BTH
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Graham, this is a brilliant critique. Thank you for putting into words just about everything that is wrong with this development. It looks to me as if noone gave a damn about how this building would be finished, how it would look from O’Connell Bridge or how the historic building could be brought back to life in a sympathetic and elegant way. An absolute disgrace, HKR and the developers should hang their heads in shame (and be banned from designing or building any more dross…If only).
By the way, wait until the scheme for the redevelopment of the ESB offices on fleet street eventually gets going, also “designed” by HKR, Im sure another damning critique will be in order not least for the way it will unceremoniously poke its ugly head above the BOI on College Green when viewed from Grafton St. and Church Lane. How do they get away with it?
Any future extension of seating upwards at the Havelock Square end would entail the removal of the ENTIRE roof structure of the stadium (and thus the entire external cladding since it all hangs from the main roof structure) given that the primary trusses rest upon the two large and rather unsightly concrete pillars which are only about ten rows back from the edge of the pitch. The whole design completely precludes any future expansion – yet another major design flaw to add to the ridiculous interior of the Aviva Stadium. The bus shelter isn’t getting any better looking… Oh that’s right, it’ll do grand since it’s lovely looking from outside… :rolleyes:
@murfee wrote:
Was i the stadium on Friday last and cannot understand the negative views being expressed on the forum. The stadium is amazing.
The above pictures show that the new stadium is far from amazing. In fact internally it is depressingly badly designed. The northern end gets worse every time I look at it as do the ridiculously mis-shapen trusses. And the picture taken from the southern end towards the north proves how badly the sense of enclosure (and thus the overall atmosphere) will suffer as a result of the compromized and badly thought out design.
@alonso wrote:
bth… i assume they wanted to roof over the entire stadium for aethetic and atmosphere reasons and the extra height required meant a lower seating area than previously
But the “bus shelter” they have built is much much higher than the old terrace ever was. Surely they could have built the concrete structure of the seating up to a greater height to improve the sense of enclosure, reduced the seating at the opposite end to ensure that everything still fit on the site (and given a little more balance to the numbers at each end) and put a less vertically emphasized roof over the Havelock Square end rising to the same height as the current bizzarely ugly looking structure.
Whilst the old terrace wasnt huge by any means it was still at the very least around 4 times taller than the seating thats currently in place.
Sorry to be harping on about it but I really just don’t get why the designers didn’t put a bit more effort into improving the sense of enclosure even slightly within the constraints. 10 rows of seats at one end of a national stadium is simply pathetic.
@Cliff Barnes wrote:
When you look at how fantastic the Cusack, Hogan & Davin stands are for spectators I have to disagree – remember TV pictures are being shown across the world and when the Hill 16 end is shown it looks awful ( remember Twickenham before they fisished it ?). It does need to be full “wrapped around” even if it is a terrace of reduced size and capacity.
Remember the Romans managed to fully enclosed stadiums thousands of years ago and the fudge at Landsdown Road and Croke Park is what we will be stuck with for a long long time.
Personally I think Hill 16 already looks fantastic on TV pictures – the sheer density of the crowd and the height of the terrace (meaning that rarely does the cameras field of view stray above the highest rows of spectators) make it a far more impressive sight to my eyes than any modern seated stand. Having stood on it on many occasions I can confirm that it’s a great facility, comfortable, safe and with excellent sightlines. One slight problem I have is the “gap” that resulted between the Cusack Stand and Hill 16 visible in the above photo which I find looks somewhat messy and unfinished. Perhaps the lower deck of the Cusack Stand could have been extended northwards to meet the hill so as to finish it off in a tidier manner.
The issue of Hill 16 was debated long before the Croke Park redevelopment got underway. It was accepted that a complete bowl could never be achieved due to the railway line and the issues with overshadowing properties to the north. These limitations were accepted as it was clear that a stadium of sufficient capacity could be achieved regardless and also because the inner city location was deemed more favourable than a greenfield solution. It was exactly the same reasoning as was applied in the case of Lansdowne Road.
Back on topic, does anyone have any idea why the seating at the Havelock Square end wasn’t built up to the same height as the terracing that was there prior to redevelopment?
@PaulC wrote:
…there should be an atmosphere of cooperation between the GAA and IRFU/FAI where the biggest games (Gaelic/Rugby/Soccer) are played at Croke Park and the smaller ones (including GAA) played at Lansdowne.
The pitch at Lansdowne Road is far below the minimum dimensions required for Gaelic Football / Hurling to be played…
@Griff wrote:
Im inclined to agree with you… you just expect to see clean lines with steelwork when it is exposed and part of the ‘look’ of the building…I presume the messy looking arrangement of the bottom and top chords of the trusses are to give the roof its external form. Probably looked a lot sweeter on the modelling software..
That photo is an absolute shocker… This just gets worse and worse. It’s a stadium designed to look nice on the outside with the interior left to the engineers…
Given all the constraints and issues with overshadowing the properties at the Northern end I still don’t see why it wasn’t designed to provide more rows of seats. Surely a solid structure up to the height of the previously existing terrace could have been allowed which would at least have created a respectable looking crowd at this end of the pitch. As it stands the solid element of the structure is about a quarter the height (if even that) of the old terrace with the ridiculous looking “bus shelter” (great nickname by the way) soaring high above… The current arrangement is terrible looking and will undoubtedly adversely affect the atmosphere in the stadium.
The Montpelier Hill side is much better I must say – though it looks like it was designed by a different architect to the rest of the building!
While this building has some positive atributes It still looks like a mess to me. There are too many ideas fighting for attention particularly in the cladding, it has too much bulk to look remotely elegant and it’s contribution to the public realm is pathetic for such a prominent building. The blank black spandrel glazing all over the penthouse floor is particularly cheap and nasty looking, especially since the main “feature” glazing with it’s stainless steel edging is nicely done. It’s such mismatches that make the building so frustrating for me. The bits that are done well make the bits that are poor look even worse than they would normally.
The opportunities for an innovative and exciting public building at this site were endless given it’s magnificent setting at the edge of the Phoenix Park. Regrettably we’ve been left with a blot on the landscape that will undoubtedly date terribly given it’s overreliance on mod-ish cladding. Seems a bit like a 21st century Hawkins House in this regard.
@Peter Fitz wrote:
Yep –
This
to this 😮
Unfortunately it’s going to be ugly as sin internally. The roof structure just looks so over-engineered…
Plus the ten or so rows of seats Havelock Square end just looks ridiculous… I still don’t know what the designers were thinking. Within the height of the roof structure thats going at this end they could surely have fit a more impressive terrace or bank of seating…
I think it’s ugly as sin. The way the glass peels back to reveal all the crap on the roof from every approach from the east is unforgivable. Granted, it does look great when you get up close to it and can appreciate the intriguing glazing textures and layering but the overall shape and roof profile is a mess and a real missed opportunity.
Apparently the translucent skin will be “polycarbonate” – from the construction images it’s hard to see how a secondary structure to hold it proud of the glazed facade could work – surely structural struts would have to be sticking out well beyond the glazing by this stage. I’d also worry that it could end up looking very busy – the renders always show the translucent skin miraculously hovering with very little structure shown. The reality is bound to be less elegant.
Will be interesting to see how it turns out! Looking very impressive already. I do think it’s a crying shame that there will be so few people accommodated at the northern end – from the renders it only looks like about 10 rows of seats. I hope it doesnt cause the atmospherr e to suffer too much but its bound to have an effect.
What have they actually done to the Carlton!? All this outrage! I can’t imagine what they could have done that’s worse than what was there..!
The Liebskind theatre really does look insane at the minute – the way so much heavy, heavy structure appears to be hanging off those two massive concrete cantilevers at either end… Quite dramatic. I hope the finished product dosent cover up too much of the structural heroics.
The addition of the white blocks at the top makes a massive improvement to the hotel although the facade is generally let down by some of the more awkward detailing, particularly at the base. I have to say I love the way the ground floor interior is shaping up – the sheer intricacy of those formations on the ceiling is extremely impressive from a craft point of view, plasterboard or not. I believe there’s a lot of lighting integrated into the cracks and crevases so I’d say it’ll be pretty amazing when finished. Just as long as they leave it all white – I heard a rumour that the interior designers were wanting to paint the ceiling all sorts of different colours to make it feel more “opulent”. Ugh…
Thank god they aren’t building it outside the city – Galway has mercifully escaped the draining effect of out of town retail developments up until now. The main reason it’s taken so long for this scheme to be granted is that they have had to make various proposals for improvements to the Headford Rd. roundabout/bottleneck before coming up with an acceptable and potentiallly successful solution. And really it cant possibly become any more of a nightmare for traffic than it already is!! Can it?
Now the city council just need to get on with their Local area plan for the opposite side of the Headford Rd. – where the horrors that are the Galway Retail Park, Black Box theatre and Omniplex cinema currently reside. The intention is that this area will become an extension of the city centre with a proper street pattern and mixed development as well as opportunities to develop areas of the waterside at Dyke Rd. Of course just about anything would be an improvement on it’s current state!
Johnglas, not to be argumentative and I admire your social conscience and all the rest but really, what is the politically correct term we could use for the unfortunate citizens in question? I can see when you’d describe them as “addicts” or “users” or whatever but in this case the area in question has a lot of in-yer-face, obnoxious and intimidating people who are “on something” hanging around. I’d be tempted to call them a lot worse then “strung out junkies”!
Bact to the subject – the little street that’s been created looks pretty good, nothing too exciting just tidy and elegant. It’s unfortunate that the buildings shown earlier in the thread were knocked to make way for it though. Worse is the way that the newly exposed pillars of the railway bridge have been treated – simply boxed in and roughly rendered. They look shockingly bad beside the cast iron original pillars.
Dave, I’ve already said its definitely not the worst I’ve seen, even if it does look pretty dated for when it was built – it’s very much in the late 80’s style when everyone was obsessed by Aldo Rossi… It’s just a case that the site got redeveloped too soon – before there was real ambition and flair applied to these development sites. I often think that much of Galway got redeveloped in this way. it all happened too soon so that instead of buildings of quality and ambition, the city is now afflicted with horrors like the Port Mor and the Jurys hotel at Spanish Arch, some of the dreadful buildings at Dun Aengus and the Docks and various other bog – standard developments through the city. The attitude was, “…sure it’s development, who cares what it looks like!”. Limerick is lucky that it’s building boom happened when it did!
@PoxyShamrock wrote:
Not at all!
It’s an early 00’s structure.
Around 2001 I think? 😛Ha, wow well if it’s that recent then there’s really no excuse!
