objects, like drawings or cardboard models. Where the designer can work up a solution directly and discuss it in real time with fellow designers.

    Brian O’ Hanlon.

    http://www.open2.net/digitalplanet/souls/Script3/scriptp1.htm

    http://www.open2.net/digitalplanet/souls/Script3/scriptp2.htm

    http://www.open2.net/digitalplanet/souls/Script3/scriptp3.htm

    in reply to: AAI Awards: Twenty Years #762573
    garethace
    Participant

    OMG, whoever designed that site, doesn’t no squat about web space.

    Calendar view is gone, so now the new site design actually increases the likelihood of anyone getting the date, month, and even year completely wrong for any event! Furthermore, as a means of reminding oneself, when browsing through the AAI’s web site, now even the copy and paste text feature is totally unavailable, so forget about those last minute reminders via email to friends and oneself – you have to wait for this flash business to load up, and hope you manage to navigate correctly. It is only ‘hit and miss’ you don’t scroll past the next event and miss it completely – on a page assumed to keep one informed of upcoming events. I hope who ever designed and planned this web site, doesn’t sell their services too often designing buildings for clients. This is what I mean about aesthetics – if this were a house, I would probably like it for the first 5 minutes and curse the designer for the rest of my life. Whatever functionality there was in the old site – and it was enough – has been washed down the toilet for the sake of a flash gimick. Nice one AAI.

    Final word, face it AAI, if you cannot manage this kind of endeavour properly, don’t even try. Stick to basics, and get back to basics. And above all, please get into to mindset of feedback – whenever you go doing a new website, you can’t just ‘throw something up’ overnight,… when you launch a new web space like this, after building it and launching it, you need at least a month or more of constant feedback from users, actually using the web space, to improve the product and make it function in some manner acceptable to those users. What the AAI has now for their website is a complete spagetti mess, it is almost impossible to navigate through. I only barely managed after a couple of goes, to actually find out when the next event was on, and I am still not sure given that fancy 10/11, or 11/10, minimalist descriptions of the date – yeah, may look cool, but functionality wise – s****.

    Brian O’ Hanlon.

    in reply to: AAI Awards: Twenty Years #762572
    garethace
    Participant

    Hey! I just spoke too soon.

    That is a bit of a pain – you can’t mail someone a link to an event anymore either, my link above to the AAI 20 years symposium night, which worked last Friday night, is broken now. Oh, lets drag out the web meister and… 🙂 Seriously, I mean architects are supposed to at least consider the user dimension in these things, no? This is what I mean about Flash. HTML was boring and such, it was a dinner jacket and tie affair by any manner or means, but one of the things Tim Berners Lee was all about, was easy linking and coordination of data and information. It is great having a make over, but not at the expense of functionality please!

    Brian O’ Hanlon.

    in reply to: AAI Awards: Twenty Years #762571
    garethace
    Participant

    what about the fancy new flash site over here:

    http://www.irish-architecture.com/aai/

    I guess I was never a flash kind of guy, since most sites I tend to like are very plain indeed. But I guess, one has to hand it to the AAI this time, nice effort, looks quite nice. One complaint though, when you click on an event, and then go ‘back’, it takes you to the top of the list all over again and boy does this get to be annoying. Maybe this message might find its way back to the AAI, and they can take a look at how this works. Gee, I wonder if the AAI should invest some effort in making feed-back loops. Most vibrant online communities I have known, when you do a new web site, the feed back is almost instant, and form a debating point, all by itself for at least a week. Any thoughts?

    Brian O’ Hanlon.

    in reply to: Design Conceptualisation: The Rise of CAD #762528
    garethace
    Participant

    Desktop Engineer interesting article to give an idea of costs and state of technology at moment for digitising 3 dimensional objects etc.

    http://www.deskeng.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=282

    Brian O’ Hanlon.

    in reply to: Transportation Planning #761268
    garethace
    Participant

    Other very interesting articles in the back issues page:

    http://www.masstransitmag.com/script/metasearchstart.shtm

    Brian O’ Hanlon.

Viewing 20 posts - 41 through 60 (of 947 total)

Latest News