sjpclarke

“But, now look at Temple Bar, modern architecture, new materials that don’t match with the rest of the area….”

“South Georges street, a modern building constructed of up to date materials popping up in the middle of street full of red georgian/victorian buildings….. What is happening?”

“Tall buildings such as skyscrapers are not allowed because it destroys our skyline???? What about the five to six story apartment developements on the docks… call me crazy but Dublin architecture is taking a turning point.”

Jas_83: I’ve included the above quotes as they indicate to me that you don’t have a very firm starting point for this dissertation. Just to take the above contradictory quotes as illustration :
– Temple Bar is actually – for the most part – a very good example of moulding the new and the old. The urban fabric, grain and scale have all largely been retained. The majority of the complete new builds are of a very high quality.
– What do Victorian and Georgian buildings have to do with one another? The Victorian era was itself an example of style gone mad.
– Your excessive use of ????? suggests that you think skyscrappers (your word) would not disrupt our skyline and disturb the scale of Dublin.

Anyway – what is causing the rash of cranes across the city: MONEY – MONEY – MONEY!!!!!!! and a renewed faith (from circa late 80s) in Dublin city centre! As to the architecture … too much bland, faceless, unimaginative, unsustainable, corporate rubbish!

Perhaps this is unfair, but what argument are you actually making. You say you are not from Ireland – I take it you are at pleast based here.

Graham – I’m not suggesting that my proposal for a house I might build should be adopted as any sort of standard. That said there is a logic to this building type in this context. The vernacular – happy to be corrected – is a single story stone built cottgae. Would this have been tatched anyone? And the water wash? On these two points I’m in the dark. Anyway, the buildings nestled – often together – into the landscape; a landscape de-nuded of tress of woods thus exposing all buildings in all directions for miles around. Imposing suburban building types in this context gives you a low density suburb that actually looks rather crowded at times – achne scared. One off buildings have their place but the vernacular dominates and the current vogue dominates in all bnegative sences of the word. My proposal – nothing particualrly original – would have a much softer impact upon the environment in all sences of the word.

Again, does anybody have examples of how similar environments have adapted to 21st century demands. The Danes and the Scots certainly have similar landscapes and climates. Any ideas? Shane

Graham – Very well argued. This street has fasinated me since I was a kid. My Dad used to park down there beofre taking me down Grafton Street. Even then I felt the street has a ‘real’ urban Dublin quality about it: a sense of place, history, relatedness to the surrounding area …. What are we to get in its place? Yet another faceless modern building / apartment block with a very poor relation to the street pavement environment. Certainly something needs doing and that something is certainly not Bacholers Walk pastiche. How about a modern interpretation of the town house: http://www.ivarhagendoorn.com/photos/architecture/borneo_sporenburg.html – some imagination please! Shane

We seem to be going around in circles here with the tall building lobby on these pages (with exceptions) just not understanding the arguements re density. Couple of points:

– Devin, you said the most consice and sensible thing in the whole thread: There is no connection between sprawl and high buildings. A choice between sprawl or high buildings is a false choice.

– Tall buildings will not replace Lucan – Tallaght – Clondalkin – Blanschardtown etc etc. Our problem with density lies not in the city centre which is now beginning to attain a reasonable European urban model of density but with our enless ex-urban sprawl. We do all seem to agree on this most important of points but continue fiddling about arguing on the wrong subject while Dublin grows further obese.
– The dockland should have – to my mind – been built to a 8 (-12 on the river front) story mixed use block design. This would have provided an ambitious extension to the current context existing within D1&2.

– Against this background tall buildings would be decided on sustainable, aesthetic and contextual grounds. They would be clustered in areas agreed by policy – rather than London’s unfortunate miss mash approach.
– Sustainable: Environmentally of course and near public transport interchanges etc.
– Aesthetically: Of the highest architectural quality – the standards being far higher than for noraml buildings given their exponential impact.
– Contextual: Outside of Georgian Dublin and outside important vista and sightlines etc.

As I said previously I’d pitch for NY Soho circa 1890 as an ideal model. Perhaps we should all call it a day on this one. Still, would recommend that people look at the this tread for an actual tall buildings proposal at Heuston Gate: https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=4281

Frank – Exactly my point. I’m sure that there are plently of Dubliners, conservationists and architects that can point out manys the good feature of such areas as Crumlin but they’re not fit for purpose in the 21st century. This does not necessarily entail demolition. Plenty of options to increase densities and still retain the green space in such suburbs. Doesn’t even seem to be on the agenda at the present. In any case this would all be an expensive waste of time if it was allowed to be contradicted by continued virus that is ex-urban carchitecture. Shane

Not bad – Comments:

i) If this is a student crit presentation I thought they might have been more ambitious. Nothing is articulated re the connection between the Royal Hospital Grounds and the Pheonix Park. Heuston forms a wall at the present time that could easily (although expensively) be (green) bridged.
ii) It would seem that the main avenue into Dublin (with the station on your left as you approach) crashes straight into a building thus disturbing the natural flow of traffic – pedestrians – vision – spatial aesthetics (a big fan of Space Syntax for those who know it). I may be reading the graphic incorrectly here though.
iii) Why the bloody big building infront of the station – surely that would be opened up to the Liffey. From where would you appreciate this gateway (with the building on the other side).
iv) Personally I’d rather a park fronting the Liffey on the South side – god knows Dublin needs some new green space in the centre. On the same point I think that Phoneix is vaslty underused by the citizens of the city which could be ammended by suggestions such as (i) above.
v) What was the software?
vi) Is the new bridge a footbridge? Should this perhaps be moved to the axis of the Museum.
vii) The tree lined avenue routing from the Hospital (lovely idea to open up) is great but I can’t see it generating requisit traffic.
viii) Where’s the Pepper Canister?
viii) How about knowing down almost every new build appartment within the drawing. As somebody noted in the forum the other day following a report in the Indo I think they are lego land potential slums. Thank god they’re so badly build that they have such a short shelf life. Sure developers would gladly cooperate if densities and floor heights could be achieved to Parisian levels.

Shane

Dublin Densities Estimate

This is largey a gestimate but you’ll get my point.
% Land People Per Hectare
High Rise: .0001 600
Prime Dublin Retail 1 & 2: 2 250
Prime Dublin Hosuing 1 & 2: 2 400
Rest Dublin 1 & 2: 2 300
Victorian Suburbs: 8 300
Council Suburbs: 15 100
Private Suburbs: 30 150
New Ex-Urban Suburbs: 40 50

Move forward ten years and allow for 30 towners at 40 floors high half of which are used for housing. This would still have negligible impact on the above figures and a huge and very dubious impact on our sense of dublin. Tackling suburban Dublin (excepting Victorian suburbs and some private and council estates) in terms of increasing densities – including for example slowly takig down council / private area such as in Crumlin and building to X4 the densities would make an enoromus difference to the above and sustainable and urban to boot. If anybody has correct figures they would good to see. Shane

jmkennedyie – The exposition of my idea was perhaps a little to gimmicy – your development of that idea would be a much more sophisticted interpretation. As you note the benefits in terms of pollution reduction, noise reduction, increased beauty, reduction of negative visual aesthetic, reduced flooding, improved wildlife habitates, sustainable etc. etc. Still like my idea of cherry blossems for the M50 though. Imagine the picture in Spring.

Apparently there was a documentary (might have involved Iain Sinclair) made about the planting of the M25 around London which touched on this subject. Lagest planting exercise in English history or some such – and one man in charge of delivery – what a great job! Landscape gardening / art on the epic scale. Does anybody know of it?

garethace – If thats rude and obnoxious you must be the nicest fella in Dublin! You don’t seem to have taken issue with any of my points. As it happens I completey agree that urban design is at least a 4D practice and one that should be based on both aesthetic considertions but MORE importantly on practical, pragmatic, and inductive considerations and grounded in research. No arguement there. If a space doesn’t work – wether through original design flaws, a change in the context or via poor managment, then tackle it intelligently. The approach you suggest sounds very sensible in principal – in practice? Also, you mention the new shopping centres that the the city centre has to compete with. You can be assurded that the developers and their consultants are extreemly practical in their design decision and that research plays a very large part in those decisions – look at how supermarkets organise their items lanes as a simple example. Public space needs to counter with a similar approach but one based on civic principals rather than profit. Shane

garethace – I wnat to take issue with a number of your above points:

Cow Lane: I’m unsure as to where you stand on Cow Lane. You seem to like it beacuse it has no linkages and is something of an oasis (“Cow’s Lane is a good example of a beautiful pedestrian space”) but berate the business community for not seizing on this (“people avoid the place whenever possible”). Cow Lane is a nice piece of urban interior design but fails as a pedestrain space and there fore a business space because it does not work in the larger urban context / network. Its a road to nowhere and people don’t walk down roads to nowhere. No linkages as you rightly point out. My friend had a shop down there for a year or so and to watch the dearth of footfall was depressing – sometimes there would be nobody on the street at all. Space Syntax research backs this up: http://www.spacesyntax.com/

Curved Street: Following the above line the linkage of this street is far better but less than ideal. The real problem here is to my mind in the architecture of the two cultural buildings having almost zero effective street frontage – and a history of poor programming and managment. The issue of street drinking is the job of the Guarda.

Meeting House Sq: Not the success (apart from the great street market and the ourdoor films) that Meeting House Sq is again for reasons of connectiveity.

Urban design / management: A fluid area certainly. You quote the problems with the North Quays / Millenuim Bridge junction. Surely Dublin Corpo have powers with regard to pavement trading which can and should be enforced.

Wesmorland Street: Would love to see the LUAS routed down here and would favour perhaps taxi provision. A public space of this size requires life – movement etc. Further study needed.

Shane