garethace

I think it would be a nice office environment, as offices go – it is right up there. But rarely does private office private sector investment, go in for these atriums, openess and sunlight. I mean, how would on go about filling a building that size with small private companies? Or even one big company? I mean DELL is the biggest in Ireland with 3,000+ workers, of which a lot are administrative – but they are spread out over 3 different centres around the whole country – east coast to west coast. And possibly with offices in Britian too. I must see West Point or City West or whatever it is called sometime. But I think, ideally the Wood Quay type of Architecture should be a nice office building for workers to work in. Obviously maybe not Central Debeer, but not unlike that concept in some ways.

You may find this interesting: It explains how to maximise on open space, minimise on services and make everyone happy in housing layouts!

Brian O’ Hanlon.

P.S.

Broadband users, might manage to download this great PowerPoint presentation, which talks and graphically illustrates the concept.

Funny!

if it was not your intention to call these ideas bullshit then i apologise and think we are in agreement on the fundamentals of this argument.

I was actually aware of the ambiguity of my meaning in using the term bullshit. By bs, I actually mean, writing, complex involved writing, that needs to be read in context of his efforts to free space in his Architecture. It wasn’t bullshit at all to him, or to many others that read and were influenced by him and his buildings. I have never gotten my hands on a copy of that famous essay, but I have read several extracts in Helmer Stenros’s book Time, Motion and Architecture.

I have traced these concepts all the ways from my earliest reading of Francis D.K. Ching’s book, and the verbal interviews/lectures given by Steven Holl and Bernard Tschumi, back to the documentaries and books about Mies van der Rohe, or opinions about the Schroder house, and have only recently discovered through a couple of different useful sourses about Frank Llyod Wright, how he was indeed one of the very pioneers of this spatial perception.

Indeed Le Corbusier, spoke about finding the paintings in Cubism, 4-dimensional and redefining how we see space as an object. How Le Corbusier said himself, that he observed four dimensional phenomena in all three arts he expressed himself in – painting, sculpture and architecture.

This principal reason for my interest in his writing however, is because this definition of space as an object, as oposed to contained in a box, with holes punched in it – is crucial to my development of the use of computer 3D modelling as a tool to design architecture. I had to re-define my concept of actual space in reality, in order to use an artificial computer program to help me deal with space inside and space outside.

Of course my perception of space, was very weak, and it has been a difficult struggle to expand my awareness. I have used literature and real experiences of buildings by O’Donnell and Tuomey and others, to help expand my natural awareness.

My theories were just fine, on paper, until I attempted to use them in reality. I found that another important consideration in Architecture is that of the movement of the participant. That is the very last chapter in Ching’s book, and I found it the hardest of all to grasp, as you need to get off your bum (moreso than the others) to explore that chapter properly. I felt Wright talks about this too, in how the houses were flexible. I.e. When kids moved out etc. Like one family was still discovering new spaces in the house for years afterwards. Having changed the house many times, and putting their deck chairs at different places on the terraces etc, etc.

I was watching questions and answers last night, and I was struck by one comment made by the Government minister.

The notion of the Irish landscape being divided by townland, parish, county and country. As compared to the idea of Spatial strategies, defining the landscape by City, town, village and hinterland. The old system of townlands and parishs, was mirrored in large institutions like the GAA and the religious organisations. The care for society in terms of health, education and social services was by the religious organisations. Now this modern planning strategy approach by local authorities etc, has been overlaid on top of this.

This was the transfer of power from clergy to state. In our grandfathers and grandmothers times, a lot of people never ventured beyond their own parishes. A lot of people had never been to Dublin, and their lives didn’t seem to suffer from that at all. Our grandfathers and grandmothers would not understand this idea of people all going to Dublin, Cork or Galway to live. And leaving behind their rural roots etc.

Yet it seems that many people in the cities too, are in fact now leaving their mothers and fathers in Kimmage, or Crumlin, or wherever. To go and live in the suburban sprawl of Kildare. Where National Schools cannot keep up to the pace of development and growth. With people living as far away as Carlow, and commuting to Dublin city each day. Perhaps we should be looking at some form of rapid transport, as opposed to something like LUAS?

On the other hand, you should consider how many working mothers there are living in rural Ireland these days, compare to 10 or 20 years ago. A lot of homes in rural Ireland having 2, 3 and 4 cars for the people living in those bungalows. And many National Schools down the country have less children actually coming to the National Schools, in large parishes, where a lot of new bungalows have been built very recently. Why? Because more young couples are choosing not to have families anymore, because work/career/earning and lifestyles are deemed more important.

How many people from rural Ireland went on sunshine holidays twenty years ago, compared to nowadays? Even though the price of flights has bottomed etc, etc. Still it would appear that many more people demand these ‘luxuries’. The day-at-the-beach is all but gone now.

Some useful discussion here perhaps

Try to avoid the gratuitous politician bashing here, but useful comments too

One I would not be without

Brian O’ Hanlon.

A lot of the AAI and BM stuff is just badly written. There is no excuse or getting around that fact. But Architects haven’t got the time to compose really beautifully crafted sentences with equal clarity and weigh. They haven’t time to carefully balance points raised in various paragraphs. Like Mies looking at a drawing for hours, to realise the clearest expression of what he wanted to build. A good writer will agonsise and work hard for years to finally wrench out of his/her very being what they wish to say. It is not very easy, and Ireland happens to be one of the few places in this country where writers and artists are actually tolerated. Ireland isn’t a bad country for these people.

But to be true to that, one has to become a writer and accept that in ten years time, you will not have built everything you would have liked to. You will have instead, created a useful body of thoughts in the form of ones writing. That is a serious decision, which some young Architects should make perhaps. Instead of trying to pretend to be writers and Architects in equal measure.

That is why the BM writers should aspire to a high quality of writing. Then it is up to us, as the readers to try to interpret what has been written. I think that a lot of the BM writing is written by people who imagine writing is easy – and doesn’t demand much time or effort. Similar to the way some people imagine that designing a piece of Architecture is easy – you just lash something out on your sheet of paper, and hey Presto! I believe James has tried to emphasise that as Architects our primary purpose is to perfect the craft of drawings and visualising – not that of writing. Unfortunately, you do see Architects trying in vain to master so many different arts – it is crazy!

I know a lot of web designers who are architects, a lot of photographers and artists who are architects. So I guess, one should expect to find a lot of writers who are architects too! Be very careful about this what? You are in danger of becoming like a crazy person, who encourages young Architects to be as good at the craft of writing as they are at the craft of building. So in ten or twenty years time, young Architects simply look back upon all the excellent essays they wrote, as oposed to all the really good Architecture they built, or nearly built.

It is lovely to talk about Architecture, because you never have to actually build anything to confirm your theories – they are end-products in themselves. And does to a large degree act as an immoveable obstacle, to actually achieveing one’s primary goal – that of building good Architecture. I also believe that some branches of the profession of Architecture – the opposite end of the spectrum to the BM writers – are over zealous in their attempts to build bad or even indifferent Architecture. And perhaps that is because, the BM writer types are too busy reading/writing and not helping as much to go and design/build.

There is a similar debate going on in Ireland at the moment, about the amount of talent now ending up in professions like journalism and TV/Radio, instead of going into Politics. Listening to the interview of Dunphy and the Irish Times editor (gave up politics) last Friday evening. Architecture needs the talent, there obviously is, out there in the world of Building Material, to actually design and build.

i would rather this country produce more O’Donnell Tuomeys than Anthony Reddys.

Well this sounds interesting, because what you are actually dealing with here, is not theoretical or conceptual ways of forming an Architectural practice. But as much at looking at different viable economical role models for making a practice work. That could be quite an intriguing debate. Since it appears that both can work, both can actually build a lot of stuff, it is a question of which one should be allowed to work, and therefore to build with greatest frequency.

Brian O’ Hanlon.

Once more, I cannot find much fault with what James has said – except that I would reinforce my theory that BM writing is trying to force Architecture into a region beyond that of merely building buildings, into a zone that is covered well by many different experts on planning, urban design and geography. As useful and interesting those areas are to the Architect, I hark back once more to the humble Architectural technician, who seems very strongly tied to the notion, that what (s)he draws is to be built.

I compare the early experiences of young Architects with grandiose visionary 5th year thesis projects in college etc, to the maiden voyages of those great nineteenth century ocean liners, crossing the Atlantic ocean. The captain of that ship, has to know all sorts of skills, everything from how the liner’s engines work, to how the seas currents, winds and temperatures behave. Yet, the captains sometimes decide to ‘turn the engines on full blast’ on the maiden voyage, as oposed to gradually wearing them in. They may choose to ignore warnings of ice bergs, in order to cross the Atlantic in record time, and make headlines in the NYTs.

They may have forsaken a lot of the normal safety nets, in the conviction that their vessel is clearly an engineering wonder, and un-sinkable. But sometimes, these majestic pieces of ocean going machinery do end up in bits, as a result of the captain’s arrogance and over-confidence on that maiden voyage. That is my biggest problem with the BM writers, as a lot of them do manage to preach that stuff to young students in our Architectural schools. In an effort to prove themselves as skillful captains of sophisticated mental machinery, tearing across the Atlantic ocean of Architectural understanding on the vessel’s maiden voyage. A lot of those same captains have gone down with their vessels.

Gurgle. . . deep murky cold depth of the big seas. . .

Brian O’ Hanlon.

Doesn’t that speak a lot though, for the cultivation of investigative curiosity? Of expanding of awareness of other cultures, cuisine, art…? Of planning your holidays around perhaps a day or two spent walking the streets of a foreign city, or building? I have spoken to many people from China, America and other larger countries than Ireland. They are used to thinking in terms of 2 hour plane flights, and so forth. Of greater distances. Here we are on this little Island of ours and imagine ourselves, a small population of 5 million, which is only a spike on a graph in an American/Chinesse political survey pole – to be oh! so important. I mean, you can see how many chat shows, radio shows etc, and newspapers on Sunday morning devote so much attention to exploring this bs called ‘Irish-ness’, or identity or lack of it.

How much of our own creative energy is expended upon serving this constant hunger, for another book or newspaper article about Ireland, Irish-ness or Dublin-ness? Keeping this thing alive, is quite a growth industry these days. Our image of ourselves is based largely around TV chat shows etc, etc. I mean, the recent competition from TV3, did expose a lot of the one-side-ed-ness of Irish media. That book called ‘Fatherland’ was written by a man working in the BBC, imagining what would have happened if Germany had won WWII. How many BBC people would put on the NAZI stuff, and become good little NAZIs? Are we just good little ‘Irish-ness’, a la RTE?

End of rant.

Have you seen this thread? Scroll right down to the end, where someone is talking about Shane O’ Toole’s article for the English times. I think it deals with a similar issue to what we are talking about.

Shane’s article.

Paul Clerkin’s thread here

Brian O’ Hanlon.

Well, the problem with me, was building a building, of any sort, not to mention working on a project the size of a Grove Island, seem the equivalent of going to Mars for me. I me, I was the resident ‘IT geek’ or CAD software trainer for some of that project. I was pretty much as disgusted as some of the people who work for NASA, with the general daily misuse of technology and so forth. But at the end of the day, when you land a man on the moon, or build a building, for a brief moment you are reminded of a higher purpose. Other than the daily struggle with IT, information, data coordination, personnel training and staffing etc, etc, etc. Which is 90% of what people in Architects offices do, most of the time.

James wants us all to remember than 10% of the Architects job, which is by far the best 10% of all – that of changing peoples’ lives, of realising things on the ground. And how a scheme that existed as a computer file on a hard drive somewhere for 10 years perhaps, finally becomes a reality. And futhermore, as SW101 has pointed out, a reality that will be around long after you and I have kicked the bucket. We are just on borrowed time.

Brian O’ Hanlon.

This kind of nice representation is all well and good and communicates to the client your intentions etc, etc, etc. But somehow, when you finally experience the real thing with lots of people living there. . . you feel less in the driving seat, less like God almighty and just a another part of the whole game that is life, Architecture, the environment, poetry or whatever.

I tend to criticise Architectural technicians a lot, since they generally hate Architects, especially young Architects. Architectural technicians can be very dominant over young Architects too, in practice, causing a lot of internal HR problems. But I mean, Architectural Technicians do usually consider the idea that what they might draw, will actually be built. That is a crucial idea, that Mies van der Rohe tried to instill in his students. Mies was an Uber-Technician himself – a brick layer by craft, and his buildings displayed craft aswell. Even his imatators in Baggot Street here in Dublin. But perhaps, Architects tend to forget that what they imagine, is going to be built. Perhaps that is what James wants to point out.