James
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
HUH!!!!!!
I’m lost but I think the point is that visualisation is just that and comes from the realm of ‘fine art’ and should be appreciated as such particularly in the context of unbuilt architecture whereas ‘real’ architecture as a built form arises from a different – more physical set of circumstances involving the actual brute construction process (see Fosters book on the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank – it covers design development, modification and realisation as arising from the contract process).
Neither 3d or hand drawn processes are unique to one or the other. So its really missing the point slightly to get into this area.
Interesting though to discuss it. My own ‘umble opinion is that unbuilt work is not architecture – although it comes close – because architecture is basically about providing shelter and responds to physical needs and perceptions. Visualised unbuilt work is often neither architecture nor art but at best it is fine art in that it informs the intellect and demands an emotional rather than a physical response. It can have one other very useful purpose – education – every student has looked through the books on Corbusier, Mies, Hadid and whosoever happens to be flavour of the month and rightly or wrongly uses these ‘influences’ which are, in the main 2 dimensional representations – built and unbuilt- as a kind of intellectual caffeine shot when designing.
Any of that make sense???
Fascinating!!
I can remember as a student being totally taken with the breadth of Abercrombies proposals and wishing they had been carried out!!
It just goes to show that architectural students are big on balls and pretty lacking in brain (well I was anyway) – also the lure of postmodernism was nearly overpowering – which is pretty much what the Abercrombie plan is.
Looking at the proposal now its fairly clear that the proposed interventions would have been pretty disastrous – Parliament street – 150 ft wide and extending north to south across the city – also the proposals for the north and south quays are horrendous – never mind that the main brunt of the interventions would have been carried by what is now the surviving Georgian fabric and also the mediaeval street patterns around Ship Street.
Still its interesting to have the opportunity to look at this plan again – not least because its the only masterplan ever put together and proposed for the city.
Good idea to post it.
james
[This message has been edited by James (edited 09 July 2001).]
Glad to hear there’s evidence in some form that Will Alsop’s mind is still with us!!
[This message has been edited by James (edited 04 July 2001).]
Contact John O’Sullivan – Planning Officer by phone at AT and he will give you the general policy and approach.
In general and in brief however, – policy is to seek the protection of the built heritage of ALL buildings of Architectural, Artistic, Historical or typological merit, to oppose the destruction of such building stock, to discourage the use of pastiche in favour of modern idioms of architecure.
In relation to the protection of 20th century Architecture An Taisce is particularly concerned at the failure of local Authorities (despite regular requests) to adequately pursue the listing and protection of such architecture on a generic level.
The issues highlighted today in relation to Cork City Hall pretty well synopsise An Taisce’s position in relation to the protection of the (too) few 20th century buildings which are already protected structures.
An Taisce’s position in this regard is fairly straightforward and in fact is exactly the same as in relation to Georgian, or Victorian era Architecture.
With regard to new build work AT rigorously opposes historical pastiche(as you would note from the planning files of Dublin Corporation for example) and strongly recommends the use of high quality contemporary architecture on new build projects.
An Taisce does not set down standards of design for modern architecture however it does seek that such architecture should fully comply with current planning and development plan standards.
[This message has been edited by James (edited 03 July 2001).]
[This message has been edited by James (edited 03 July 2001).]
I kind of agree with Paul on this one – I do all my perspectives freehand although I cheat occassionally by tracing over a 3d model.
Hand sketching is a very tactile thing, also clients value it – it is a little mysterious to them whereas you could produce all singing dancing animatronic presentation work, spend weeks getting it all together and receive a ‘so what’from your client.
One of the most successful approaches I have found with clients is to pull out the blank sheet of paper turn it upside down facing them and then proceed to draw my presentation perspectives in front of them as I speak – I know – its a party trick but people do appreciate it – also for some reason the eye seems to have difficulty with the 3d model (although they are becoming so good that it can be difficult to acept that they are not real).As to the real value – I think it is as a design tool – visualizing an idea in thumbnail form before committing to hardline.
Interesting although not very knowledgable responses!!
To take a few points:
Firstly AT has a very strong policy on modern Architecture is vehemently opposed to pastiche, has taken very forward positions on the Ritz, Archers, Cork Town Hall, the old Dublin Airport Building by Des Fitzgerald, and a whole host of others. All well reported.
AT fully supports DOCOMOMO on the listing and protection of 20th century Architecture, has gone to considerable effort to add to those lists and is ‘busting a gut’ to have the best recognised and protected.
All of the buildings referred to were the subject of very public support on the part of AT and consumed a huge amount of members personal time and resources (which we were all very glad to provide).
As to the democracy issue: AT is represented on a county and town basis hence the 50 or more council members – to have any other structure would be precisely what Paul accuses us of ‘non-democracy’ oligarchy or whatever you want to call it. Of course this means meetings of council take hours – everything has to be out to the vote, more work for unpaid volunteers.
Frankly the comment about ‘addresses’ is laughable and untrue – it is also potentially libellous so be warned – I don’t particularly mind but some people get very upset about that kind of thing.
In terms of successes and failures, Modern V Georgian it seems to be a bit of a case here of damned if you do damned if you don’t.
What is interesting is to hear so much inaccurate nonsense about Design, Architecture An Taisce and Conservation on a public media – namely the web!!.
If the kind of comments published on this public website were made in the pages of the Irish Times a plethora of libel actions would follow: As I said I don’t care much for that type of thing but I do find it sad that bright people with an obvious interest in architecure cannot get to grips with factual information and persist in the type of disinformation which is so prevalent (and I believe damaging to) this web site.
The ‘I’ve no time to do anything’ argument is fine but – how much time do you all spend on the web in this type of onanistic nonsense. Personally, I tend to work 14 to 16 hours a day often 7 days a week, I represent AT on usually about two to three Oral Hearings per year (no fees)advise on matters relating to architecture and planning (no fee) probably for as much as twenty workig days per year -each of those days not working costs me about £300.00 in business that I hav’nt done. I’m no exception in doing this, in fact I would be one of the less ‘commited’ members.
If you don’t want to do anything or can’t find the time to do so – fair enough – BUT don’t slag off those who do.
As to my original comment re: the name of thtis website – it is all vey much a par of a greater concern which I have regarding this media – the potential that it has to educate, form communities, generate positive proactive action not just in respect of architecture but Social Scienc, Arts medicine etc as opposed to the reality – Mindless, ignorant, prejudiced and not very informative CHATTER!!. It seems such a shame.
Regards
James
Paul
I thought you were serious about architecture. All that sturm und drang about illegal demolition, checking it out etc. You disappoint me.
For the record there can be no contradiction between conservation and architecture, buildings are buildings – all buildings once they enter the past become historic (everything in Temple Bar is now almost ten years old, office buildings built last year are now out of date.
To understand the impact of built historic architecture on contemporary architecture, have a look at some of Oliver Hill’s built work and compare it with his writings on early Georgian Architecture likewise Corbusiers Vers Une Architecure is based almost entirely on the principles of design established in the setting out of the Acropolis.
Mies Van der Rohe and Corbusier would’nt be too impressed either, they were very much historicists.
As to ‘playthings’ Methinks the Lady doth protest too much!! after all, if you’re not serious about conservation why bother with this web topic and title.
Lastly, as to big houses and grant aid. Dublin City Association is unfunded and operates on a voluntary evening and lunchtime basis only. You might care to explain (to the impecunious, students, housewives, unemployed and others involved), those views directly yourself, so if you would like to make your views known I would be happy to arrange for you to meet with DCA, have a look at the work they do, give your opinion and have it either confirmed or disproved by the people you will meet.
Frankly you comments in that regard are pretty insulting and worse still, ignorant,(not to me – my place is positively monumental) and I’m sorry to see them in print.
On the ‘plaything’ note though – it surely can’t have escaped your attention that those involved actually achieve a great deal in relation to the built and natural environment
[This message has been edited by James (edited 02 July 2001).]
[This message has been edited by James (edited 02 July 2001).]
PS:
Joining An Taisces Dublin City Association and helping out on the planning register objections and responses is probably the best way to make a contribution to the protection of the built heritage. They are always under-resourced and can do with a hand so any assistance available will be gladly accepted. They will also show you the ropes re: planning legislation, objection and assessment.
[This message has been edited by James (edited 02 July 2001).]
Paul
If you are really serious about a worthwhile demolition watch – do as follows:
Buy a copy of the current development plan which gives details of listing.
Ask An Taisce’s Planning Officer (in writing not unsigned e-mail like the plonker complaining about AT’s appeals re: the west side of Smithfield) to forward you monthly a copy of the current register of planning decisions and applications.
Buy a large scale OS sheet to locate addresses for cross referencing to the lists and register.
As a rule of thumb – generally all development be it construction or demolition carried out on weekends after 1pm on saturday or before 8 am and on weekdays after 5.30pm and on bank holidays all day – is illegal development as such works are usually conditioned (except in the case of dangerous buildings works) to take place under thes time criteria.
You should also contact the dangerous buildings inspectors on the emergency phone no given in the telephone book to check whether the works being carried out are permitted or not.
Finally did you find out whether the works carried out are being done so legitimately??
The answer is – no they are not- the developer has permission for demolition but has not yet lodged commencement notices or compliance documentation.
As to my absence from my perch – apologies – I do take the occassional break.
Regards
James (the local / native / objector)
[This message has been edited by James (edited 02 July 2001).]
[This message has been edited by James (edited 02 July 2001).]
I just love the idea that this is called the ‘demolition watch’ site!!
Do any of you actually know how you would identify whether a building was listed?, whether it’s demolition was permitted or even what to do if the demolition was illegal???.
I don’t mind talking shops but for heavens sakes don’t put on airs!!!
[This message has been edited by James (edited 02 July 2001).]
Planners are actually probably the best proessionals to deal with planning matters. Yes aesthetics do have a bearing but its worth noting that diferent socities, social groups and individuals can and do have radically different ideas as to what constitute good aesthetics, so the ‘by the numbers’ system in the absence of an ideal society is probably the best general method.
On the other hand it would be useful to have a related body such as the UK’s Royal Fine Arts Commission to be referred to and consulted in respect of aesthetic and cultural issues where these are of major significance in planning terms.
Re: Docklands – As with Smithfield and practically every other part of Dublin – what is seriously lacking is a centralised masterplan, which should have been prepared by the Local Authority in this case Dublin Corporation.
Without such a masterplan development is commercially – developer led, without consideration as to local conditions and context and the overall general needs of the city.
The preparation of such a masterplan is fairly fundamental in terms of the order of change which everybody agrees is now taking place within the city.
It is the lack of sch a masterplan which leads directly to situations such as that in docklands an Smithfield.
The issue of building height in respect of such developments is only one factor, there are also issues of infrastructure, social cohesion, energy use, crime, demographics and work trends.
It is naive to look ot developers to resolve these issues themselves. Their agenda will always be to achieve the greatest quantum of development irrespective of whether or not it is desirable or appropriate.
This is really the core issue facing the city and which, unless resolved will lead to chaos, overdevelopment, and non sustainability.
Actually listing merely means that planning permission is required for the new works, it is also possible to request the local authority to provide a determination to indicate which works will not require planning permission.
As to its accomodating modern facilities it looks like a reasonably sized dwelling certainly two or three times as large as the average city centre apartment. Fitting it out with an internal bathroom and kitchen would’nt be too much of a problem. In our own experience it is unreasonable expectations as to the number of bedrooms (eg: 5 in a building such as this) which causes the most problems.
I kind of agree with much of what Daragh is saying here. Not so much as to the impact of high rise, i think that that can really only be determined by looking at local impact (hence the requirement for environmental impact statements) yes there is far too much on the way of ‘gut’ reaction when it comes down to the debate about high rise and not enough considered discussion.
There are a number of consultation procedures and strategies which were originally intended to open up planning impact issues to public debate and consultation. These (HARP etc) have more or less collapsed because of an unwillingness on the part of Dublin Corporation to enter into the spirit of such consultation.
As to the bigger picture, its true to say that development can be a very beneficial element in the growth of cities however it is equally true to say that it can also be very damaging. For example many of the ‘brave new world’schemes of the 60’s and 70’s were actually quite well intentioned and considered in this regard but in reality had a horrendous long term impact upon the urban and social fabric of cities.
Much of the problem comes I think from the scale of development generally proposed, often sites of 2-3acres which constitute a large proportion of a neighbourhood, undergo too much change too rapidly, the key to this is an understanding ofthe urban grain or site plot coupled with longer term more gradual redevelopment which is less subject to the vagaries of the property market and immediate ‘short term trends’for example it is perfectly normal to find that many of the high rises bult in New York and London in the 60’s are now completely obsolete in terms of their layout and services, another example is the changing demographics of the workplace, more people working from home via internet connections, this has the potential to bring to bear a situation where high rise office developments may become unrentable in 10 years time and thereby become unsustainable in terms of maintenance.
Anyway, what i am basically concern at is the very outdated notion that cities ned to respond to short term development pressures as opposed to longer term strategies.
[This message has been edited by James (edited 11 May 2001).]
On a more general note it simply isn’t good enough to tritely equate high rise with high density or good architecture. Most of the pertinent factors such as impact upon daylight, overshadowing, negative environmental impact formation of wind vortices, non sustainability, scale, context, etc hav’nt even been addressed on this site.
With regard to the Oral Hearing for example, the ‘locals’ submission took nearly two days and was supported by several hundred pages of technical evidence. I am pretty certain that nobody comenting here could even be bothered to attend the hearing much less comment upon the calibre and substance of that evidence.
Even the Bord’s actual decision seems unfamiliar territory – only the 23 storey tower is referred to – does anybody on this site have any comment about the other conditions and exclusions?.
Strangely it may be that all of this nonsense is specific to this web site – I notice a second site quite rationally debating the merits of high rise in a fairly intelligent sense.
Quite frankly, it’ no skin off my nose if you guys prefer moaning on the web to actually achieving something either by supporting or objecting to development that you don’t like. In fact it probably suits me and the other ‘local’s or ‘natives’ (as it was so charmingly put), that we are left unopposed in the planning arena.
It is sad though to see so much apathy, general laziness and prejudice prevalent among people who have presumably been well enough educated to become computer literate and use this somewhat odd medium. I may not like it but I can understand racism among the ignorant and dispossessed of our society. I find the comments of most of those on this website to be far more depressing in that they have no excuse whatsoever for that ignorance and rpejudice (Read Gregs rant about out of town politicians in the same breath as his comments about racism among ‘locals’ and I think you’ll see what I mean.
I suppose that I should make some effort to respond.
Paul, one of the main reasons that I have ceased to cast anything but a cursory eye over this website is it’s ‘us and them’ attitude when it comes down to ‘locals’.
Judging by your own statements in the past I least expected this kind of thing from yourself. I am pretty well involved in local groups and organisations in the area and don’t grudge the time spent. I have never heard anything in the nature of the complaints that you have mentioned.
Most ‘locals’ are pretty smart, hard working people – it ain’t the wild west around here you know. I must admit that I am also suspicious of those who fail to get involved on the type of highly spurious grounds that you mention, very often the reality is laziness and snobbishness combined leading to gentrification and ghetto – isation.
Yes we had a great night on Saturday, my wife’s 40th Birthday as it happens.
Ultimately however the point that I am making is that this website has degenerated into a general slagging off match dominated by people who actually contribute nothing to the city.
Let me put it this way, I am opposed to high rise development in my area, I make the time to appeal and commit myself to working with local groups against it.
You on the other hand support it as is your right, yet you will do nothing to make your case. For example it would be perfectly in order to contact the developers, say to theme that you support their development and make a statement of support as a ‘local’ yourself -you hav’nt and for all the verbiage, unpleasant language and bad attitude, Greg F doesn’t appear likely to either.
Likewise if you want to influence the manner in which the city develops generally it is quite possible to do so but…it involves work and commitment. Whinging is too easy!!
Just a few comments:
1. Paul I’m surprisd at you, you should, be wel aware that high rise development does not equal high density development.
2. Greg, I am, unfortunately not in th least bit surprised by you. Please apply to either Bolton Street or UCD for admission to the architectural courses as it is clear that you need a great deal of education in this regard. Also, easy on the blood pressure, you’re going to hav a stroke!!.
3. An Taisce happens to be the best line of defense against bad development in this country. If you want to change or influence their atitude or direction in these matters join your local association, get involved and volunteer your services in the same way as their members have.
4. The ‘Locals’ at Mackin Street actually support the Calatrava Bridge. They are opposed to its use for private vehicles as opposed to public service vehicles.
5. How many of you have actually read the Bord’s Decision on Smithfield??. It’s actually quite a good and well considered one as these things go.
6. Paul I notice from another Forum that you were complaining abouts ‘Locals’ objections to concerts – You live in the area – you are a local yourself. If you have an opinion locally make yourself known and do something about it.
Regards
James
