johnglas
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
GregF: just turn your argument on its head (as it were) and you’ll see its absurdity.
the very sensitive folk and the very elderly won’t be so offended by tall buildings!
So, we are to understand from this that those in favour of tall buildings are insensitive and juvenile?
I thought so…:cool:An awful lot of opinion and anorakery masquerading as comment here. What ‘would of been’ ‘cool’ about dotting Dublin with tall buildings?
tomahawk: methinks you protest too much about this. As a disinterested (but very interested) outsider, who has had the very recent privilege of visiting Cobh cathedral, I have to say that the proposed ‘liturgical’ changes are completely unnecessary, that they may be completely nugatory in light of recent liturgical changes, and that structural repairs (In a sensitive and expert way) to the fabric and its environs are all that are required (with perhaps some necessary restorative redecoration of the interior). I did notice that there is a strong element of neglect of parts of the fabric of what could be an outstanding heritage town, so perhaps the councillor deserves to be booted out because of his neglect of that. I doubt if Prax’s intention was to do that, merely to illustrate his compliance.
and frank mcdonald has nothing to do with anything
Ouch!
Apart from consistently writing about the city for as long as I’ve been interested in it (i.e. nearly twenty years); just because you disagree with someone, don’t turn it into an ad hominem argument – that’s the lowest form of personal attack.The discussion on the closure of historic churches reminds me of the situation in Amsterdam, where the Diocese of Haarlem decided – in the 70s! – to close a large number of historic (and architecturally distinguished) churches in favour of ‘house churches’. At one stroke, a layer of urban history was wiped out. Some have since reopened (like the superb ex-Dominican church on Spuistraat), but many were demolished.
Here in Glasgow the former Franciscan church (a large Edward Puginesque building) was redesigned as a community centre, but the Archdiocese is trying to re-acquire it. We give up our patrimony at our peril.
The architect was Gilbert Blount (1868).Prax: Brief historical note – it is alleged that Bruce’s Cave (where he saw the spider) was on Rathlin Island (in Down and Connor) and technically Bruce was king of Scots, not Scotland, since in Scotland we the people are sovereign (allegedly). I’m just back from my first-ever visit to Cork; views on local churches later, suffice to say for the present that I cannot understand the ontological desire for wishing to vandalise the almost perfect neo-Gothic relic that is St Colman’s.
For what it’s worth, we’re just celebrating the 70th anniversary of the 1938 Empire Exhibition here. So what? Well, this was an enormous enterprise (c.150 acres) and was a stunning showpiece for contemporary (Moderne) architecture – I’ve already posted some pics of Tate’s Tower, but the ensemble of buildings (all temporary and all but one demolished) was stunning and an object lesson in (a) having a masterplan, (b) encouraging younger architects to use their considerable design talents and (c) using high-rise as punctuation (to stunning effect). As far as I am concerned, it’s been downhill all the way since in design terms, since the 1938 architecture did not rise without trace but had a clear line back to classical times, but with a rigorously contemporary design aesthetic and the use of innovative materials and decorative flourishes. And Ireland did have its own pavilion. I’ll see if I can get some pics if anyone’s interested.
It’s not as bad as that, fergair, although I don’t know what you do about the defective cladding on the gable – future problems?
Are the bottom layers of strata on the last pics the famed Dublin calp (limestone)? It’s fearsome looking stuff.
PS Great stuff, GrahamH, good forensic pics and a consistent critique of the development; need more of that.ake: could you parse the first picture you posted and tell me exactly what is wrong with it? Looks like a perfectly decent and modulated inner-city residential development to me. If you want to cram everyone in Kowloon-style you’re living on the wrong continent (possibly even universe).
You could always try some of that wonderful red-purple sandstone and silver-blue limestone (complete with fossils) from CORK (!) for cladding buildings in Dublin. Am I being provocative?
The present blip may hold thingsup a bit, since DIT will – rightly – want the best return on any assets they dispose of. I’ve just seen UCC’s campus and was mightily impressed; it’s very open (although the Honan chapel was closed – just my luck) and my argument would simply be that more non-uni uses (or uses not controlled directly by the uni) should be on-campus to provide a more eclectic mix. I can see problems with this approach, but this is a huge site and it should be able to accommodate them all; the tramway through the site should encourage development which might otherwise not go there.
You are wrong about universities of course
Hmmm… but not a debate for this thread. This could be such a marvellous opportunity for an area that has traditionally been ‘closed’ to the city being ‘opened’ and integrated; the masterplan looks good and with a clear head and a steady hand there is no reason why it should not be implemented, even during the current blip. I like the idea of a more open ‘campus’ -university uses, yes, but real shops, pubs, cafes, streets, businesses as well – any thoughts?
The thought of the tramway going through, the prospect of integrating it with the marvellous Broadstone building, the retention of historic buildings on the site – am I dreaming or is this all too good to be true?All this is probably true, but it is equally an example of the commodification of education; universities are now degree factories – of course one is impressed by the wealth of talent (which is just as impressed with itself) but… Anyway, Grangegorman could be a great site and shouldn’t be held back by concerns about critical mass in some kind of academic supermarket. Believe it or not, institutions can cooperate rather than be amalgamated into huge agglomerations. US universities will always look good because of vast endowments; does the US make the most beneficial contribution to the world? Discuss. How much university research is actually about the needs of the military/big business?
Hi guys! Just back from my (first-ever) visit to your fair city. Still trying to absorb it all, but I did like the new tower and the developments round about. I think they lost their nerve on thr fin(i)al flourish, but it is elegant and I’m not a particular fan of high-rise for its own sake.
My general impression was of a fascinating small city that has been allowed to crumble for far too long. I think you need to sack everyone in the ‘planning’ department (if there is one) and get people in place who care deeply about the city and how it looks. A 10-year plan would allow this place to flourish as it deserves to. And, whisper it, I think it is more architecturally varied and interesting than Dublin and it just oozes character.So do I; H St needs a fillip. I take it this is by the architects (deB+M?) who did that masterly (or mistressly) newbuild at Cork IT.
Good brickwork is a timeless aesthetic and ‘native’ to Dublin, BUT what is it – a house, an office, a museum?
The rear view shows some interesting contrasts: the Amsterdam School flats, the ‘decent’ contemporary do., the absolutely dire neglect of the rear facades of the adjoining houses (why is grey cement the default material?) and the rubbish surfacing of the lane. But what a gem Henrietta St is – I don’t care how twee it gets, it just needs a good kick up the arse. I think this will do it.ctesiphon:good examples of what I meant; is there any news of what could potentially be the best chance at present – the Iveagh Market? Has it just gone dead?
I didn’t say that – try reading my post – alonso’s point was that developers try to replicate the scale of the suburban centre in the city and you just can’t do that and retain the urban grain. If you add carparks, you just add to congestion. The real answer is for local authorities to refuse permission for any out-of-town centre that meets more than local need and to encourage more shopping in town, dependant on public transport not cars.
cqcsb: I’ve heard the ‘global warming’ argument cried in defence of just about everything, but shopping malls…? There is a long-established city centre tradition of the ‘galleria’ and the covered mall is perhaps just an extension of this, but – whisper it – you can’t have a mall and an attached carpark in the city centre. If the developers want to develop inner-city shopping it can work only if it provides minimal or nominal (or no) carparking. Unfortunately, modern shopping patterns (along with school-runs and other nonsenses) will ensure that out-of-town centres will continue to flourish. Ask yourself why Ikea (a purveyor of cheap but useful furniture) requires a whole motorway connection before it will even open on the periphery of a major city.
