Forum Replies Created
There have been piledrivers working all around the site (inc. the position of the old forecourt) for the last couple of weeks.
This would suggest some serious footings, for more than the old 2 storey building.
The three systems needn’t be mutually exclusive, but part of an integrated system: somthing like the DART connecting out-lying regions (less stops than at present) to an on-street system like the LUAS, slower but giving full coverage of the city. The Metro would give fast transit between the main entry points in the city centre (i.e., Connolly, Heusten) and popular destinations.
All this needs integrated ticketing & pref. open stations (will they trust us enough for that?) to make it work smoothly and be a pleasent experience (that is, lure people out of thier tin cans).
I don’t think they were referring to traditional cottages of 80 years ago, but rather the ‘Bungalow Bliss’ type of Hacienda/greek temple/dog kennel hybrid that as proved irresistable to the house buying public in the last 10 to 20 years.
At a guess the one near you is unlikely to be that bad (from a style point of view), but renovation will be a challenge – almost certainly needs a new insulated floor, and maybe form a cavity wall on the inside (to preserve stone exterior) – if it’s white, then use an external cladding system to keep out damp, keep in warmth. Good luck with the project.
OK, I deserved the slagging for the ESB crack. I agree that it is a truely horrible building. But what is the attraction of the samness of these Georgian terraces? Mitigated to some extent by minor variations (roof height, a doric door column here, and ionic there…), they still present a monotonous face, legacy of the single-zone mentality with which they were created. In this, they are not really that different from the estates of Essex-model suburban semis plaguing the outskirts of Dublin.
What is the big deal about Georgian Dublin anyway? Perhaps one street of Georgian houses should be preserved as a monument, but the rest you could happily tear down.
Many Georgian houses were built to a poor standard by speculative builders, they are damp, cold, and noisy. Maybe suitable for the town residence of gentry or merchants, they do not make good flats, offices or shops. The ESB got it right.
This Permissive Society.
I thought this week’s episode made some good points, especially highlighting past and present mistakes in planning: maybe these issues will get a wider airing now.
Are there any details on the web about the plans for Ballymun? Initially, it sounded good – getting the residents involved, running courses, etc., but from what I saw of the model, it looked like a run-of-the-mill suburban estate, and course shown seemed more about kitchen planning than urban planning.
What is more, Orly wouldn’t be my first choice for a development model, French urban planning is right down there with the British (i.e, crap) – much better to look at post-war Germany or post-wall East Germany.
Agreed on Central Bank.
What works well is the new TCD building abutting the Dental Hospital, it is much
more subtle than the red brick monster opposite, as it doesn’t blatently mimic, but
reflects the Dental Hospital’s architecture in a more fitting way.
Another fav of mine is the Wood Quay final phase – there are some angles where it fits so well into the street line, it’s modern-ness comes a suprise.
…not to mention recycled urinals!
Looks good in the picture – what is the objection? Any more details on the proposal (pref. on the web)?
I agree that the architect alone cannot deliver the solution to the problems raised here, and in reply to Tommy G’s question, “Do those of us who blame architects for poor buildings really believe that they deliberately design shite? If so, why would they do this?” – as I said in an earlier post, it is the developer who ultimately mandates the ‘shite’, but I think the architect is in a prime position to steer the developer onto the right path. After all, a good building (both in form and function) is ultimately a better investment than a shoddy one, as well as being a good advertisement for future work. Unfortunately, in Ireland today, the developer will not go hungry, however bad previous project have been.
High-density urban living requires government and legal support. When the planning authority allows basic design flaws such as those I mentioned in my last post, they are failing to do their job properly – that is, protecting the consumer from bad design. I would like to see a set of guidelines for apartment development, that should be met in order to obtain planning permission. Fergal MacCabe’s study “Planning Issues Relating to Residential Density in Urban and Suburban Locations” (http://www.environ.ie/press/studycover.html) addresses a lot of these issues and is very encouraging for the future, if implemented.
Consumer awareness is another aspect – house and apartment buyers need to be shown what options they have, and to be made aware of the shortfalls in current housing product – how can this be achieved? I don’t suppose the Irish Times property section would entertain running an article that would be, per se, critical of the products of many of it’s advertisers.
I’m going along to the “Citizen & the City” symposium this weekend, and see if it offers any hope.
Does this discussion have a place in an Architecture forum? If architects see themselves merely as stylist, then no, it doesn’t.
> As for the apartments, look again at the next new block you see, see the blue RIAI
> sign? That means it was designed by an architect!!!
Nice of the guilty to own up. I know the developer is paying the final bill, and ultimately dictates the size and layout of buildings, but all of the apartments I have seen (and lived in) here in Dublin have been very poorly designed. Here are my top gripes:
* Too many (narrow, twisting) corridors wasted space, requiring artificial light
* Too many units accessed from same entrance
* Apartments lacking in storage space (either in-apartment or in basement)
* Poor levels on insulation (heat and sound) – it is common to have to listed to your neighbours arguments, TV and toilet.
* House rules proscribing hanging laundry outside of bu9ilding – but no alternative arrangements.
In short, the crop of apartments built in recent years are adequate as student lodgings, but don’t meet the requirements for quality high density housing that are essential if the city is to continue to grow.
Isn’t architecture about function as well as form? I don’t mind ugly (or at least bland) buildings, but they should at least work.
Anything new on this?
Your right, Dublin traffic is a nightmare. Obviously, the provision of reliable and comfortable public transport will help to mitigate the problem, and better provision for cyclists is a must.
Another, complimentary way to attack the problem is to reduce the need to travel. If you look at trends in the UK and US, you see single-use zoning is on the increase. That
is, separate areas are set aside for living, offices, shops, entertainment, Cineplexes, etc., making a car indispensable.
Things haven’t got this bad in Ireland yet, although traffic around shopping centres like Cornell’s Court and Stillorgan is very heavy.
Ideally, an effective urban environment will reduce the travel imperative, by placing amenities near to the consumer, rather than making the consumer come to them (which, after all, is for whose benefit?).
What I was suggesting, and I think Archeire is the best platform for this, is to construct a plan that takes all these factors, and others, into consideration. This should show the public and authorities what could be done. Too many times I have heard negative reactions to the call for
higher housing densities, possible due to badly executed projects in the past.