James
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
The Irish Architectural Archive in Fitzwilliam Square have images, surveys and data on most significant buildings.
Try them otherwise yo ucould try Bence Jones directory of Irish Country Houses.
James
Edward
I think the ‘cold calling’ will often pay dividends however yo ureally do need to be well prepared when doing this (resume, mini portfolio etc) as it can be difficult for the principal that you are calling on – eg: tomorrow I’m overbooked in my diary and even 20 minutes will mean that I may be late for a site meeting – which is unprofessional.
I would’nt worry about the scenario which you describe of the receptionist being unable to arrange an interview for you as this is generally for the time being – par for the course – most practises ARE reducing their workforces and are very cautious about hiring at present – in other words – nothing personal its just how things are.
Carry on trying, one thing though, no matter how frustrating, don’t be rude, most people in my experience, want to help and are just as frustrated that they can’t, also it just creates a bad impression of somebody that you might otherwise be sympathetic towards.
Best of Luck.
James
I think you’re absolutely right about the role of th state in financing projects (although by and large I prefer to see the state financing them as opposed to developer interests).
As to poor old Terragni – he was a brilliant architect but an unapologetic fascist for the entirity of his career. In fact his career was by and large built upon the architecture of fascism – meeting halls, childrens centre(believe it or not in both Germany and Italy these were considered central to the states role in the moulding of the citizen).
Its pretty much correct to say that he was a fascist al of his adult career.
Incidentally he volunteered for service on the Russian Front and died there of ‘exhaustion’ in (I think) mid 43′.
As to the issue of the Holocaust, Italy had a differing attitude to the Jews to that of the Nazis – Mussolini was quite happy to murder and terrorise political opponents but even he balked at co-operating with the deportations – which by and large did’nt get going until late 43′ early 44. Its a complex issue and one which is not best dealt with in an Architectural forum.
That said, the role of Corbusier as a collaborator with the Vichy regime in France has never been satisfactorily addressed. Vichy was certainly hysterically anti semitic yet corb’ seemed to have no difficulty in working for that state.
In retrospect the role of architects under fascism would appear to have been less than glorious. Concerns for the expediting of building projects seems to have outweighed any moral assessment of the nature of the state. Even Aalto (who by all accounts was a decent man) visited Germany willingly during the war and negotiated several projects there(none of which to my knowledge ever came to fruition).
Maybe a good starting point for an understanding of the mindset of the architectural profession under fascism is Gitta Sereny’s book on Speer – it certainly sent a shiver down my spine! – it all seems so reasonable “the state / party was a good and desirable client, we had great plans” etc etc.
Your anorak dos’nt fit you too well Hugh:
Firstly the French stone, not only does not originate from the same geological bed – it isn’t even a close geological match – hence the difference.
This is somewhat akin to arguing that the Chinese Granite used for paving in Dublin is the same as Irish Granite because they both are Granites.
Secondly the Great Court was enclosed up to cornice level – check it out in Fosters own promo literature.
I visited the Museum last winter and this summer – the differences are fairly obvious. The job of work carried out by the architects is pretty good but the French ‘Portland’ is a bit of a disaster.
There is a strong argument for a portico to be realised in a modern idiom – however Fosters rightly assessed the situation as one where the majority of the underlying structure and form survived and sensibly enough opted for re-cladding.
If you contact English Heritage’s technical support service they will be able to ‘put you right’ and further clarify the position regarding the stone.
Pedantry apart (and I’m not sure that it is pedantic to try to match materials correctly when carrying out restoration work) the point here is that local stone can be of use (as can any other ‘local’ contextual material) in tying together new and old. I think this is fairly obvious and cannot imagine that any sensible architect would have much difficulty with such a concept.
The situation in Clare Street is somewhat different – the materials used are not characteristic of the street (to the greater detriment of the new museum) – however it is a decent if somewhat brutalist piece of work and will probably ‘weather the storm’ fairly easily.
In fact, in the end of the day my only major quibble (brutality apart) is that perhaps it might have been more sensible to use a lighter cladding material as the exterior feels somewhat ‘ponderous’.
I’m uneasy about the proposed works – although I can see that the existing building is seriously under serviced – by which I mean that internal environmental control is pretty antideluvian – eg: steam heating pipes everywhere – minimal air flow and temperature control – it probably is true to say that unless these services are seriously upgraded that the collections will fall apart.
That said – the dead zoo is a peculiarly intact survivor of the victorian era and could not sutvive internal re-modelling no matter how well intentioned or designed. Yes by all means the OPW should deal with the services requirements but the notion of ‘architecturalising’ it is absolutely horrendous and will definitely meet serious opposition.
Paul is absolutely correct here – the museum itself is a museum piece – and an important one. Very little of that era of collecting actually survives intact. The cases, hanging of exhibits, drawer exhibits and galleried collections are very particular to the 19th century concept of a museum and should not be interfered with.
I’m uneasy about the proposed works – although I can see that the existing building is seriously under serviced – by which I mean that internal environmental control is pretty antideluvian – eg: steam heating pipes everywhere – minimal air flow and temperature control – it probably is true to say that unless these services are seriously upgraded that the collections will fall apart.
That said – the dead zoo is a peculiarly intact survivor of the victorian era and could not sutvive internal re-modelling no matter how well intentioned or designed. Yes by all means the OPW should deal with the services requirements but the notion of ‘architecturalising’ it is absolutely horrendous an will definitely meet serious opposition.
Interesting question – several examples come to mind:
Its worth looking at Tel Aviv in the thirties as a ‘Zionist’ settlement developed to Bauhaus standards in very much a politically left wing ambience.
However Italy is almost the exact opposite – International style modernists such as Terragni were the darlings of the Fascist party.
Nazi Germany recognised only pseudo historicism as a ‘worthy representation of the state.
While the USSR swung between gargantuan Bel Epoque ‘Classicism’ and chicken shed modernism in almost equal measures – pattern book Classical for public buildings and cut and paste international style for Housing.
Even the new Ireland got in on the act – a state ‘style’ that was quite popular in the thirties was stripped classicism – there are a couple of good examples in Kildare St that you could quite happily swing a swastika from.
Probably the choice of architectural style has no impact on the society it tends to be more the quality of construction that affects society – eg: the dreadful flat blocks built in the brutalist modern vocabulary in the 60’s as almost generic social housing.
[This message has been edited by James (edited 25 October 2001).]
PS – as to Foster’s British Museum – in fact the French ‘portland’ is quite dissimilar both geologically and visually. It is worth noting incidentally that the grand court was covered in almost from inception – there was no weathering of the existing stone – the effect referred to is simply that of a poor choice of stone on the part of the contractors.
Re: Brick – a lot depends on the pointing perhaps even more than the brick tone itself.
Interesting point re: new stonework – however the facts are somewhat different re: ‘old’ stone:
Since the widespread advent of brick as a building material in the 1500’s most stone faced buildings are actually clad in stone over brick structural walls – (Actually the Romans started this form of construction – see the Forum etc – all brick).
Most stone faced buildings in Dublin are either of brick construction with stone facing or of rough calp construction beneath a stone skin.
MG the ‘Victorian’ building which you refer to dates from around 1770 and is almost entirely intact internally, the ballroom is a little later.
Bloody old buildings – always getting in the way. We should knock the lot!!!
[This message has been edited by James (edited 24 September 2001).]
I’m definitely cracking up – I rather like the Liebskind proposal – at least its form and siting. It looks a little too big and monolithic but ifthe design develops in the right direction that should be fairly readily resolved.
The only thing is though that whereas it has the look of a Cardiff Bay Opera House or a Guggenheim Muesum its actually a rather mundane and commercial collection of uses, apartments, shops, hotel.
True there is mention of a museum of the Diaspora – I’m suspicious of this however – usually this kind of thing is a planning gain lever to persuade the Local Authority to grant permission for large floorplates and overly high buildings. I’m also not comforted in this by the fact that the developer is Terry Devey – who now appears to be shutting down the much praised CEOL facility at Smithfield in favour of – guess what??? – Conference Suites, Meeting Rooms and Office accommodation.
I had a great laugh about a week ago sorting through twenty year old AR’s. The flavour of the month in 1981 (Michael Graves, et al) looks pretty embarassing from this distance.
I have a nasty suspicion that deconstructivism may look equally embarassing twenty years hence. To be fair though no drawn proposals for the Liebskind proposal appear to have been made public – there is always an outside chance that his scheme may actually be desirable.
As to context – deconstructivism idealogically recognises no context so Alan Dunlop’s point in this regard is quite correct. Personally I find it a pretty Onanistic form of architecture (like quite a bit of the debate on these pages), still he did a nice job on the Jewish museum in Berlin – although his South Ken job in London seems to be pretty much the same thing debased and rehashed – hope he does’nt make the same mistake here.
[This message has been edited by James (edited 22 August 2001).]
Sorry to disappoint you Greg – I was one of the ‘locals’ objecting to the concerts originally so my opposition is not exactly a ‘gut’ reaction to this web page.
As to my relative youth – I’m nearer 40 than 30 (the sweet bird of youth has long since flown off to crap on someone elses shoulder) so terminal immaturity is probably a better explanation.
PS: Status Quo were another crap band
There’s a special place in hell for David Gray and his works!! – maybe the 1.75 hrs was a precursor to that – a kind of divine warning – Mend Yer Ways!!.
As to three days of the whingy bugger I think I would’ve gone mental!!.
And yes I think the ‘locals’ were right to protest the concerts, they repeatedly pointed out that they had no objection to free entry civic events – only to privatisation of a public resource.
[This message has been edited by James (edited 30 July 2001).]
[This message has been edited by James (edited 30 July 2001).]
Gosh
And there was I thinking it was all about scale, context, urbanism, overdevelopment, overshadowing, overlooking, blocking of views, and the generally banal business of planning!!
The architect was (I think) a guy called Gerard Carty who works for Grafton Architects in Dublin – a very talented very bright character ,certainly one of the most ‘natural’ designers I’ve ever known.
Its quite a sophisticated scheme although the accommodation is somewhat cramped internally for some tastes, it does the utmost allowable with a very restricted site.
PS
I can’t help feeling that this is a discussion which happens and has happened historically between younger and older architects.
Much of it seems to be about concepts (or misconceptions) as to what the design process becomes through physical realisation.
I personally find that I value drawings less once a work has been built, and although I am methodical about files and record drawings for legal and other reasons – I destroy concept sketches and visualisations almost as a matter of course – once the building commences on site – it is probably a cathartic process for me but I find that I have almost an instinctive urge to sever the connection with the uncertain or the conceptual once work on site commences.
As to the built work merely being some kind of ‘evidence’ of the design process. I would’nt place to much credence in that. The one, ideally, leads into the other.
And I really do think, upon reflection, that it is definitely a mistake to place the cart before the horse in this regard. Design exercises are just that – and very useful as such (I don’t know how many times I’ve examined Terragni’s Danteum as such) But architecture is about bricks, mortar, shelter, space and the play of light and darkness (insofar as concepts are concerned) everything else is play and practice, games which quicken the reactive impulse in the architect.
I’m kind of hesitant about stringing this one along any further – after all the subject is that of efficacy of differing presentation modes.
I think though that unbuilt work ,no matter how well designed is not architecture, my point was that it is however something of value although perhaps not as originally conceived.
Also time tends to lend a sense of perspective in relation to these matters .As it passes the unbuilt fades from memory and the built or ruinous achieves a significance as (almost) a part of the natural landscape.
Not to be unkind but Architecture is about shelter, and I think that MK is wrong in this, Corbusier said a lot of things about that, including the quote that MK refers to, but as I recall (I really must check it up)it referred to differing qualities of building rather than built versus virtual.
If you remove the aspect of construction, trades, craftsmanship, programme, even economics you remove a part of the context of buildings – a simple example – most of georgian Dublin was built on what were then economically desirable short term leases – this had a serious impact upon not only construction but stylisation in decoration – these buildings were never meant to last 250 yrs but have!!, and that basic criteria lends something to them – good and bad -which informs the architecture.
There really is no such thing as virtual architecture – if you take the view that the architect is a craftsman rather than an artist (as I happen to). If however you view the architect as a kind of self appointed artistic presence whose main importance is as a designer rather than a facilitator / maker then obviously the argument for a virtual architecture is valid.
I’m not knocking ideas – as I’ve said they are the caffeine shot in the creative process – however it is too simplistic to refer to virtual architecture and expect it to be given the same critical ‘weight’ as built work – the two take place under totally different conditions.
It is an interesting argument though, and I suspect that it is not only in this post that this topic is being discussed.
[This message has been edited by James (edited 10 July 2001).]
