spoil_sport
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“key dockland sites such as this, surrounded by little else at the time”
well no, that’s a very narrow view of “context”, the context is Dublin, and Dublin is amongst the richest and most challenging contexts to work with… Roche failed to do this.
Yes, I noted gunter’s argumnet, but I think gunter did me a favour by posting those, if you look at it next to the others it is the poor relation, the version of one or the other of the previous that was left on the model shelf never to see the light of day again, the runt of the litter, the one that dosen’t work…
Making such a “reference” is not enough, it lacks the elegance, refinement or sophistication, which the others all have in abundance, the curves on the side elevations, pattern of opes (or lack of pattern), the angle of the drum, the lack of articulation of the drum as notjim pointed out, mean it is not pure enough to be beautiful in a brutalist sense but at the same time, the attempts at refinement, fall flat, and while I no interest in categorisation as “art-deco”, “po-mo” or “modernist”, the overall composition is confused and simply… dumb.
And Kevin Roche despite his “calibre”, after a quick flick through his website, dosen’t really do context, unless you call green field business parks and more corporate america mirror glass facades context; and has done nothing of any real interest since the Ford Foundation HQ in NY…1968, (which I like quiet a lot.). The NCC does not break the trend.I think any perceived reference to context is coincidental, and highly dubious. Your reading too much into it now. The NCC was designed long before the Scots yoke, and I dare say entirely oblivioius to anything within a 100 mile radius, and while I’m not a Scots fan, riverside 1 is infinitely more sophisticated. I know I sound like a broken record now, and a few people are probably getting a little bit pissed off now, but this thing really is awful…
Well, lostexpectation, we all know where I stand on this monstrocity by now.
“Dont konw yet. I wait until the building is complete before i make judgement!!!”
Ah come on now, its as good as…. sure, that little bit of cladding at the back will make all the difference… or maybe the whole structure at the moment is just temporary hoarding and the real building is inside, and it’s all just a really bad joke… no? too much to ask?
short of a massive localised earthquake that completely demolishes it, I really can’t see anything improving over the next few weeks and months.
It still dosen’t work…
“We should have had more faith!”
Agreed, having read some of the earlier comments on this thread, I think the moral of the story is we should have had more faith in the ablity of Irish architects, rather that looking to the “names” under some illusuion that they could do better, and the horribly shortsighted view that having a “Roche” or a “Calatrava” branded structure is somehow impressive… for the tourists.
(The ironic thing is I actually like Mateus a lot, and I beleive this project probably suffered from bad managment by the Dublin firm given charge of its construction -who’s name eludes me, although I’m open to correction on this point)
Imagine Grafton’s Bocconi sitting on this site….
(Or even imagine the real Mateus building on this site, because what’s built is not the same building that’s on the Mateus website.)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….
P.S. Oh and I agree re the national gallery extension.Please, just so I can sleep tonight, reassure me, and tell me you have no real power what-so-ever about what does or dosen’t get built in this city.
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 angers 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 after the ships fail to blow each other up.“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”
Ah come on now. Prize for the most rediculous comment of the day.
[jaysus, what have I got myself into, now I remember why I didn’t bother posting any comments before now]
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.
And as for the criminal courts, look at the McCulloughMulvin website, their competition entry for that was far superior.
GregF
Look, I’ll say it again, not disagreeing with you, it is striking, but a bad smell can also be “striking”.
I’m not sure I understand your motivation to ask me to name what I consider good architecture. I don’t think it’s relevant, and is a futile exercise. I hope your not asking me defing “good” and I hope it is not because you think the NCC is the best thing in the world ever, and your challenging me to name something better?
I was waiting for someone to mention the bridge. I think I’ve got myself in enough trouble so far so I’ll leave it go. For what it’s worth, I kinda like the new bridge in Venice, at least from the pictures, havn’t seen it in the flesh yet. The form and structure look quiet elegant, but then the right camera angle can make most things look good, not sure about the glass steps, but anyway…
I think the central bank is great as it happens. But I don’t see the comparrison, the central bank works because it is so big and contrasts so sharply with the historic settings around it, like the way black and white work well together, the NCC, and its context are like various shades of grey brown, if we’re making that comparrison, then in some ways the NCC is not big enough, and it may also be worth mentioning Liberty Hall in this context.
“I don’t think anyone is defending it solely on the basis that its better than whats there.”
I disagree, and as I said, I don’t think it has any other merits.
I really do give up this timeI’m tired of this “it’s better than what’s there” argument, what is arround it is pretty ugly, granted, but that’s like comparing it to the ugly person who hangs out with uglier pople to make themselves look good. While I cannot think of a good convention centre off the top of my head but it is essentially a place of gathering, like an auditorium, or a stadium, and I’m sure we can muster up a few god examples of those. Again I don’t buy the it’s beter than other version of its type argument, that dosen’t qualify it as good.
“how it fails relative to its function”
Please do not insult yourself or me by suggesting that it is enough that it fulfills its function, I thought architectural discourse had moved past that.
OK I’ll conceed gunter his argument above, he’s obviously done his research, but please look at the examples gunter has given, and then look at our NCC, it is the runt of the litter, the reject, the poorest example of that type of thing. OK, maybe it was worth trying, if only to show that it dosen’t work. But it should have stayed on the model shelf in the office never to be let out. The proportions are wrong, the scale (of the drum) is wrong. Gunter there is no point saying “if” it works, have you been down there latley, I think there is enough of it there to make a judgment now.
I have already made the argument about scale in its wider “context”.
I never disputed that it was “iconic”, or “striking” or “monumental” or even “interesting” but it can be all these things and that still dosen’t make it good.
My point is that it is bad architecture and that it is in the midst of worse architecture dosen’t or shouldn’t make that OK, especially when it is so fucking big.What is wrong with you people?
I find it utterly beyond comprehension that anyone who has studied architecture or has any sense of good taste could defend this building.
I give up.:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:Let’s say for the sake of argument that the coca-cola 500ml contour botle is a “good” piece of architecture, and the pepsi-cola 500ml bottle is a “bad” piece of architecture (not that I find either one particularly attractive or offencive, but bear with me) the coca-cola bottle is curvatious and elegant, the pepsi is dumb, akward and unrefined, so to boost sales pepsi give 50% extra free (you know the ones I’m talking about) so now the bottle is dumb, akward, unrefined, bulbus and fat. The NCC is like the pepsi bottle, its ugly, but no one would notice as much if it wasn’t so monsterously big. It’s like someone in the office blew everything up 200% on the photocopier and no one picked up on it before it went to site.
I’m afraid I can’t take anyone seriously who defends this project. It is genuninely offencive e to suggent that this…. thing as any architectural merit.It is the ugliest thing I have ever seen. Ever.
“really cool”…….?????????????
????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????
No, still don’t see it…………….
“landmark”, try lowpoint in the battle between big business and big names against real architecture and intelligent urban design.
I’d love to be more elequent and articulate an argument about it but I afraid the term F-UGLY-AS-MY-BIG-HAIRY-ARSE is the only one that comes to mind.
