gunter
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Oh I can see this thread following the Lansdowne Road thread . . . . down the sewer
On the building itself, are we sure that it’s wise to design a bottleneck into a mass transportation building?
more tram tracks and a lot more activity in a view looking up Dame Street, . . . . but still no clutter.
How on earth did all these people get to their destinations without signs telling them where to go and at what speed :rolleyes:
@Oldsan wrote:
can anybody please tell me how to start a thread its my first time on archiseek as a user! thanks
Oldsan, just click on the the heading you want, . . . . . Ireland, Dublin whatever . . . . and up on the top left of the heading strip is a ”New Thread” button, click it and away you go.
. . . . . took me three months to notice it
@Tuborg wrote:
That cropped Havelock Square end certainly gives the stadium quite a strange shape when viewed from the air!
You were going to say bed pan weren’t you and then you thought better of it and decided to say ‘strange’ instead;)
@Praxiteles wrote:
. . . . is it impossible to retrieve the principles of classical architecture in contemporary circumstances and infuse them with creativity and invention? Or, are we posit that for some reason we are chained exclusively to modernism?
We’re back to ‘Tradition and Innovation’
I do understand where you’re coming from Praxiteles, the loss of ‘craft’ in modern architecture is almost as severe as the loss of craft in modern art, it’s right that we lament this and it’s appropriate that we strive to put it right.
I also agree that there is no fundamental difference between the past and the present and that we’ve become obsessed with the notion of ‘the contemporary’ as though it somehow didn’t instantly turn into more of ‘the past’, but one big difference with all this constant academic learning and professional training is that the acquisition of individual ‘knowledge’ has replaced the more collective notion of ‘tradition’.
I would bet that all the great works that we’ve admired in this thread were the product of collaborations between architects, sculptors, artists and legions of craftsmen, that was the real power of tradition.
More than a handy label to apply afterwards to a given historical phase, a tradition was a medium or a language in which ideas were communicated and through which advances were made, often incrementally. Within a tradition, everyone who understood the language understood how the ideas related to their craft and what was communicated appears to have been both instruction and licence.
We’ve abolished or abandoned the process of tradition and replaced it with a system of absolute knowledge which is communicated by an ever more minutely detailed set of instructions in the form of multiple drawings and specifications. In the process, we’ve replaced the craftsman with the technician . . . . . and then we wonder why our buildings are often uninspired.
I don’t think we’re ‘chained exclusively to modernism’. I think we can learn a lot from modernism. I think if we go back to the roots of modernism, we can see in the work of people like Mackintosh, some radical modernist notions in the freedom of expression, but combined with enormous attention to context and great respect for tradition, all expressed with of buckets of craft.
If we want to go backwards to get the inspiration for a fresh start, I’d go back that far maybe.
@Praxiteles wrote:
On Duncan Stroik
. . . . I shall ask him if he photocopies plans – as has been suggested.Oh come on now Praxiteles, you don’t think he’s going to say: ‘Yeh, I photocopy plans’ 🙂
We cannot chart the renaissance as a ‘progression’ Praxitelles?
You’ll have to explain that oneQuote from apelles:
”Many people (Joe public) & myself included don’t really understand the apparently massive void between the differing schools of thought of modernist & historical architectural thinking.. Why the pastiche is so frowned upon when the average Joe will look at it & say “my..isn’t that well done..its exactly the same as what was there before” they still appreciate it for what it is & the work that went into recreating it…I know its not pushing any new boundaries with this attitude but will there not always be an appreciation for good talented craftsmanship?…even if it is reproduction….& if so, do these craftsmen not need to be guided & inspired by the ultimate designers…Architects”.That’s the crucial point apelles.
As may be evident on other threads, I would probably go further than most in advocating restoration, even re-construction, [Frauenkirche style] of damaged buildings and streetscapes, in addition to just ‘conservation’, but surly the limiting factor has to be: . . . what was actually there
We can’t just start making stuff up.
From the photographs posted on this site and elsewhere, there’s no question that St. Mel’s Cathedral is/was a splendid example of the last flowering of classical church architecture in Ireland.
As Praxiteles has illustrated, the design of the church, in addition to displaying superb craftsmanship, represented a magnificent interpretation of renaissance basilica design. The non-use of entablature above the columns and the springing instead of the nave arcades directly from the ironic capitals is a very effective piece of design that very cleverly combines the early renaissance work of Michelozzo and others with the archaeologically correct capital detail of Greek revival classicism.
Personally, I don’t know enough about 19th/20th century church architecture to know whether this is very special, or just bloody good. I could be ignorant of dozens of similar churches that these architects lifted the design from, but even if they did, I’ll bet they still progressed the architecture, developed the themes, and refined the details. The central point is that these people were still operating within a living tradition and in St. Mel’s Cathedral, they created a magnificent work that is clearly ‘of it’s time’.
Classicism survived the pick-n-mix eclecticism of the 19th century and it re-emerged, in a sober form, as the style of choice for churches, bank branches and public buildings in the 20th century, as a civic counterpoint to the homeliness of the Arts + Crafts movement. What killed it was a combination of the emergence of the Modern Movement and the reactionary adoption of classicism to serve the monumental tendencies of the fascists.
For all the scorn that is rightly poured on post-modernism, at least that movement offered a re-interpretation of classicism that focussed on the ironic possibilities, rather than the even more superficial flicking back to an earlier chapter, which seems to be where practitioners like Duncan Stroik and Quinlan Terry get off.
All but the most stubborn architects [admittedly probably most of them] agree that we often have to take a step back in order to go forward, . . . . but not back to 1570 . . . and the purpose is . . . . to go forward
@Praxiteles wrote:
On the question of historicism, I wonder if the architects of the renaissance can be regarded as producing pastiches of anique Rome?
That’s the stock Watkin argument . . . . . and it just doesn’t stand up.
You’ve posted hundreds of pictures that show how renaissance architecture retreived classicism slowly and painstakingly and always infused it with invention and creativity.
Yes the the whole renaisance movement aspired to re-learn what the ansients could teach and there was an aspiration to re-create the perceived purity of classical architecture, but every step taken was demonstably of it’s own time. Bramente built on Michelozzo, who built on Alberti who built on Brunelleschi and so on. The story is one of forward progression guided by an ever closer study of the proportions and details of classical remains, it’s the story of rediscovery, it’s not the story of reproduction.
You simply cannot equate the enormous intellectual investment of the renaissance in redescovering the classical language of architecture, to some guy photocopying a set of church plans in South Bend, Indiana.
@Praxiteles wrote:
The most obvious choice of architect for the restoration of St Mel’s is Duncan Stroik of the school of Archicture at Notre Dame Uniersity, South Bend, Indiana. Praxiteles will be glad to supply a telephone number.
@apelles wrote:
Agree that he’s definitely done some stunning work however, is there no one closer to home?
@Praxiteles wrote:
Who else has a perfect mastery of the theory of classical architecture and has actually put it into practice in large scale ecclesiastical projects?
@Praxiteles wrote:
The only other that I could think of is Quinlan Terry . . . .
@Praxiteles wrote:
Unfortunately, no Irish firm has dislayed any interest in the classical tradition of late and I am afraid that the rebuliding of St Mel’s will require someone used to building more than hay-sheds.
Let’s get one thing straight, . . . . the reinstatement of a building like St. Mel’s Cathedral, after fire damage, is a straight-forward conservation challenge that requires committed conservation professionals directing a competent building contractor employing a group of skilled craftsmen. There is nothing here that requires the particular input of a Quinlan Terry, or a Duncan Stroik, or even their spiritual mentor, Professor David Watkin.
Nothing raises the architectural hackles like one of these guys straying off campus and into the cross-hairs of a profession decimated by recession.
Architects who have made a career out of recycling the Modern Movement and, in the process, merrily made all the same mistakes again, typically fill up with moral indignation at the sight of these pastiche practitioners strutting their re-creationist stuff.
For the vast bulk of mainstream modernists, the purveyors of pastiche are the stereotypical architectural pariahs, whose continued prosperity is taken as an affront to every architect who struggles with the torment of trying to create work that is honest and representative of the contemporary moment. That’s the standard line anyway, how much torment is involved in producing most of the stuff we see around us is another question.
In my opinion, there is a gulf between what the historicists do and what mainstream modernist do, but it’s probably not anything like as wide as either side believes.
People will say that the one saving grace of practicing historicism, in the manner advocated by Terry, Stroik and Watkin, is that it keeps the crafts alive, but the truth is that there is more than enough demand for craftsmen skilled in conservation and repair [as required here at St. Mel’s on a grand scale] to keep an army of traditional craftsmen in work indefinitely, without letting architecture loose in the dressing-up box.
Prince Charles, and other patrons of historicist architecture, are right to lament the damage done to historical urban centres by ‘Modern Architecture’ . . . [”more damage than Bomber Harris”, or whatever the phrase was :)] . . . . but that’s a argument for re-addressing ‘Modern Architecture’, not an argument for reverting to a nostalgic past before modern architecture emerged, . . . . coincidentally also an era when royalty enjoyed a far higher status and when all the churches were teeming with flocks.
At best, the pastiche practitioners could probably be considered sad souls whose misguided love for the past has led them into practicing necrophilia. At worst, these people are cynical charlatans who have spotted a well feathered niche and who have duly occupied it and gone on to attempt to justify their comfortable existence by intellectualizing the practice of copying.
@grumpyjohn wrote:
Ah yes…the American professor with an impressive portfolio of work in Ireland….could those possibly be PVC windows?
We need to hear more from grumpyjohn
@Praxiteles wrote:
Curiously, the arcade in Longford cathedral was in the Ionic order while the examples we have looked at here from the Florentine renaissance (with the excepion of the cortile of the Cancelleria) are in the Corinthian order.
Bramante’s cloister for Sant’Ambrogio in Milan is in the Doric order.
Michelozzo used Iconic for the arcades of Medicci’s San Marco Library in Florence, 1447
b+w scan, can’t find a decent image on the web.This Stroik character . . . .
. . . . defend what this man does for a living
They’re giving us this:
@JoePublic wrote:
. . . . because of this condition from ABP:
The height of the Carlton/new department store may be of a scale to reflect its increased significance.
So that extra storey on top of the relocated Carlton facade is someone’s interpretation of a Bord Pleanála suggestion . . . . with all the depth of architectural conviction that that implies :rolleyes:
To have started out with such high ambitions and to have ended up here, is pretty depressing. How would you even begin to write planning conditions that would put architecture back into this scheme?
It would probably be better, at this stage, if ABP just refused the whole thing on the simple grounds that the scheme is below the standard demanded by the civic significance of the location.
@GrahamH wrote:
. . . . And the ‘night soil’ laneway.
??
Whatever about odd street names ?, Dundalk would seem to be in the running for the oddest public banner with this:
. . . . something to do with the Eucaristic Congress, or perhaps an endangered gorilla?
If you can leave something worthwhile behind, then that’s not really ‘nothing’, I s’pose.
. . . . .though fluffy clouds and nice looking angels would be my first choice
@GrahamH wrote:
. . . .Architects come back with a thoroughly dismal redesign that could not express in bricks and mortar the concept of a mean-spirited, begrudging sulk any more if it tried.
It does certainly look like that.
Sometimes you do get so fed up and frustrated with Planners that you do mentally say: ok if you don’t want architecture and you want crap, I’ll give you crap. Architecture is a creative process after all and when you can’t get people to share your vision, hissy-fits are almost inevitable.
As I’ve said many times before ‘in-fill’ is a very difficult architectural challenge and one that, in my experience, the schools often avoid confronting in the training programmes.
It has to be said that the guys who designed this scheme did come up with a considerable amount of originality . . . . on two occassions. That’s enormously to their credit. It’s easy to chuckle at the bad bits and scoff at aspects of the design that we don’t agree with [of which there were many], but there was a lot of architecture in those first two versions, which we probably didn’t acknowledge as much as we should have.
Agreed that Bord Pleanala will need to be at the top of their game to conjure up anything like a satisfactory outcome out of this.
@rumpelstiltskin wrote:
These are some of the problems:
-There is inconsistency in deciding what is appropriate for Dublin’s streetscapes. An Bord Pleanala and DCC are not on the same page, and the latter do not even adhere to their own guidelines.
-Dublin City Council seem content to grant permission to crude projects if they’re exciting enough.
-An Bord Pleanala gets the final say, and it’s more concerned with maintaining the blandness of Dublin, than with ensuring innovative and exciting architecture.The system doesn’t work. Nobody is ensuring the architectural quality of the buildings granted permission. An Bord Pleanala operates like a damage limitation team, trying desperately to hold on to the limited heritage left in Dublin, rather than creating an innovative fusion of old and new. In my view, the guidelines about building in areas like O’Connell St. need to be less restrictive, both for ABP and DCC, and the counterbalance needs to be that the whole process is overseen by some sort of architectural quality board, which will have a coherent and forward-thinking vision for Dublin. It is, after all, the capital.
rumpel has some good points there which might be lost with the page break.
That’s unbelievable.
They’ve made the Carlton look like it was designed by Albert Speer.
and the rest of it . . . what’s the theme? . . . . . Germania meets Portlaoise?
Jesus Christ
@GrahamH wrote:
The adjacent building, seen above, looks extremely ancient and requires further investigation. It’s not protected at the minute.
. . . interesting window arrangement there Graham. On the basis of what we we just found out about Newry and what we know about Drogheda, could be worth looking into.
Just as an aside, I came across this ugly gem in Collon, other end of County Louth.
The shopfront seems to have been assembled using a truckload of architectural salvage, in no particular order.
However, in perhaps some measure of redress, the establishment is called ”The Hangin’ Head”
‘ASS’s [Architectural Salvage Suppliers] are a huge problem in this country in that, as well as supplying salvaged material they also create the demand for architectural features that can only be satisfied by ripping them out of their rightful place.
Further indications that there may be an ‘ASS’ holed up in the Collon area, is this house directly opposite ‘The Hangin’ Head’ which features a complete mid 18th century door surround, in amongst a diverse collection of salvages stone steps and a pair of ornamental lions.
nice :rolleyes:
Much of the rest of the streetscape of this one-street town is 18th and 19th century stuff, of understated quality.
but he’s there for a purpose . . . . . to kick out the flat banded stonework on the left to form a slightly projected drip detail to the continuous window cill on the right
. . . . . very clever stuff 🙂
I’m with BTH on the cladding, and the front is too much corporate-office-block and not enough civic-building, but the rear, facing Montpelier Hill, has an interesting massing.
