notjim
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I am with Paul Clerkin on this one. If we want a modern Natural History Museum we should house it seperately. Unlike the National Gallery, the National History Museum hasn’t evolved with time and quite by accident has become a perfectly perserved example of a past, and by some regreted, idea of how a museum should look.
I live near Croke Park, some Sundays it is quite crowded in the area and some Saturday’s too. you can hear the cheers. I quite like it. It is a bit inconvenient, but well worth it for the specticle.
. . . well a single Nobel prize winner is all I’m afraid . . . Maybe with a science museum to encourage youngsters we will win more. To fair too, we do have museums of science, there is the telescope at Birr Castle I think and the glorious National History Museum on Kildare Street. What we are missing in this part of the island is an interactive childrens science center like W5 in Belfast or The Launch Pad in the Science Museum in London.
[This message has been edited by notjim (edited 23 October 2001).]
So Forum on Parnell Street is an interesting
example, it is aimed at a multi-cultural crowd and it feels a lot like one of those nice NY bars that isn’t particularly trendy, but sort of comfortable, you know, the American equivalent of the Dame Tavern. It is an idea of a bar that is familiar here, but the way that idea is realised is not quite familiar.Yeah, it is a pity about the AIB building, it blocks the view of the basin from across the river. The new boardwalk is good and the Stack House will look great when the end is glassed. I certainly hope they put in a proper cultural venue, an interactive science museum would be good, local people would use it. It will be such a waste if they put in one of those made up museum that really only exist as a tourist destination, the proposed Dublin museum sounds like it will be like that. I mean tourists are great, but it is important in the case of the North Dock to turn it into a destination for tourists and locals alike.
So does anyone know what is going into Stack House A, they keep announcing that there will be retail and cafes and a museum and that one side will be glass, but they never say what the museum is going to be.
It is a lot friendlier, if blander, from the Trinity side, from the model it looked like the nicest view would be from the new encloused area between it and the back of the Berkeley.
What I can never understand is why Trinity so often leaves a useless gap between its buildings and the street, the worst is big cubic gym building on Pearse street which is at an angle to the street and cuts of a little triangle of waste land.
The new DART stations are attractive from a distance, the curve up to the overpass is elegant. Pity about the lack of shelter though, I agree.
Sorry for the confusing initial message, I wrote it straight after reading the Irish Times article. It was obvious to me what I was talking about, but in retrospect, not so obvious to anyone else.
Sure, my remark only applied to College Green, or, say O’Connell Street, where it is hoped to reduce traffic drastically, enough to make the street pedestrian dominated, without pedestrianizing it completely. A surface car park in a city is a waste and some public spaces are better without cars at all.
I agree that College Green is an impressive public space wasted to traffic, but I amn’t sure bury the road is a good idea. My understanding of the Macken road Calatrava bridge and of the dto’s general plan, is that it is intended to drastically reduce the traffic coming around Trinity and up O’Connell Street, so, in the future there will be much less traffic through College Green, allowing it to be developed as a public space. Sometimes getting rid of traffic altogether is a bad idea, it makes the enviroment less urban.
To my mind Shop Street in Galway, for example, might be better if there was still one lane of traffic down it, perhaps with Cross Street pedestrianized instead.
I agree it is okay, but if a bit drab and a copper roof could be fabulous. However, the main objection seems to be the height. The height looks about right to me. Four or five stories is what is needed to anchor the space in front of the gaol and it wouldn’t intrude on the gardens of the Royal Hospital either. It is a pity the new apartment blocks between the formal garden of the royal hospital and Phoenix park are so awful, again there is no problem with the height, but they look terrible.
I must say, Kilmainham is a pleasure, mostly because the topography is so interesting and the various new developments are all piled on top of each other in an interesting way. I think it is a bit precious to call Kilmainham village the last urban village though. I live in Fairview, which certainly wouldn’t top anybody list of urban villages (Ranelagh, Stoneybatter, Phibsborough) and it seems a lot like a village to me and I grew up in a (rural) village.
Greg, I think you are becoming a bit unhinged. I amn’t sure all that you mention is An Taisce’s fault. In fact, the Ulster Bank extension is quite a handsome building in its own way, the only problem with it is that it doesn’t address the older buildings around it and something nicer was demolished to make way for it. That’s precisely the sort of thing An Taisce objects to.
On a seperate topic, I though I read somewhere that Liffey House is being knocked down, to be replaced by something five story and more contemporary. I think I am confusing Liffey House and Hawkins House, does anyone know what is happening.
The high rise debate is always phrased in such polarized terms, terms that suit those who are dogmatically opposed or dogmatically in favour of tall buildings. In fact, the whole thing is much more complicated, New York is a beautiful city and has a vibrant street level urban enviroment, Chicago has a fabulous skyline but empty streets, London’s
skyline is a mess and it isn’t particularily high rise, but it is a great city to live in. Similarily, the original Spenser Dock plan was as wrong headed as its replacement is drab. It was too big, too homogenous, it had an unwelcoming street level street scape and it would have given the city an apparent core where there was none. On the other hand, I like the Smithfield chimney, but to rule against the proposed tower because it diminished the chimney’s impact was foolish
and craven. However, that doesn’t justify the vilification of An Taisce, An Taisce has saved many beautiful things and helped preserve the city’s depth and texture.I think what I am trying to say is that the debate is quite complicated and there we shouldn’t make such a fuss about people having opinions, they shouldn’t anger us if we disagree with them and planners should listen to them but shouldn’t be obliged to act on them. Good planning, like good politics, balance differing desires by drawing from the extremes. The problem at the moment is planning which placates the middle by ignoring the extremes.
