lexington

@Bob Dole wrote:

where I disagree with you is that it seems you are blurring two ideas: the idea of acknowledging and bringing life to the lanes of Cork (asomething which is very important and adds to the uniqueness and charm of Cork) and the relationship of the corner to both the lane and quay.

Architecturally, there is a hierarchy of spaces between the lane and the quays. By using a non-differentiating device (the circular corner stuff) as Cashman & Assoc. has done, no respect has been shown to this hierarchy: both the lane and the quay are treated equally when they are not equal.

Yes, I do agree there is a hierarchy – most definitely…

An old image – please note that the building is still under construction at this point and incomplete.

…I would have understood that the ground floor unit envisaged commercial usage (currently being used as a gallery), acting as a gateway entrance to the French Quarter, provided a relatively prominent vantage to laneway traffic. Having said that, if we draw a line at the point of division between quayside and lane, considering the glass facade, we find that a greater vantage is afforded the quayside. Greater recognition of the quays are exemplified in the upper floors where large open-view windows are afforded the 4th, 5th and 6th floor levels. The relatively vacant eastern facade was incorporated with consideration of existing planning on what was originally to be Irish Examiner offices designed by ORSA, later a Comfort Inn by RORSA and now subject to a new proposal by OCP. Perhaps the new proposal will help rectify any ills at the intersection whilst still affording an appropriate gateway. Point taken and appreciated though, it’s a very important one. 🙂

@Bob Dole wrote:

As an example of something working: The Gate Cinema also turns a corner – but it does so much more effectively than Lavitt’s Quay project, by putting a “window” onto the quay and its entrance onto North Main St – one is wide, one is narrow etc.

Re: The Gate –

this project remains utterly lost on me. I appreciate the clever structural points – but as for complimenting the quayside? The ground-floor window frontage does indeed act as a nice indoor/outdoor visual link – however its the lengthy seperation along which no active ground uses are incorporated limits quayside activity and instead diverts traffic (pedestrian) away from the quayside. The commercial units that form part of the adjoining apartment block never successful took off – I did address the issue and reasons behind it in another post related to Cork quaysides. In addition, the projects massing is unsightly, the multiplex facility is rudely cut off with an apartment (Garden City) collection inappropriately massed overhead which leads to a discontinuation in form. Use should have been considered at this point – the design failed to recognise that when accommodating residential use, residential activity would clearly follow. Instead of provision of a centralised external fixture area (like with schemes in Blackpool), an unsightly jumble of satellite dishes and clothes lines (on occassion) decorate the scheme overhead. Of course the usual option would be to blame the planning authority – but shouldn’t a design seek to consider its usage, protect its statement and have consideration for its external environment?

As for treating the lane/road with hierarchial consideration, the original design sought the provision of a glass tower structure which opened out at ground-level to quayside and North Main Street – its location (the current dent between multiplex entrance and apartment structure) and proximity to the street (on the eastern elevation) would surely have concentrated the focus on the street as oppose to the quayside by dominating all other facets of the project in this gateway effort.

@Thomond Park wrote:

So why are you arguing on an architecture forum?

First off, I would understand that an architectural forum is more than a pleateau for ‘I like it’ or ‘I don’t like it’ commentaries. The variation in all walks of life which participate in these forums, including yourself, who do not all have strict architectural backgrounds would suggest that there is a greater depth to the discussions that take place here. Equally important to evaluating the end product, is the context and background to which a project has developed – this includes the processes in which a design has evolved through including the base idea (e.g. a gallery), site nature (e.g. small tennis court footprint), project location (e.g. UCC grounds among a density of established plantations), inspirational contributions (e.g. a ship), economics (e.g. how the project was funded in order to achieve the desired scale/usage/nature etc, was it viable? what are the internal and external affects of locating money in this project vs another?), planning process (e.g. how was the project affected in terms of scale, design etc as a result of planning process input/ was it successful at all? Did the planning process allow the primary aims of the developer/architect relationship maintain?), construction (was the project compromised at any level during the construction phase?), operation (have the goals of the project been realised since its completion? Financial targets met or exceeded? Design impact effective/unaffective?) – this list goes on, but architecture is an interdependent trade related to a myriad of objectives, foundations and processes. I personally think the journey of a project’s design in light of all these challenges and issues makes the birth of proposal all the more exciting. How an architect navigates his designs way through this is often a testament to their skill – as one architect said to me, “The design is the easy part.”
So why am I discussing the foundations of a project like Liffey Valley? Well, because although I agree that the design of a proposal is highly important – I believe consideration has to be applied to these other elements in understanding the empirical context. I don’t understand how you can judge a car by discussing it’s body alone – you must consider its engine, electronics, safety features, efficiency, price and so on to truly comment on it as a complete package.

@Thomond Park wrote:

Minimum wage level jobs in the main.

That’s a very disappointing point to make. First off, many of the jobs were actually above the minimum wage at the time (1998) – but moreover, many accountants start off on minimun wage when joining the profession themselves. The fact is, the employment programmes initiated provide skills training that was previously unavailable to many of the prospective employees at Liffey Valley. Even in cases were emloyees were afforded minimum wage jobs, the fact is, given the circumstances from which many came – the jobs provided them with input back into the Labour Force, provided them with skills to further their employment options, allowed them take home a respectable and honest day’s wage, contributed to the economic development of their area, offered them a higher level of disposable income, offered job progression in many cases – and so on. Many employees have continued on from Liffey Valley with the skills and portfolio the training programmes and job experience has afforded them and allowed progression or alteration in their employment circumstances. I think that if you ever sit down and talk to some of those who engaged in the programmes or even just entered employment at LV, few I think will argue the benefit they have been provided with. Furthermore, I think to simply address the employment circumstances of many employees at places like LV as ‘minimum wage jobs in the main’ undermines the positions held by many of those persons. The reason 60% of low-wage employment opprtunities (IBEC, 2002) have high like-for-like staff turnover levels is due to a.) temporary nature held by positions (e.g student work, part-time labourers, summer work) and b.) staff progression. I have much more respect for those persons willing to get up and take on employment than sit at home and say ” I’m not going to get to get a job over there cos it’s just minimum wage” – ??? Many of those who experienced long-term unemployment or unemployment at all – suffered from factors including lack of appropriate labour applied skills or skills that had become invalidated. Is Third-Level education not held in esteem given the fact that advancement in skill development enhances employment prospects, options and the ability to progress? At any graduate or early labour market entry level – of course wages will begin at a more trimmed level. I doubt very much if many surveyors entered at senior partner wage following graduation???

@Thomond Park wrote:

I hope that Frank McDonald devotes more of his well considered time and measured journalistic output on the large numbers of inappropriate developments taking plce in Cork City centre at present.

As for Frank McDonald’s article – though some of the logic is understandable, he forgets a number of things related to Cork and its development. As I believe another user who_me quite rightly pointed out – Mr. McDonald justifies his argument for example on points like quayside buildings in Cork needing to have ‘sharp-edges’ and ‘defined corners’ on the basis that a unique facet of Cork’s identity is based on its relationship to the River Lee and its channels. Indeed, that is an important facet – but another equally important facet, unique to Cork’s identity is the maze of little lanes and side-streets that criss-crossed the city and which were once hubs of activity. I cite, the French Quarter, Market Lane, Paul’s Lane, Grafton Street (yes we have one too!), Allinet’s Lane, Faulkner’s Lane, Dalton’s Avenue and others too numerous to mention. These lanes have died over the decades with the focus shifting to main streets like St. Patrick’s Street, Grand Parade, MacCurtain Street, South Mall and so on. In some cases, these lanes have been filled in or built over or used for inflill development. In fact, a journalist recently reported on Cork’s dying side-streets citing how one family business, 50-years in the running had to now close in the face of competition from the high-street chains pulling traffic away from the likes of traditional stores along the side-streets. Mr. McDonald paid particular focus to O’Callaghan Properties’ own development at 21 Lavitts Quay, whose sweeping glass facade on the corner of Lavitts Quay and Paul’s Lane curves dramatically into the lane. He argued that such styling detracts the focus away from the river and toward the laneway. I feel that Casman & Associates quite rightly highlighted this important but dying participant of Cork’s urban fabric. In fact, O’Callaghan Properties (OCP) have a similar scale project destined for their recently acquired site at 16 Lavitts Quay, bridging the gap between Cork Opera House and the new OCP HQ at 21 Lavitts Quay, although the site is a little more difficult to work with – I hope the project here provides a similar emphasis on Paul’s Lane. As it happens, OCP have plans to refurbish the long-standing Paul Street S.C. to the rear of 21 Lavitts Quay, as part of a larger project which will link the centre’s retail elements into additional retail schemes at Cornmarket Street, 16 Lavitts Quay and Academy Street (not Adelaide Street as mentioned in the Frank McDonald article). It is hoped that this renewal will help rejuvenate life and activity on the narrow pedestrian Paul’s Lane once again with uses opening out onto the lane and drawing traffic back into the area. In this context, the emphasis provided at quayside will provide an appropriate gateway and draw into the French Quarter area and this, it’s newly rejuvenated sector. Furthermore, Mr. McDonald cites OCP’s proposal for Academy Street – Project Architects and Gehl Architects (Urban Design Consultants) are scheduled to lodge the proposal on behalf of the company shortly. The project, in addition to retaining many of the important facades, will also seek to utilise what has become an abandoned side-street, Faulkner’s Lane. The lane, directly off Patrick’s Street has become nothing more than a series of derelict premises and uses (beyond that of an alternative lifestyle bar) – the Academy Street proposal will seek to actually widen the lane with retail use opening out onto the enhanced laneway, yet again given life to a dying facet. Mr. McDonald also criticises Howard Holdings’ CityQuarter project – noting that the Clarion Hotel element sweeps back into Clontarf Street in a prominently curved glass facade – I disagree that this detracts from the quayside. In addition to providing a stark contrast to the sharply, angular tower structure which forms part of O’Flynn Construction’s No.6 Lapps Quay – the sweeping nature of the project serves to emphasis the visual corridor between North and South Channels of the Lee and providing and otherwise deprived connection between the southern quays and the Northern Bank whose topography so strongly defines Cork’s character. Furthermore, it is funny that Mr. McDonald criticises emphasis of Cork’s streets or laneways when the Conroy Architecture proposal which won the RIAI/Cork City Council Architectural Competition for Kyrl’s Quay partially received the award for creating new north-south corridors and avenues by the regulated partition of building forms across the site.

Having said that, I in no way argue the valuable asset our River serves to afford this city. Anyone who has taken a trip to the London Docklands, or emerging Dublin Dokclands, will note the continuous river frontage embraced by some area projects. Personally I find these to be monotonous in their form and continuity – perhaps it is the standardized height that seems to impose itself on these new structures – but I for one, when it comes to the Cork Docklands area (which avails of a lengthy waterfrontage) would wish to see development avail of their proximity to the water, but also to allow for variation in building heights and forms so as to create a more distinct visual greeting and skyline. I would hope that these developments are not monotonous in their continuity and are appropriately broken with necessary greenspace fronting the water’s edge so as to provide a break and offer of new visual corridors – a sense of depth to the quayside. Back in the city centre, generally, newer quayside projects have paid attention to the historical character provided by the city’s old laneways (some leeway can be afforded the docklands in that it does not have the same complexity of historical development still in existance) by appropriately emphasising them (such as 21 Lavitts Quay or CityQuarter) – the city centre island is an area of the city which should seek to retain the character other cities have lost by taking a 1 dimensional approach to vantage, the river is important (and should be embraced) but so too should our city’s historical urban fabric. I agree with Mr. O’Callaghan when he says the blanket approach to ‘sharply angular’ quayside profiles and corners would be dismal and prissy – too many city’s have aspired to the standardized form of planning and architectural thinking on how modern cities should be developed, and as a consequnece have lost their character. The best architects, planners and developers have thought outside this box.

As for the rest of your points – I’ll have to get back to them at a later stage. After writing 3 reports and this reply, my typing fingers are exhausted!!! :p

@Rory W wrote:

Psychologically surely it makes sense for money to be spent on good design which contributes to the area and gives those living and working in the proximity a boost – hasn’t Ballymun changed and calmed down since better design principles came into play as part of the regeneration? The emphesis on design shows that it is a vital part of the social regeneration of the area.

Where would you rather spend more time – a regenerated community street with multi-functional buildings that are in use on a 24 hour basis i.e. shops/bars/restaurant with offices and living accomodation overhead or a mono-use 9-6 (with late night til 9 on Thursdays) shopping box with little or no thought put into the design rather the throughput of shoppers that it could get?

Surely Liffey Valley stands as an example of “dismal” architecture. Pot and Kettle.

I think to deny that Liffey Valley did not enhance the Quarryvale area would be empty. The scheme brought hundreds of jobs to an economically and socially wanting area – this was in part thanks to employment training schemes undertaken by O’Callaghan Properties, which of course served a purpose in staffing LV, but nonetheless provided much needed skills and employment opportunities. A similar but far more developed initiative was engaged in Mahon – co-operatively between O’Callaghan Properties & FAS – essentially training and employment skills were afforded hundreds of local area residents. Many of these residents have been able to move on from initial opportunities at Mahon Point to other positions across the city and county.

I’m not arguing the architectural element – I’m just noting that both schemes enhance the economic and social circumstance of both these areas. Unsociable behaviour in areas like Mahon have markedly decreased (although right now I do not have an exact figure to hand) in the period 2002 to 2005 – much is attributed to improved economic circumstances. Similar to Ballymun I would believe. I took a drive through Ballymun a few weeks back and have to say I’m impressed by the progress – and indeed the empirically improved circumstances.

@PDLL wrote:

Sounds like the peculiar sentimentalization of polution to me. I am sure that Dublin would still be Dublin without the smell, in the same way that the narrow streets of Galway are still the narrow streets of Galway without the medieval pig shit and human piss flowing down the gutters.

Hmmm there’s a nice image to tell the kids. 😀

Now that’s interesting!

A good friend of mine once said to me:

“It’s always been my dream to create something in my head and then realise it. Seeing dreams made flesh is the most rewarding part of my day. The ability to design smarter, better and more imaginative – to add something to the environment and proudly say, I did that.”

Maybe a little idealistic, but it’s ideals that create ambition.