jimg
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Why must IR’s dick extension be built? Use the Phoenix Park Tunnel.
And where are the trains to go then? Connolly is at capacity, so for every train you bring in there via the tunnel you’re going to have to drop an enterprise, northern DART or Drogheda/Dundalk train. Besides the enterprise, people can’t even get standing room on these services. The interconnector is a brilliant idea; I can’t wait for the day when you can get a DART to Stephen’s Green from Maynooth, Kildare, Drogheda or Bray, which I suspect would be a more useful and popular destination for many than Cabra.
I don’t think I’d like a very high building there. I think it would be better to have some symmetry in terms of height with the newish hotel or whatever it is across the road. This would provide two “pillars” flanking the start of the city at the end of the bridge and also would work better with the vista up William St (or is it Thomas St – I can never remember). Unfortunately the newish building across the road, while far better than the shopping centre, isn’t all that impressive being a bland and boring lowish red-brick if I recall correctly.
I forgot to say that Sarsfield’s Bridge is one of my favourites in the country. It’s length makes it more impressive than any in Dublin and the proportions and detailing are super.
Anyone watch the program about tall buildings on BBC1 last night? There was a strong focus on London which isn’t too surprising but what struck me is how we seem to be about 20 years behind London in terms of thinking about the issues surrounding tall buildings. It seems current fashion is that we should have “landmark” tall buildings dotted seemingly at random around the city – at least this is the impression I get. This is a model of development that London has belatedly realised causes damage to existing historic skyline. I’ve always felt we should concentrate ALL tall buildings in one part of Dublin, protecting existing skyline as well as ensuring that any individual tall building only becomes a “landmark” if it deserves it architecturally and not simply because it dwarfs all surrounding buildings.
Anyway, what most impressed me was Renzo Piano’s “Shard of Glass” which absolutely amazing. I really hope that this gets built. The depressing aspect of this is how, despite our new-found prosperity, new buildings in Dublin and Ireland in general contrast poorly in terms of boldness and design with what they are building and considering in London.
I dunno why Dunnes has a store there at all now that they’ve a big new store 100 yards away on Henry St. That shopping centre has been dead for years and is horrible. The sooner the wrecking ball flattens it the better. That site needs a dramatic (at least five stories) and beautiful building to mark that side of that “entrance” into Limerick.
Here is a old photograph of Sarsfield’s Bridge when it was new. If you don’t know Limerick the offending shoping center takes up the corner block on the left at the far end of the bridge.
That’s not what EwanKennedy claimed. He claimed Galway was bigger than Limerick which I don’t think is the case. He also claimed that Cork had a higher economic output than Limerick and Galway combined and thus Limerick couldn’t be wealthier than Cork. As I explained earlier, it’s not the overall economic output that determines wealth (try telling a Vietnamese that they’re wealthier than an Irish person) but output per head. And it is a matter of record (central statistics office) that COUNTY Limerick is wealthier than COUNTY Cork or COUNTY Galway. The CSO doesn’t publish income per head on a city basis, so that’s the closest we can get to an established “fact”.
Pity that they ever tampered with the statue in the first place.
Ya. Sometimes I wonder whether future generations will view current development in Dublin as being any more enlightened than that of the post-war heyday of destroying the Georgian fabric of Dublin. It’s obvious there’s more money sloshing around now and there seems to be more effort put into things but there’s still an “out with the old, in with the new” attitude to developing the civic infrastructure in Dublin.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big proponent of modern architecture and am in favour of much higher buildings in Dublin. But I don’t see the point of replacing old “stuff” with new “stuff” just for the sake of it. Grattan Bridge, that old park beside Jervis Street, etc. are typical.
As far as I’m concerned, the city architects/planners should seperately consider function from style. If some “old” feature has a functional problem, then by all means address it – even if this will damage it (for example adding wheelchair access). However stylistic changes, which in many cases adversely affect the function, should be avoided completely. It’s not the city architects job to decide what period elements are unfashionable. If history has thought us anything, it should be that fashions change (often very rapidly) and destroying anything of architectural significance for the sake of contempory fashion is almost always seen as a mistake in hindsight. Medieval, Georgian, Victorian, Edwardian styles all went though periods of being unfashionable. By all means, express contempory modern tastes in NEW development but don’t f*ck with older stuff just to make stylistic changes.
I was just saying that if thats the way the page is going to be – here’s how it is with the facts
Well if you’re going to quote some “facts” to settle the discussion, then you should pick some which aren’t so misleading. This has been stated a number of times in the thread; Galway’s official population is hugely inflated by the fact that the OFFICIAL city boundary is massive compared to that for other cities. If you want to go by official city boundaries, then in terms of physical size, Galway is 2.5 times the size of Limerick, 25% bigger than Cork and is just under half the size of Dublin. In fact, in terms of official boundaries, Waterford is bigger than Cork. This shows how it’s nonsense to use official city boundaries to judge the size of a city whether in terms of area covered or population.
Your other “fact” confuses absolute and per-capita wealth. Bangladesh has a bigger (in absolute terms) economy than Switzerland but it would be ridiculous to claim that Bangladeshis were wealthier than the Swiss just because there happens to be 20 times as many of them. When people talk about wealth it is generally in per-head terms. On this basis county Limerick is the third wealthiest in the Republic according to the Central Statistics Office. I imagine that the only reason this fact was quoted is because it’s considered witty to knock Limerick and say it’s full of scangers. It’s always interesting to consider hard facts (in this case from an authority like the CSO) which challenge common stereotypes about a place.
Anyway it’s not like there’s some raging Limerick v. Galway war going on here. Besides the point about the CSO figures and the debate about what should be included when comparing populations, BTH and myself and most of the others are expressing differring personal preferences about some Irish cities. No one’s preference is right or wrong and most expressions of opinion have been qualified with phrases like “I think” and “in my opinion” or “it feels to me”.
this whole ‘Limerick’s wealthy’ thing is getting a little tiresome, i thought this page was suppose to be about the developments and architecture of Limerick – not a competitive jibe.
Do you see any irony in using this opening line to start a message discussing how much wealth is generated by other Irish cities and how it is more than that of Limerick and Galway and which manages to avoid mentioning anything about any architecture, building or planning?
Nope; I don’t like that bridge at all from the photographs. The actual span itself looks ok; at least it’s simple with a nice gentle curve and pleasing functional lines. Unfortunately the span is dominated not only by the barriers but also by the suspension; I find both features quite ugly. I’m not aware of the engineering behind the bridge but the suspension element looks like it was added purely to give the bridge a more distinctive profile rather than serving some structural function. Ya well, it succeeds by giving the bridge a distinctively UGLY profile, in my opinion. In the end it looks like a random jumble of faddish geometric forms. In that respect it contrasts very poorly with the new bridges to the West (at Eustace St. and Blackhall Place) which I like and which, to my eyes, have a coherence or simplicity.
Yes, this thread is going a bit off track but dave123 is correct; the CSO figures were analysed extensively in the Irish Times the last time they came out. However, it should be noted that the CSO figures are by county; it is county Limerick (including Limerick city) that has the highest average income per head after counties Dublin and Kildare. Some of the richest people in Ireland live in county Limerick which might affect the average.
Also as pointed out, the official population figures ignore the fact that huge swathes of the most residential areas of Limerick city are not within the city boundaries which are quite small for historical reasons. This photograph here (http://www.riversidecity.ie/images/Photos/Docklands%20City.jpg) from the “riverside city” site shows the urban quality of Limerick. I’d imagine a similar view of Galway from the air would not look so urban.
Anyone recognise that building in the bottom right of the last of Dan Heller’s photos? The photo only includes a bit of it. I think that photo was taken from the Sky bar or whatever it is bar at the top of the Guiness museum. I was up there with a few friends about five years ago and one of them pointed out that building as a “disgrace” (being modern) while I thought it was quite nice. Maybe the one in the photo is not the building we were arguing about. I don’t have the architectural language to describe it but I’d have guessed it was built in the 50’s or 60’s in a “modern” style – maybe 3 stories?
Hi BTH. We’ll just have to agree to differ regarding Galway. Regarding my reference to anti-social problems, I guess feelings of personal safety are very subjective; all it takes is the witnessing one violent act to colour your perception of a place. Alternatively hearing anecdotes can create an impression of a place which will affect the way you react to people and occurances.
Galway has a tiny core around Shop St. which has a certain amount of charm because of the retention of medieval street patterns (like Temple Bar in Dublin). The rest is featureless and dull in my opinion and as someone else pointed out, the the way the planners Galway have allowed it to develop makes Dublin look like a model city. I’m glad to hear that they might be starting to correct the sprawl.
By the way I agree with you regarding the horrible Cruises St. but still there is far more interesting architecture in Limerick than in Galway.
Galway has a smaller population than Limerick and is dwarved economically by Limerick. Limerick and Cork have “grand” centres; i.e. tallish building and wide “city” streets while Galway is a small country town now hidden by a sprawl of roundabouts, suburban housing estates and shopping centres.
Galway is a real disapointment. I used to love visiting it back when it had a sort of hayday in the late 80s/early 90s. For years, I’d recommend it to anyone visiting Ireland or contemplating a visit and used to spend time there myself at every opportunity. Slowly over the last 10 years I’ve started to realise that just like Limerick suffers somewhat unjustly from its bad reputation (another city I visit often), Galway has been benefitting from an unreasonably positive reputation for years. Besides the planning issues, it’s turned into a town with serious anti-social problems because of its “Temple Bar” like atmosphere and little to recommend for it during the day besides a small area between Eyre Sq and Bridge St./Mill St. Admittedly, I’m probably overcompensating by being negative because of my earlier enthusiasm for the place. For me, Limerick is a far more interesting place than Galway.
Limerick is great. The Georgian quarter is second only to Dublin’s Georgian in Ireland and really deserves more attention. Unfortunately, the city’s architectural fabric has been badly damaged over the last 50 or 60 years even more so than Dublin in my opinion. There’s been tonnes of medieval stuff lost in Limerick during the period while I reckon there was little of that age in Dublin anyway. It’s a great pity because Limerick was apparently the most impressive city in Ireland in the early 16th century because of the prosperity brought by trading. John’s castle and St. Mary’s are nice but have no context today. Even up to the 1940s and 1950s there were remains of the old walls visible all over Irishtown and Englishtown and a true mediaval character to those parts of town. The tiny sections of the old wall left today are a reminder of what’s been lost; they’re huge – about the height of a modern 3 story building. Even over the last 10 or 20 years they’ve altered what was left of the medieval street patterns of King’s Island. Kings Island is now effectivly a large council housing estate with two medieval landmarks.
I also like the new taller developments along the docks. The river is so wide here that the height of the buildings works very well although many of the buildings are pretty boring in other respects. From O’Callaghan’s strand or coming into the city from the Ennis Rd, they provide a strong statement that the city begins at the water’s edge; so it really feels like you are “entering” a city when you cross the bridges (from the north), instead of the the usual experience in Irish cities where there are long boring transitions between countryside, suburbia, older suburbia and the town centre.
I’ve heard conflicting opinions from visitors to Limerick. A number of people I know (non-Irish) raved about the city and found it to be very beautiful while most Irish people who visit come away with a negative impression. Perhaps this is because of it’s reputation.
Yep, the Millenium Stadium is awesome; the best I’ve been in.
As for Bertie’s attempt to ressurect Abbotstown, it’s pathetic and petulant. Everywhere else in the world, they’ve realised that building out of town stadia near motorways was a huge mistake. Even in the US, they are rebuilding their baseball stadia in “downtown” areas (see Denver for example). Travelling fans hate out-of-town stadia and show it by travelling in much smaller numbers. Abbotstown would kill Dublin as a destination for rugby matches as well as lessen the positive economic benefits for businesses in the centre of town. We are very fortunate that the Irish economy was in such a poor state until recently. Otherwise we might have built semi-d housing estates or offices over Lansdown Rd and Croke Park and constructed a national stadium along the Naas road in the 80s; at this stage we’d be looking at ways of trying to assemble a site close to the city centre to build a new stadium. Through this happy accident of history, we’ve ended up with two significant sports grounds within a short waking distance of the centre of town.
Interesting set of images, Graham. One visual aspect of both the Champs-Elysées’ and the pre-renovated (late 90s?) O’Connell street which is immediately pleasing is that the buildings dominate the street in terms of height. Maybe “dominate” is too strong a word but at least they aren’t lost in a clutter of tall street fittings. The second (recent) O’Connell street image is horrible; the buildings are almost lost among lampposts – even the spire loses out and is relegated to being just a taller “thing” sticking out of the ground. I think my desire for a completely minimalist approach to the street (i.e. no linear lines of lamposts and other clutter) would restore the buildings of O’Connell street to their former importance in defining the street.
And yes you’re right; it looks like the street will end up having neither a strong linear character (because of the “plaza” in front of the GPO and the pattern of the new trees among other things) nor an elongated square character like it had originally. I prefer the latter but would prefer the former over a mishmash. And if it is going to be linear, allow the buildings to be the most important linear element.
Actually, the more I think about it, I don’t necessarily object to the linear aspects of the modern street; it’s more the fact that such fittings destract from the buildings which should (along with the shape) be the defining features of the street. Unfortunately, I presume when whoever in the CC decides they want to spend money on something like O’Connell street, they quickly realise that they have fairly limited powers; they can’t change the shape of the street nor have they the power to do anything with the privately-owned buildings. Really all they can do is upgrade the paving and stick new lamposts, trees and the like all over the place.
I hope not. It kills the atmosphere for other field games (soccer, rugby, etc.) if the closest seats are set back 40m or so from the edge of the pitch; see Murrayfield for example. Such facilities are hardly ever used; when do you ever require 55,000 seats for an atheletics meeting in Ireland anyway? A dedicated althletics facility would surely be far better.
One good thing about Lansdown is the noise/intensity/atmosphere which is possible for rugby matches. This happens because spectators – on the East Terrace, for example – can be within 3m of the players and the fact that terraces allow a higher density of people. Many of the newish stadia such Edinburgh, Stade de France, etc. can be strangely “dead” because of the space between the specators and the pitch and the low density of spectators. In a world of mostly bland stadia (Cardiff is an exception), Lansdowne, while a kip in many regards, is currently unique in having terraces and for its atmosphere.
Out of interest, JPD, have you ever seen other patterns of rural development, for example in the purely agricultural areas of France? I mention France because it’s probably the most pro-rural country in Europe and they fiercely promote rural development. Funnily enough, they don’t have endless bungalows and mock-georgian mansions dotted along every roadside miles from any village. Nearly all development happens in towns, villages and hamlets.
I’d doubt you’d be interested in anything like that though. I get the impression that promoting the interests of rural Ireland and trying to work out how to improve the country comes second in your list of interests compared to whipping yourself into a lather of indignation at your imagined oppression of “country people” by “Dublin 4 types”.
Just to go back a few posts to Graham’s photo of a deserted west O’Connell Street in the morning which reminds me of something I’ve been thinking for a while.
I think the current redevelopment has missed an opportunity to reinstate the “width” of O’Connell Street. I don’t really have the language to describe precisely what I mean here but if you contrast photos of the modern (since the 1940s or 1950s, I guess) O’Connell Street with 19th century or early 20th century photographs (before the cars took over), it’ll give you an idea of what I mean. It seems to me that modern O’Connell Street is visually dominated by “linear” features (i.e. running the length of the street): footpaths and railings, the median, traffic lanes, lines of lampposts, the string of monuments, rows of trees, etc. This effectively emphasises the length of the street at the expense of the width. The pre-modern O’Connell street felt more like an elongated square and looked far more attractive and impressive (as an urban space) in my opinion.
Because the street carries traffic and pedestrians the traffic lanes and footpaths are necessary. However I think the street would look fabulous with no tall “linear” features – in particular with no lampposts for example. The removal of those London plane (or whatever) trees was a massive improvement because it had the effect of giving back some feeling of the expansive width of the street. It’s a pity they didn’t go the whole hog and make a concious effort to get rid of all the other visually intrusive “linear” features (including trees, minor monuments, footpath railings/edge markers, and lampposts). I really think that this would have restored the grandeur of the original.
Unfortunately many such features are new and the CC has obviously spent a lot of money on them so this idea is almost in direct opposition to what is planned for the redevelopment. Maybe during the next one in 2102…..
none of you have proven why rural paople shouldn’t be allowed build houses in rural areas. All you Dublin 4 types…
Could you stop trying to argue using stereotypes please? My background is not Dublin 4 – it’s more like that of the author of this piece. That piece for me “proves” why ribbon development shouldn’t be allowed, whether by rural people, urban people, villagers or holiday home owners. This piece also demolishes your attempt to present this as an issue of rural people being “downpressed by the man” as the author is definitely NOT a “Dublin 4 type”.
