shanekeane

the render of the convention centre above with the lavender sky and the twinkly lights irritates me beyond my ability to express. the river does not look like that, the sky does not look like that, and the surrounding building do not look like that. the whole area looks grey and industrial. maybe if people were honest with these renders then so much unsuitable stuff would not be built in this country. is there no taking account of the light conditions when building in this country? if people took into account the greyness of the climate in dublin, then maybe they wouldn’t be building grey buildings all over the place.

@spoil_sport wrote:

I really don’t know why I bother….
I’ll humour you briefly, though I suspect I know the answer Ill get:
Off the top of my head and in no particular order:
Berkeley Library, Bus Arus, UCD restaurant, Central Bank,
deBlacamMeagher’s wooden building temple bar and the the corner building at Castle Street.
O’Donnell+Tuomey’s photographic archive in Temple Bar, Ranelagh school and Cherry Orchard school, and in my opinion their almost complete community centre in East Wall is one of the best projects realised in Dublin in recent years.
Though I have my reservations about the it I’ll say Grafton’s building on Merrion Row, and also worth mentioning is their new university building in Milan, which is a genuinely fantastic project and trully of the highest international standards….
But then apparently a good gimic and a shed load of glass qualifies as architecture these days….

ok, well the berkeley library is good but not GREAT, certainly not of any international note. busaras is somewhat interesting but wasn’t built in the last twenty years and is also quite ugly really, the ucd restaurant is not really in dublin city centre, but in any case i dont much like it, and the central bank was built more than twenty years ago and is an ok but not a great building. both the de Blacam and Meagher building are very nice and very interesting, but ultimately if they were built in many other cities they wouldn’t merit much notice. it’s simply because they are surrounded by mediocrity that they are able to shine.

let me point out that i believe the conference centre is as good as or better than these, but that it is still not a great building. i do however believe that the more moderately good buildings are constructed, the less room there will be for the likes of jury’s hotel.

@spoil_sport wrote:

When I wrote the above comment, I thought: no, he couldn’t possibly… could he? and then you did.
I was under the imperssion that this was a platform for those who had a real interest in architecture and planning to share their opinions. (And sometimes they won’t agree, but then that’s the point) If, shanekeane, your knowledge and appreciation of architecture in Dublin or Ireland is that limited then I dare say that you are not qualified or capable of making a comment on the matter. It is this type of unbridled ignorence that angeres me, and I’m sure anyone else who loves architecture and works damn hard for the benefit of the public relm in Dublin or anywhere.
It is against my better judgment to even dignify a comment like that with a response, but it is my own failing and stupidity that I cannot let an argument go.
I feel like I’m under seige here, my original intent was never to be anti-development, or anti-interesting, or anti-iconic, Dublin and Irish architects have produced some magnificent architecture that is up to any international sandard. Infact the real kick in the teath of the conference centre is that it was though better to get some over-the-hill “name” architect to do. There is a big failing there somewhere, either a massive oversight by the DDDA in not recognising some of the countries top architects, or else our top architects are too busy doing regional arts centres and civic offices to roll up their sleves and get involved.
I have no problem with a “monumental” + “civic” + “interesting” + “original” building on the quayas or anywhere. Nor do I have any problem with international architects for that matter, I think the Liebeskind +Mateus projects have made a generally positive contribution to the docklands area.
Perhaps my original assertion “It is the ugliest thing I have ever seen. Ever.” etc was a little strong and I apologise for the use of hyperbola, but I still maintain the NCC has more in comon with an American shopping mall, than with the central bank or the “tradition” of “civic monumentalism”, or anything else it has been compared to here.
Anyone else agree with me?
I feel like the joker at the end of the Dark Knight when he’s waiting for the ships to blow each other up.

let me reiterate, there’s nothing even remotely good about anything built in dublin in the last twenty years. not on the docklands, not that rubbishy liebeskind building, not the extension the national gallery, nothing! my argument is that given this complete and utter paucity of anything good in dublin, then the moderate quality of the convention centre is welcome. it seems idiotic to me that this city can be blighted with redbrick barns all over the place, and then when something more interesting is designed, it’s criticized because it’s not good enough. good enough in comparison to what exactly? when it’s finished it will be the best building in the docklands. and i foresee that when every other building on the river in the docklands is torn down in 20 years, the convention centre will be left standing. you are making the mistake of seeing this building as some sort of major statement, even while you criticize that attitude. nothing major about it. i think that if they put a convention centre type building where they built just about anything else in central dublin in the last twenty years, the city would be infinitely better.

@spoil_sport wrote:

Look kefu, I’m not going to get personal. I have already outlined what I think of the convention centre and why. And I know I’m not the only one who dislikes it, and I’m sure someone else could put it more elequently than I have.

I just think Dublin deserves better, a lot better.

of course it does. that’s why the architectural policies of the past must be scrapped. for the last twenty years people have complained about every single scheme of any interest that is mooted because it doesn’t subscribe to established formulae. so, for example, the endless tat along the quays or near christchurch or in the docklands can be built without much objection, but when anything comes along to shake up this insipid orthodoxy, it receives floods of complaints. dublin hasn’t produced architecture of much note since the 18th century. there’s obviously something wrong with the attitude that it has whereby not a single building of any note has been constructed here since we apparently became more prosperous. every time anything radically different or forward looking is proposed, it is shot down. how anybody could object to the conference centre when every other building near it was built seemingly without a similar level of objection is beyond my ability to comprehend. just take a walk around the new business district near glories in barcelona, or around berlin, or around downtown manhattan for that matter to see how completely the docklands has been screwed up. for god’s sake, there’s nothing of any historical note near the conference centre, there’s nothing near it even remotely approaching it in terms of quality, and the docklands is in danger of being the most sterile place in europe without the likes of it, so why don’t you and everybody like you just shut the fuck up, and use your limited intellect to object to the annihilation of georgian dublin, and to the continued grottiness of the entire city centre.

can anybody who has two eyes in their head please look at that picture above and tell me what in god’s name do these fat, uneducated, parochial hicks in the city council think it is they’re protecting?

@Dan Sullivan wrote:

Have you tried googling for information? I’m not running a search engine here.

what a bitch

i think they should keep it, it’s got a kind of gotham city like splendour to it. maybe they should turn it into a modern art installation. but i don’t suppose the plutocrats who run the country would assent to that.

@bonzer1again wrote:

Finally, The rumours come to an end with the announcement of plans for the Jesuit church. This Article appeared in the Limerick Chronicle. Enjoy the read!!

what kind of a SOCIOPATH would even contemplate submitting an application for a gym in a nineteenth century church. and it’s not only the church, but the location. why, oh why couldnt they just have put the city library into it. if the years and years and years which planning regulations cause people to wait to get even minor things done in this country have any meaning whatsoever, this will not only not be considered, but the lunatic who suggested it will be exiled from this country never to return.

@massamann wrote:

Words are failing me here. A giant rotating glass globe!!! Is somebody fricking kidding me!?! Will it be filled with snowflakes?? 🙁

massamann, its because of complete cretins like u that potentially the most beautiful city in ireland is a fucking dump. why have interesting ideas when we can build more of the tat that they built on the dock road and henry st.

well there’s a fat chance of that plan coming to fruition!

I believe there’s one thing, more important than any other plans, which is vital for limerick to cease looking as ugly as it does. Everywhere in the city centre the pavement are made out of ugly concrete, would it be too much to put paving stones down? I think the difference that paving stones made in thomas street and bedford row show how important this is. As it is, these ugly pavements make the city centre look neglected and intimidating.