Forum Replies Created
i shudder to think that anyone in this thread advocating the replication of the original houses is in any way involved professionally with architecture/planning
i dont think anyones suggesting actually transplanting the building, more what is built in other cities with the same type of brief, which is a point worth making
Would the theatre go underground then beneath the courtyard? Or would it fill the courtyard?
A museum arranged around the edges with a courtyard public space accessible from O’Connell st., gpo arcade, henry street could be great!
A building designed as a post office is a lot more suitable for housing retail functions than a theatre.
The traditional theatre program, which is presumably required for the Abbey, is pretty inflexible.
You’d probaly have to gut the building, just retain the facade and build a new theatre inside?
The museum could probably work as well, if it was really unsustainable for it to continue in its current use.
The centenary of 1916 is coming up: rather than a destructive episode such as that which became of the Pillar in ’66, what say we use 2016 as a rallying point to do something positive, much as what the millennium became, and in that regard I put it to you that a restored GPO containing the Abbey and other venues such as for opera/ ballet would be a real beacon that the capital could do with – right when we need it most!
What say? :)[/QUOTE]
Just one problem with that: the GPO is a post office.
What kind of design philosophy teaches you to take the worst attributes of the standard 1970s spec. office block, add four storeys onto it, and stick in in for planning, as if the last twenty years of urban debate was all happening on someone else’s planet?[/QUOTE]
Hmmm. I’m not sure if the people responsible for large commercial buildings in this country subscribe to any design philosophy at all.
Is all of the rear of the building going to be changed? Id include the glazed part at the rear in what i was talking about.
I’d agree with that, the earlier building was a lot more responsive to its context.
it was built more cheaply maybe, than the terraces around it.
But it still maintained a some-what similar scale and rhythm.
The new block on the other hand is just that, a blank mass of rather horrible greenish glass with pretty bad detailing everywhere.
Offering nothing to the street or the city.
The rear of that building on stephens green is appalling too, it looks like industrial units on the naas road somewhere. Pretty irresponsible of the planners and the architects(?) considering its position
How is this any better than the brick office block pictured?
I suggest its of lower quality.
Sorry my first post has to be so negative.