reddy
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
In a similar vein has anyone seen the new Tommy Hilfiger store on Grafton St? They’ve blocked out the upper storey opes with some kind of silver boarding – looks absolutely terrible and I’m only hoping its some kind of temporary measure but somehow I doubt it.
This is gettin better but I totally agree about the break into the Henry St terrace and that totally weak corner they create at the junction of Moore St, Henry St and the new proposed street. Just bleeds away here and makes that building into an island – it seems isolated and floating.
Also good point about the opening off O Connell st not occurring at a right angle.
Is there any chance that this will be changed again or is this the final scheme?
Just like to point out I had nothing to do with the title. Just seemed to be the most suitable thread! I have a lot of respect for Frank McDonald and generally agree with his writing. Perhaps the title can be changed?
I’m going to resurrect this thread because I can find nowhere better to comment.
I’ve spent a good bit of time running up the quays and around the surrounding areas in the last few weeks and I must say I really think much of the criticism of the redevelopment of the docks is seriously misguided.
The DDDA was tasked with creating a mixed use, family friendly urban quarter, built to a sustainable density, a flagship regeneration project for the city of Dublin.
I disagree with people’s comments about the height of buildings in the new docklands quarter. And I feel people are using an absolutely flawed argument for building higher.
First of all density: The city is sprawling out to the west in a relentless tide but people calling for high rise development to counter this are totally misguided.
The only way to arrest our urban sprawl is to convince people that city living is an attractive alternative to the established paradigm of the suburban, car dependent home.
There is now an established cycle in the UK and Ireland of living in the city centre when you’re young and as you grow older and economic and familial circumstances change there is an inevitable drift to the suburbs. The city centre is dominated by short tenure, young, economically disadvantaged and immigrant populations. This constant flux is labelled the conveyor effect and totally defeats attempts at community generation.
The only way to combat this is to create family friendly, higher density models for living in the city centre which are attractive to families convincing the people that the city centre is clean, safe, and has every amenity to allow us bring up our children there.
Family friendliness is achievable with things like: Secure private communal gardens, Parks, large balconies, lifts capable of handling families and buggies, plentiful storage, Safe, well lit streets, pocket parks, convenient local retail and health and leisure uses and quality, socially varied schools.
In the case of the docklands, the established height was a just response to creating a sense of enclosure to the river, while respecting the existing fabric of the city on both sides of the river, making the scale of buildings in new developments sympathetic to their receiving environment. Perhaps the buildings facing the river could have been taller given the width of the Liffey.
The newly creating streets and open spaces encourage permeability and provide an attractive pedestrian-orientated urban environment while the ratios of street width to building height allow sunlight penetration to the ground plane, residential courtyards and apartments in the lower storeys. The masterplan is also faced with the serious problem of naming height limits – if it does so every developer will attempt to build every building to this height – each one with a solid statutory grounding to argue that they should be allowed to this level – it is therefore extremly difficult to give height guidelines in statutory planning.
There is also now a string of landmark developments taking shape which are beginning to give the area increased legibility and sense of focus and place. Alto Vetro, Grand Canal Square, the new Liebeskind theatre, the Aires Mateus hotel and rounding the corner the new Calatrava bridge (please hurry) will give access to the incredibly enigmatic form of Kevin Roches new Conference centre.
I often moan about this desire to attract starchitects to a city but I must admit the new theatre is very exciting and certainly different, the hotel, while a poor rendering of its original concept looks quite well, the square is shocking but I think its great and the conference centre is to my enormous surprise looking as if it may be a fantastic civic addittion to the city.
I honestly think they’re slowly, slowly creating a nice, dense city quarter which will continue to develop, hopefully with some of the early building efforts getting makeovers or replacements. But overall I am quite impressed with the regeneration of the area.
Admittedly the height of buildings in the area is monotonous but this is a product of many factors and I often wonder if the people who are so quick to criticise this monotony and the density in the docklands would be particularly willing to live there, and more importantly raise a family there if density and heights were increased to the levels which they suggest.
Perhaps people could post what they think might improve the area.
I for one would love to see marinas, along the line of Marseilles’ vieux port fill the river with gently bobbing masts and cafes line the campshires.
Phew, long post.
Its certainly not as bad as that. Thanks a million for the pics/ critique GrahamH.
Since those pictures were taken the scheme has steadily advanced in its finishing. Its actually great. It reinstates the enclosure of York st, makes a quality residential courtyard, the corner element is sophisticated and elegant, making a lovely transition which is infinitely better than the vast majority of private blocks attempting the same.
From an urban point of view, it ticks all the boxes, active corner use, mix of typologies and tenure, On street access to stair cores etc.
The detailing is well thought out and fairly well executed overall, the apartments are spacious, flexible and energy efficient. Its by far the most sustainable and efficient block in the city at the moment.
Overall I really cant compliment this enough. Of course elements in it are cheap – its social housing – budget is a serious concern but the overall quality of the development shines through. Go down and have a look at it in the flesh and I really think you’ll be pleasantly suprised.
O this case study makes very interesting reading about the evolution of the scheme.
http://www.chr.ie/training_and_education/energy_efficiency_for_sustainable_communities_2008.530.html
(About half way down)I don’t think anyone is defending it solely on the basis that its better than whats there.
The comparison to the central bank is really good actually. While it goes against any instincts I might have re demolition of existing fabric, maintaining scale and grain and issues re height and wind and public space, I find the central bank to be a really enigmatic presence in the city.
It has a very powerful, muscular presence, befitting an institute of national importance and I keep finding amazing views to the bank from so many locations in the city. Its a real landmark in an older sense of the concept – a strong, formidable building, full of personality. Not quite beautiful but a compelling building nonetheless.
The NCC has the potential to have the same weighty presence on the Quays. I reserve my judgment until completion but right now I’m quite excited by the prospect.
I actually am beginning to like the look of it. It certainly has presence on the quays.
As part of a string of significant monumental buildings along the quays it will work quite well. Monumentality is a difficult thing to achieve in a modern idiom and I think this has an almost brutalist, powerful presence which will achieve that. Kevin Roche, while his buildings generally aren’t to my taste, certainly knows his stuff and like Gunter pointed out above, this building has its roots based in a long tradition of monumental civic building.
Thats great stuff Busman, lot of work gone into that. This is probably as good a place as any to post maps. This issue really seriously affects the urban design and future planning of the city centre.
Plus you never know who might be reading…..!
On GrahamH’s post re the shop on Dame St opposite city hall, the amount of pavement space taken up by sandwich boards and the like is really shocking. Its just visual clutter and adds to the sense of disorientation and mess on the city’s streets. Surely it must be an easy thing to implement the removal of these.
http://www.bslarch.com/irishtimes.html
Landscape proposal for the atrium of the former Irish Times building.
The results of the competition for no.16 Henrietta St are due to go on public display in the next couple of weeks. In the City Council Offices I think. Should be interesting to see the various responses. They received around eighty entries. I presume a winner will be announced before the exhibition.
Really good post Busman. Great ideas for improving the service. Hopefully someone in Dublin Bus is watching!!
They installed the Patrick St/Dean St one at 03.10 on Friday night/ Saturday morning. I was rolling home after a few too many after work drinks and decided to incoherently vent some of this forums rage at the poor Jc Decaux workers. I’m fairly sure the eloquent and articulate objection I heard in my head just came out as a series of gurgles and muttering. To my mind as well it was all part of the shifty circumstances that they installed these things so late.
Seriously tho, these things are so obtrusive and all are appearing in the working class areas of the city. They’re absouletly unavodiable to the eye. Its ridiculous to have advertising become the focus of our public realm.
The Phibsborough Mountjoy LAP included a little piece espousing the benefits of an entrance to Eccles St. Its crazy not to included this. Seemingly the RPA were having none of it though. They were making excuses about the difficulty of resolving design issues with the future development of the Mater/ National Peadiatric hospital. I suppose it presence in the LAP gives some voice to the City Council’s approval of an entrance there anyway. Maybe it’ll make a difference.
Great pics, cheers Graham. The more I see this the less and less I like it. More details of ridiculous junctions between buildings and that corner from O connell st into the new street is absolutely horrendous.
What is it about proposals for buildings on O Connell st. They always seem so poor. The HKR proposal for the site of the Pennys building next to the GPO was equally bad.
Had a look at the model in the civic offices earlier. Well worth seeing so as to understand this thing.
I agree about some of the intentions in the scheme- its great to see additional streets being created and investment in the area between here, Arnotts, the markets and others will be brilliant.
However… the public spaces seem completely arbitrary and do have this feeling of leftover space. Someone earlier mentioned the muddled designs of shopping centre developments and it looks just like that. Interest and diversity are often confused with muddled and messy!
Its as if the architects are trying to create some of the randomness and diversity which accreted urban development inevitably has. Its just not working though.
The break into Henry st is an absolute crime too. Its going to make a seriously weak point where the new street and Moore st come together with a poorly defined “iconic” corner.
I’ve no issue with the height and I actually think the standard of the architecture is potentially quite high but the north facing sloping park strikes me as being pure fantasy. I can imagine it having the same atmosphere as a heavily security guarded extension of a shopping centre.
O and one more thing, The moving of the carlton facade is ridiculous too. Just knock it or leave it.
Cheers for the visualisations and the model pics.
@cgcsb wrote:
do the PD’s realise that Dublin is in fact not Helsinki or Copenhagen?
I’ve heard this argument so many times and I really don’t understand it. Its absolutely ridiculous to keep our heads in the sand and not examine case studies in cities comparable to Dublin. i.e Barcelona, Copenhagen, Lyon and many others in Europe.
Dublin is in fact very similar to many cities in Europe in terms of climate, population, infrastructure, government etc.
If we examine these cities and take lessons learnt in their development surely it can only be a good thing, helping us to avoid mistakes which can only be seen with the benefit of hindsight.
We can also begin to see differences in the cities which may highlight deficiencies or positives in the way our planning and development of the city is proceeding.
Lets not close ourselves off to the experience and vision of other cities.
