gunter
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@Peter FitzPatrick wrote:
Feed in to Moore St. if you want to but no more messing around with Henry ! and none of your half assed set backs either.
I don’t think this image has been posted up before. It’s the developer’s image of the new ‘square’ on Henry Street. It reads (to me) as all designer clutter and no coherent form, with very little actual public space, as noted by hutton. The right hand edge of the space appears to be some kind of screen wall. From the rear it reads as just a blank wall in Graham’s pics of the model.
That’s the entrance to Moore St. on the left and the entrance to the new ‘north / south’ street (with the escalators) straight ahead.
That’s a wicked lens you’ve got Graham. This looked a lot better when it was out of focus!
Sorry for defending that south (red sandstone?) corner of the proposed ope onto O’Connell Street. You were right, it is truly horrific.
@Rory W wrote:
Carlton Cinema interior was changed in the 60/70s to make it a 4 screen, nothing really worth preserving as all the good stuff was ripped out then
I’m not doubting what your saying, but the submitted survey section drawing does hint that a good proportion of the overall original package might have survived. The smaller cimemas may have been inserted into the shell, without destroying the guts of the original.
There’s an EIS, a ‘Planning Report’ an ‘Architect’s Report’ and half a dozen other reports in the three storage boxes at the planning counter. Presumably. somewhere in there is an analysis of the Carlton Cinema and why it isn’t worth keeping.
An application of this scale is supposed to include a section on what alternatives were considered and a critical analysis of why these other options weren’t adopted. Hopefully this section will throw light on the extent of the original fabric and an evaluation of it’s worth. It will just be down to the integrity of the authors, as to whether this tells the full story.
There is a full A3 booklet of survey drawings submitted with the application and I was surprised to see page after page of section drawings showing a lot of intact looking interiors. No. 60 (not sure which one this is) jumped out at me, as well as the ‘National Monument. houses on Moore Street. I didn’t have time at the Planning counter to take it all in. I presume they are scanning away and we’ll see this stuff on the website pretty soon.
@Blisterman wrote:
The whole thing seems a bit half baked, to be honest.
Elaborating on my earlier post,
I think creating a new street off north west O Connell St, is a good idea. As it is, the unbroken facade is too long, and that part of the street is a bit devoid of atmosphere.
However, all that’s needed is a small, narrow street, for pedestrians. The chunk taken out is far too big, and will lack the atmosphere, narrower shopping streets, such as Grafton St, have.
I think a medium sized public square, surrounded on all sides by buildings, with small eccentric narrow streets leading to it, would be ideal for the location. It could incorporate existing as well as new buildings.That does sound preferable right enough.
A ‘square’ that opens off a bigger space, as at Smithfield, or off a wide street, as here, has pretty limited value. To take hutton’s point, you can’t really call this a square, it’s just a recess.
The same amount of actual space (or a bit bigger preferably) buried within the scheme, could be a real joy, as you suggest.
On the Carlton itself, the drawings submitted indicate that the original cinema is reasonably intact and not unimpressive, though I can’t actually remember it myself.
@Pepsi wrote:
only 3 weeks ago people were saying that they were still working on the tower’s foundation. how can it have shot up to 5/6 storeys already? is the tower really under construction or is it some other part of the point project we’re seeing above? if it is the tower, cool.:)
Sorry about this, I thought this was the tower. I forgot that there was another lower building in front of the tower. Like I said, I was distracted by the pope.
They’re sticking the drum rings on the conference centre, if that’s any compensation.
I passed the Point earlier today. The tower looks to be up about 5 or 6 storeys, but I couldn’t get a good shot. The front is starting to look even less ‘classy’ than the renders suggested, which is saying something.
I took a quick snap of the main block where it extends out past the front facade. The render hinted at some arty vertical slit window thing, on a random pattern, but what is emerging looks like the back of a standard toilet block, fronting the river!
Maybe somebody has more up-to-date information.
I couldn’t really concentrate after seeing this mega poster on the corner facing the toll bridge.
ROCK GOD!
It seems that the Point are signing up acts already.
I don’t know if they’re goin’ to get away with God Rock though, I thought Papa Ratty was just the leader of one of the ‘God Rock’ tribute bands.
@lostexpectation wrote:
you know paul clerkin (and grahamh) you could, (with googlemaps embeds and mymaps) collaboratively draw maps.
you could start an irish-architecture one and we all could join and sketch things on it.
I hope you’re going to be giving tutorials for slow learners.
On you over-laid google maps, it was interesting to see the Arnott’s scheme and the O’Connell Street scheme set out on the one map. First impression though, there isn’t much synergy.
Here is one of the renders of the Moore Street side of the O’Connell Street scheme, together with some indicative drawings.
If you like your urbanism layered, grainy and a bit dramatic (and who doesn’t), this scheme gives you that, but, how deep are the layers? how gritty is the grain? does the drama satisfy and will it be sustainable?
To me, this render illustrates some of the dichotomy in this scheme. I see some very worthy intentions, compromised by some pretty muddled architecture. Maybe that isn’t fair, but somewhere between the architecture and the urban planning, the scheme has decended into clutter. You almost sense that the busy clutter of a shopping centre is the primary goal of this scheme and they don’t really mind if the urbanism is a bit superficial provided they achieve this goal.
I’m not really sure if I agree with Graham that the location demands excellence necessarily, given that we’re not talking about cultural institutions here, but the three new ‘squares’ should at least have a coherence of form about them, which isn’t coming across in the renders. Any urban space in the heart of the city should have an element of civic dignity about it. The ‘squares’ in this scheme have the look of cut open ends of a shopping mall about them, with very little civic dignity in evidence.
I hope An Taisce, in particular, take a balanced view on this scheme and don’t start pouring ridicule on this from day one. When you think about how bombastic this could have been, we’re already way ahead of where we might have been. They’ve actually set out to do a very difficult and worthwhile thing here, to create new streets and spaces that actually add to the fabric of the city. It’s a while since anyone had a serious go at that in Dublin (maybe Arnotts would be in that category too, but on the clumsy end of the scale).
I’m sticking with my first impression, that they may not be all that far away from succeeding in this objective.
I only had a couple of minutes in the planning office this morning, so the quality and choice of images may not be great, but I will stick them up until we get better one..
From the model, the sloping structure reads as a huge protective cover hanging over much of the upper levels of a glass structure of indeterminate shape and function, but with trees on top. The way it slopes back steeply on Henry Street looks odd and unsatisfactory. If they were going for high impact, you would have thought that they would have sloped it out at the top, like the U2 tower, rather than sloping it back, like a huge cooker hood!
All three ‘squares’ look terribly bitty.
I still think they’re on the right track with this, but I have a lot of reservations:
The extensive use of facade retention; the confused architectural expression; the lack of any clear definition to the new spaces; the seemingly random piece of ‘medium rise’ opposite the Rotunda Hospital.
It’s a bit of a mess, IMO. Another thing, DCC are goint to have to insist on grey sky renders, these fluffy clouds and transparent buildings are becoming totally unrealistic.
That doesn’t sound very slanderous to me. Anyway, where would they send the summons?
On Claire Hogan, did she just have her fill of her opinions being ignored and she walked, or what happened to her?
I think if DCC had a real interest in maintaining an image of integrity, they wouldn’t lose people like this. It was Claire Hogan’s assessment of the Clarence scheme that was vindicated by the Dept. of the Environment report, not the planning officer’s. In a well run organisation, it would have been the planning officer who got moved sideways a bit nearer the exit door, not the (on top of her job) conservation officer.
Claire Hogan would have eaten them alive for messing around with the ‘Duke of Ormonde’s grand design for the quays’ with this DDDA ‘building on stilts’ lark, who’s going to do that now?
I can’t see Patricia Hyde dipping into the vitriol pot when Dick and Kieran come looking for pesky conservation reports on their pet projects, and that’s not being slanderous, that’s just being realistic.
It’s like looking down at your hand in poker, where you thought you had another ace and finding you have a pair of feckin twos.
If your senior conservation officer leaves (however that came about), do you not have to advertise for a suitable replacement? Surely a local authority can’t just fill an important position like that internally with someone who’s being fulfilling a completely different role in the organisation for as long as I can remember, if we’re being legalistic about it.
@ctesiphon wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, Claire Hogan has left the building.* Her replacement, I think, is Patricia Hyde who, according to my sources, would have… eh, a ‘broader understanding’, of conservation philosophy and principles. (And in case that’s too ambiguous, I mean ‘lack of sensitivity’.)
This cannot be true, ctesiphon!
Why can’t they make the bad stuff disappear?
You can’t just replace a dynamic conservation action figure with a planning officer. How is that legal? This is a wind up, right?
All this ‘facade retention’ on O’Connell Street is a direct product of the decision to permit the Clarence scheme, IMO.
I hope Clare Hogan is sharpening her pencil!
@GrahamH wrote:
Right.
On the new builds, the southern corner of the new street is absolute rubbish – incoherent, gimmicky, cumbersome and thoroughly ugly. And why is what will be a single structure being expressed as two different buildings?
The northern corner is welcomingly ambitious, but makes the opposite mistake of going overboard with its oversailing ‘veil’, as per the (emphatically) rejected Penneys further south
I think you’re being a bit harsh on that little red sandstone number. The white lever clamp top might be a bit stupid, but, I’m inclined to think the more low key with less glass approach is the way to go for multi-storey shops. I’d sooner it was a bit superficial and understated, that a bit superficial and overstated. Personally, I’d be more worried about the northern corner. This is South King Street all over again! Where did they get the idea that a transparent 5 / 6 storey facade will ever work on a department store?
Agree with you that the Carlton facade should be slid back south by one plot. I do not like the look of those vaguely illustrated additional storeys above the carlton, with more oddly angled blocks appearing through glass? canopies behind.
The width of the proposed opening onto O’Connell Street looks about right to me, although calling it a ‘square’ seems barely justified.
It seems strange that images of the other side of the ski slope haven’t emerged, or indeed, any views looking north on O’Connell Street. I suspect there is more fun to be had with this yet.
@johnglas wrote:
‘the emperor has no clothes’.
The square is overdesigned. What are the squinty poles about?
There is a real crisis in architecture and design and townscape-making is a lost art.I love this quote function.
‘The emperior has no clothes,’ that’s the phrase I was looking for. The black and white squares was a sixties thing, wasn’t it? They’ve probably knocked down all the office blocks and council flats that used this patterning, but I know I’ve seen pictures somewhere.
I don’t know what the slanty red poles cost, but I bet is was more than half a dozen decent trees would have cost!
Is there a crisis in architecture and design? is townscape making a lost art? It’s certainly starting to feel like it, to me. I was more encouraged a few years ago than I am now. There was an awakening in Dublin with the emergence of Group 91 and the rescue of Temple Bar, and it did seem like we had turned the corner and we had learned that good urbanism often involves, not going all out for the big impact, but in making small scale interventions and assembling the bits to make a greater whole. Now it just seems that we’re back in a sixties mentality, and we’ve forgotten all the lessons that we were just beginning to learn and suddenly no idea is too brash again, everything has to be attention grabbing, not just the arts centre, or the opera house, but every apartment scheme, every hotel and every office block.
I took a load of pictures a few weeks ago, of what they’ve done with Paternoster Square in London, beside St Paul’s Cathedral, to reverse out of the sixties. I was aware that PC had had an impact on the Paternoster debate and I knew that some awful stage-set schemes had been proposed, but they’ve just completed the redevelopment now and it’s worth looking at.
There might still be some pretty dodgy stuff here, if we take the wrong lessons from it, but there’s some thought provoking stuff as well. I’ll see if I can find a general ‘Quality of contemporary urban space’ thread to stick them on over the weekend. One of the themes, in Paternoster, could be characterised as Michael Graves meets Mussollini, so you better get out the drool bucket johnglas!
@johnglas wrote:
it is crap and was always going to be crap. I’m thinking of bowing out of making any posts (awwwww!) because the extent of architectural establishment wishful thinking
Daft is a nicer word than crap. I don’t thing crap is really the right word here anyway. I would save ‘crap’ for the buildings that they just didn’t bother making any attempt to do anything with. I think this is a diferent situation. This one looks more like the product of a lack of self criticism. One of those ‘big idea’ buildings (‘it will be as if hewn from a seven storey block’) handed out by the master to a ‘B’ team of atelier believers, where nobody has the confidence, or the critical faculty, to put their hand up and say, ‘Manuel, is this not going to be a bit stupid?’
I’m sorry I don’t share the common belief (RoryW and others) that this would have been fine, if it was just chunkier, as per the original renders.
On the architectural establishment point, I think I alluded earlier to an interesting piece in the March RIAI journal, where Sean O’Laoire, did come out with a pretty blunt rebuke Mr. Libeskind, which mightn’t be any big deal coming from ordinary Joes like us, but, is a bit of a departure for the guys at the top, given that they’re likely to have to share an awards podium or two during the term of his presidency.
@Blisterman wrote:
I’m also not that crazy about the elevated pedestrian shopping.Every example of these I’ve been to, just hasn’t seemed to work. City shopping should all be at street level.
That is a good point.
I try to avoid shops like the plague, but I’d imagine that I might still be conscious of a good example of elevated pedestrian shopping, if I’d come across one. The oldest example that comes to mind is Chester city centre, I think it’s called ‘The Butter Walk’, where apparently original Tudor merchant houses incorporate a open arcaded secondary street at first floor level, with steps down to the street every couple of houses. I was on it once and I remember it being horrible, but that could have been just that it had shops.
The renders of the O’Connell Street scheme show the upper walkways fairly teeming with shoppers. There’s nothing here that could easily be identified as ugly little bands of teenagers hanging out like it’s DunLaoghaire Shopping Centre, but this could be artistic licence.
It would be an interesting exercise if people with a wider knowledge of such things could post up links or pictures of any good, or bad, examples worldwide. Blisterman is right in that this element seems to be pretty central to the whole redevelopment concept, so if it’s a dead duck, it would be good to find out now!
@johnglas wrote:
I’ve got a cold
gunter: just a teeny hint of patronising? I’ve been patronised by better people than this!Sorry to hear you’ve got a cold. It must be awful coming back from two week in the Mediterranean.
Obviously, notjim, ctesiphon are sensible all the time, that goes without saying and johnglas, what can you say about johnglas!
The developers must be having a right old laugh at the at the fractious nature of the initial responce to this proposal. Everyone’s firing off salvos at anything that looks like a target. To my mind Peter FitzPatrick, StephenC and Alonso said the most sensible things, admittedly, in some pretty colourful language, principally:
We all knew this was coming.It’s not as bad as it could have been. More urban spaces and better permeability are what many of us have been looking for, for years.The treatment of existing and new facades on O’Connell Street, and probably also Henry Street, needs more work.They’re going to have to do a lot of hard selling if they want to keep this sloping park / apartment block.I think we’re all getting a bit carried away here. This is a new shopping / mixed use quarter. We’re not asking this to be outstanding, it just has to be quite good. I can’t think of too many shopping streets that have real, stand out, architecture on them, certainly not Grafton Street. From the first couple of renders, it already looks like the bits that succeed the least are the bits that they’re trying to be ‘iconic’ with. The rest of it, including most of the underlying concept, looks about right.
To my mind, you could sort this whole scheme out with a handful of well chosen planning conditions, it looks that close to me.
Since ctesiphone gamely volunteered to be stuck indoors on this lovely day covering the high-rise/density conference, I took a stroll down the docks at lunch time to get a look at the hotel. I know we’re supposed to keep an open mind on these things until they’re finished, or is it until they’re all weathered in and patinated, but I can’t hold off, this block offends me on so many levels.
I’ll agree the panels aren’t actually formica, (they do appear to be stone, presumably Portuguese limestone), but they’re put together like formica. Where the ground floor is knawed away and curved sections are required, two flat planes are used with a cut line in between. The amount of structural steel framing that has gone into producing this (to me) dubious concept, is breathtaking, but currently, all this lovely frame work is in the process of being covered up and will never again be seen. There are steel frames in here that wouldn’t look out of place on the Forth Bridge, but they’re being encased in a finish that has the qualities of styrofoam.
This hotel has a perfect location, in away from traffic noise, facing a new theatrical square, over-looking the Grand Canal Dock, but it doesn’t look like you can open a window. There could be performance art going on outside, or somebody drowning 10m away and you’re in your hotel room hermetically sealed.
It is, however, incredibly eye-catching, which is also very annoying.
