massamann
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Heya supercool,
Not only can you post in capitals, you can also use multiple exclamation marks – that makes you extra special in my book.
I admit that the buildings that you list – King Johns Castle, the Cathedral, the Crescent – are undeniably important, containing a sizable proportion of Limericks landmark buildings. But as sites (as potential practical locations for proposed new buildings), I don’t believe that any of them rank higher than a site in the centre of the river in the centre of town. After all, I’m not aware of any proposals to knock the castle in order to build a block of apartments. And I’m not sure what you were expecting, but I agree that the old Dunnes site comes very close to being as high a profile, except that it is set back from the riverbank by a road rather than being in the centre of the river.
Surprisingly I also agree with your statement that Shannon bridge carries more traffic than Sarsfield bridge, but (to use your phrase) be honest here: is it really more important? Unless you’re suggesting that Shannon bridge is more high profile than Sarsfield bridge simply because it gets more traffic? And if we follow that logic, then Shannon Bridge is more important than the castle, the courthouse, the crescent etc that you mentioned.
The site of the boat club can be seen from both Shannon Bridge AND the castle, the courthouse, the treaty stone, etc. which makes it pretty high profile to me. But enough of our petty squabble, I think we can both agree that as a site it is both (a) fairly high profile, and (b) subject to a live planning application. And therefore worth debating.
I’d like to believe that my opinion isn’t dishonest, it’s just DIFFERENT FROM YOURS.
It’s a site in the middle of the bridge that is the main crossing point of the Shannon into the city. From this bridge you can see the castle, the cathedral, curraghower falls, and along Sarsfield St into the commercial centre of town. There’s a picture in my parents house of this very view. Short of knocking down the castle, I can’t think of anywhere in the city that’s undeniably higher profile. Although I’m happy to hear which are the alternatives that you think are more visible.
Having said all that, I’d still be in favour of building something here. It’s just that my first choice wouldn’t be privately owned offices. And it would have to be of a higher standard than this proposal. After all, it’s not like we’re stuck for either office space or development land. There is no imperative to building here.
And if this site isn’t high profile, maybe you should mention that to the developer: it’d save him alot of money and hassle if his development relocated away from the river. But even though we may disagree on his proposal, both he and I seem to think that this site is worth having and therefore worth debating.
So what do you think? Do you think private offices on this site are a good idea?
Have to say, that even when this thread moves onto a different topic, the issue of What Are We To Build on the Boatshed? still gets stuck in my craw.
I just can’t get away from the fact that we are handing over the highest profile site in the city to a private office development. Call me a pinko lefty socialist if you like, but to me an ugly public building is still better than an identically ugly private building.
The addition of a cafe or meeting room on the ground floor of an office block just doesn’t cut it for me. It was mentioned in the thread before that wouldn’t this be a fantastic location for the city library, if it has to leave the Granary. This has the added bonus of not requiring an overly large, overly dominant structure in the middle of the river.
Much as I try to look dispassionately at what is being proposed, I don’t feel any excitement about it. And even if the designs were top drawer, Pritzker winning standard, well, short of getting a job for the tenant, I’m never going to get to see the inside of them. And I’m not sure that’s what an “iconic structure” should aspire to be…
And most surely, D4 is the centre of Dublin.
I’m reminded of that scene in The Commitments: “the irish are the blacks of europe, and dubliners are the blacks of ireland, and northsiders are the blacks of Dublin – so say it now and say it loud – I’m black and I’m proud!” 😎
The more I look at the proposal to replace the Boat Club in the river, the worse it looks to me. If ever a site called for an “iconic building” – hmm, I hate that term – let’s say an example of considered design, then this is it. Get it right, and it will raise the look of every single other building that looks out at it over the river. Get it wrong, and we’ll drag everything down.
Who is the land owned by? To me, it’s a no brainer. We need a new site for a library, and we need (in my view) public access to this area. Let it be a public-private partnership on a build-lease basis, or let it be fully public. But this site is important enough to mean that the “economic imperative” should not figure. We don’t need to squeeze 20,000 sq ft of office space onto a thin strip of land. Less is more.
And with that it mind, how about something stripped down to the minimum, 2 or 3 stories high, almost transparent. Something not a million miles away from….
I think that there is an additional step needed when discussing what we should do with the boathouse. I think that we need to decide on exactly what we want built here, before we begin commenting on any designs. This is such a prominent site in the city, that I think that we need to be happy with the buildings future use, and not just what it looks like.
I’m not very happy about the idea of a scheme dominated by exclusive, private apartments. Sure, there may be a trade-off with a new boathouse being included, but again, I’m not happy that a boat club will attract the volume of membership to justify such a prominent position.
If done right, it could be the one place in the city where you really feel the impact of the river. Sitting there, you have the water to the left and right of you. But now for the unfortunate bit: the only way to maximise footfall in this area and to make it available and accessible to as many people as possible is by minimising the “for profit” developer-led component. And if we do that, I don’t believe that there will be enough of a financial imperative to build anything.
For all our talk of the Celtic tiger, have we one public building in Limerick that has gone up over the last ten years? The concert hall is part of UL, the county council offices are just that – offices. Would it be too much to hope that this could be the new location for the Library, now that the Granary is being taken into the Opera development? Along with a really decent coffeeshop/restaurant?
Anyway, here’s a couple of shots of PLOT’s Maritime Youth Centre in Copenhagen. It’s somewhat low-key, it keeps its public space…. Just an idea.
I’m going to remain competely neutral until it’s finished. I do agree though, that they have changed the look from what was being proposed in the renders.
Maybe the Chinese are buying up a lot of hewn rock for their Tiger economy?
I know, I know, he’s “trendy”, but I really like David Adjaye. I just like the use of simple materials on simple projects. I’m not claiming that it’s the second coming.
And at least on this the large blocks look and feel – well – “massive”. So that they might require some “hewing”, and not just picking up….
As far as I’m aware the “dick leveller” ™ is a new renewable energy source from Denmark. Though the fact that it will be “enclosed” and not open to the elements means that you’ll be getting 50-60% efficiency AT MOST.
Far better to have your levelled dick out in the open air where it’s free to rotate without obstruction. Don’t they know anything? :rolleyes:
Hmm.
So what you’re saying is that it’s better to cut out the middle-man (government) so that the rich can get the pleasure of screwing the poor directly?
We need to make a distinction between what CAN be done with what is the RIGHT thing to do.
To use a construction example – would you support my right to build a large shed out the back garden for the storage of nuclear waste? After all, it’s my land. Surely it’s my decision alone what gets put on it? You don’t need to be communist to believe in the common good – you just need to have concern for the welfare of others.
Or am I missing something here?
Whatever decision is reached on one-off housing in rural areas, I think it’s wrong to claim that we should be allowed to build houses today simply because that is what was done in the past, or because it is an “Irish tradition”.
One hundred years ago if you lived in the countryside, your commute to work lasted the thirty seconds it took you to walk out your front door into your field. Living in a house on a farm was practical and sustainable because by and large everybody worked from home. Nowadays, for the vast majority of people, living in the countryside means leaving your house and getting into your car to drive the thirty-mile roundtrip to work in the local town. It’s not the same thing.
I’m not entirely happy with banning one-off housing, but it may well be the lesser of two evils. And what I am convinced about is that if we are having this debate, then we should at least be honest as to the reality of what living in the countryside really is.
Surprisingly (to myself most of all), I’ve got to say that I agree with Shane on this one. If churches have to be converted, I’d much prefer they became public buildings instead of private spaces with crazy membership fees. For a reason that I can’t quite put my finger on, I’d feel so much better about it if it was a public pool that was going in, and not some fancy-pants private operation. Strange.
Anyway, here’s a pic of a former Dominican church turned into a bookstore by Dutch architects Merkx + Girod. True, it’s not a library, but I have to admit it’s pretty tasty looking (I haven’t included the photo of the cafe section that includes a table in the shape of a crucifix – you’ll just have to look up their website for that particular detail!). Hopefully if/when the Jesuits is adapted, it’s to as high a standard as this.
Ha Ha, Shane you are a hoot!
For a second there, I actually believed that you thought the solution to Limericks image problems is to build a giant glass sphere. Yes, that would really improve things. Especially as it also rotates – surely that is the element that pushes this proposal from just being doggone fantastic into the realm of absolute genius. We can even pay for it from our billions of oil dollars. But wait! – we don’t live in Kazakhstan!
Seriously man, if you think this would add ANYTHING to the city, then I’m happy to have to suffer your personal abuse. 😉
Words are failing me here. A giant rotating glass globe!!! Is somebody fricking kidding me!?! Will it be filled with snowflakes?? 🙁
Thanks Peter. Yeah, unfortunately the Heneghan.Peng plan must be shelved, as I’m fairly sure that that is the site that the cranes are working on for the new court buildings. That’s a great shame, as I really liked the design they had come up with and I can’t see the government splashing out too much cash on new builds in the next few years. 🙁
Is there a Heneghan.Peng / Dept of Agriculture building planned for this area too? I can’t find any mention of it now, but I think I remember reading something on this. Of course, I may just be losing it completely and nothing of the sort is happening.
I need to lie down.
I suppose it just goes to show that if a discussion on the relative merits of the very existance of An Taisce stirs up such emotion, then it’s no surprise that the actual work they do is such a sore point.
For what it’s worth, I believe they serve a crucial role as Devils Advocate in the planning process. Why not have a dedicated group that opposes every development that is proposed? I’m serious – think about it. If the development is strong enough, then it will survive; if not, it will fail and An Taisce will have served a valuable purpose.
Now the fact that these objections take months (if not years in the courts) to be decided is hardly An Taisce’s fault – it’s more a problem with our planning and legal systems. The public has no faith in the honesty of planning departments, and given what has been revealed over the last few years, I’m not surprised. So everything ends up in the High Court.
Let politicians develop area plans, and then get them out of the planning process. Why Cousin Seamus’ application for a bungalow down the road is a worthy subject for a councillor to write a letter about, I have no idea. Then let An Taisce, the developers and whoever else present their cases, and have an open and transparent decision made by the planners.
Now if only it were that simple… 😮
Some may say that this is off-topic, but while I’m up to speed with the their-there-they’re dilemma, I’ve never been confident of the use of apostrophes e.g. it’s / its’.
Maybe we could campaign for a linguistic An Taisce, dedicated to preserving the traditions of our language…
My opinions on the two designs are switching. Seeing these latest renders, the Leaning Tower aspect of the Foster design becomes much more obvious. And I’m not sure that it works. It’s not counterbalanced by anything; it doesn’t interact with anything. It looks like it’s about to topple into the river, like a drunk stepping off a curb.
On the other hand, the Hadid renders look far more dynamic than I had originally thought. The ratio of the tower is still a little deep for my liking, and the colours chosen a little too grey, but it certainly is iconic (for good or bad).
Now though, like practically everybody else in this thread, I just want them to get on and build something. We’ve had our talks, we’ve had our competitions, there’s no right or wrong answer. Just get on with it….
