ARCHITECTS must strive for higher standards and place people at the centre of their work, a leading civic figure said at the weekend.
John X Miller, the head of Cork’s Civic Trust, a non-profit voluntary organisation dedicated to the preservation and enhancement of the city’s architectural heritage and environment, made the comments at the launch of his new book Emerging Cork on Friday night.
It captures in photographs the cutting-edge architecture which has changed the face of the city.
It highlights the impact of many of the newest buildings — some up to seven years old but others which have yet to be opened.
It features striking images from some of the city’s top professional photographers, including Janice O’Connell, Kevin Dwyer and Tony O’Connell, who also acted as photographic adviser.
It also includes artists’ impressions of projects under construction.
The images focus mainly on the outside of the buildings, highlighting their architectural impact. However, interior elements, which Mr Miller said were crucial in many ways to achieving work-life balance, have also been included.
He described the book as an extended snapshot and record of the swift pace of unprecedented development in the city in recent years
“It dawned on me that no one seemed to be keeping a visual record of how these changes were impacting on the city and its existing built heritage,” he said.
“Even as we speak, the city is still developing and changing, a fact which makes keeping a visual record of these changes all the more important.”
Mr Miller said the rising architectural standards must rise further.
“All involved in creating a vibrant living city need to aspire to the highest of standards, be it in planning, construction and aesthetics. Most of all, people and their needs must be placed at the very centre of this creative process,” he said.
The book, funded by the Civic Trust and Cork City Council, includes a foreword by Irish Examiner property editor, Tommy Barker. The book was launched by Enterprise Minister Micheál Martin.
It is on sale at Cork Vision Centre, North Main Street, and bookstores, at €25. A companion DVD is being made for pupil education.
Irish Examiner
Showing posts with label architecture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label architecture. Show all posts
Monday, 30 April 2007
Wednesday, 7 March 2007
The RIAI President's holiday has placed planning into perspective
Reviewing a related profession’s Journal is a difficult task; a task not to be taken lightly. It was out of genuine frustration with the portrayal of planning in the January edition of ‘Architecture’ by James Pike, incumbent RIAI President, which forced my hand. The resulting review provided some comment on the need to view planning in the same manner as other professions. That is, to take the good with the bad. And where there is bad, to ask architects to try to understand the root causes of what they consider to be bad planning.
Time having passed since the review; it was with interest that I opened the February 2007 edition. I leafed past the five pages of advertisements to the contents page, and then passed more advertisements, until reaching the President’s Column. It was worth it. A holiday appears to have done for Mr Pike what marijuana does for a Jamaican. It has mellowed the man. Four weeks of de-stressing, reflection and sun have, it would appear, placed Irish planning into perspective. In his column, planning is, mostly, reviewed positively. For example:
• Instead of being bad boys, determined to destroy the urban and rural environment, we are told how Department of Environment planners are working on final drafts of the ‘Development management Guidelines’ and the ‘Housing Density Guidelines’ – critical planning guidance documents produced by planners for architects.
• Instead of referring to planning as a mess, the column presents a picture of things done, much to do. Variation in management and staffing of planning authorities, not planning per se, appear now to be recognised as the problems.
Mr Pike refers to the need for best practice in planning. Now, best practice is surely something planners understand only too well. The difficulty is implementing best practice with 15 files (each produced by a different architect or agent who needs it done now – and granted, of course) vibrating on a planner’s desk. The point is that planners should not be under the pressures they are; they should not have to stop answering the phone for weeks to be able to do their job.
Does Mr Pike’s conversion from blaming planners to his recognition of resourcing problems as being at the root of the problems endemic in planning administration mean architects now understand the pressures and constraints under which planners are working all over the country? It certainly appears so. We are told of how architects are joining in to help solve the problems. A committee has been formed to detail proposals on the management of the system. Few planners will wonder at what those recommendations might say.
It appears a recent colloquium on the 24th of January has helped to turn Mr Pike’s views around. He now understands how the performance of planning is directly correlated to the administration of any given planning authority – stopping ultimately with County Managers.
The RIAI are formulating proposals with a view to eliminating inconsistencies in planning. This is welcomed; however, the RIAI’s efforts should be hand in hand with those of planners – the common aim? More resources for planning (read: more planners). Without such planners, the plans, which are noted as being key, will not be produced and will not be available to: “relieve pressure on development control”.
Mr Pike has the why of bad planning it in his grasp. He nearly understands; nearly gets it. What’s missing is the final piece. The mantra in this article is close to: resources, resources, resources, with which planners would agree. But there remains one element Mr Pike needs to review – one more reason to have another short holiday break (a week should do it). A final comment near the end of the column states: “This leads to a further problem of an almost complete lack of long-term planning … ”
Planners find references to the lack of plans as being at the root of bad planning as being just plain bonkers. What part of the National Development Plan, National Spatial Strategy, Regional Planning Guidelines, Development Plans, etc., does not represent long-term planning? What is wrong is not a lack of long term planning, but a lack of implementation. Who implements? Not planners. Show me a Draft Development Plan which hasn’t been ‘edited’ by Councillors. Show me a National Plan which has been consistently followed (I have decentralised to Wicklow, so I am all for …).
Ireland’s planning history is littered with excellent plans produced by planners with excellent reputations; planners who have fought to have their various visions implemented. Implementing these plans requires vision and resourcing. Neither of which the current Government administration (whether national or local) appears to provide.
Almost every aspect of what Mr Pike calls bad planning arises from either: (1) Lack of resources; or (2) Lack of implementation of plans produced by planners. Planners have little control over either of these points.
The change of tone toward planning represented by this column is welcomed, but it still appears odd to a planner (I pointed this out in my office to a round of nods) for an architectural journal’s president’s column which comprises of 12 paragraphs, to contain 7 on planning – a related discipline. In this regard and in the tone presented in the present column, the interest of architects shows how exciting planning in Ireland is at present.
Brendan Buck
March 7 2006
Time having passed since the review; it was with interest that I opened the February 2007 edition. I leafed past the five pages of advertisements to the contents page, and then passed more advertisements, until reaching the President’s Column. It was worth it. A holiday appears to have done for Mr Pike what marijuana does for a Jamaican. It has mellowed the man. Four weeks of de-stressing, reflection and sun have, it would appear, placed Irish planning into perspective. In his column, planning is, mostly, reviewed positively. For example:
• Instead of being bad boys, determined to destroy the urban and rural environment, we are told how Department of Environment planners are working on final drafts of the ‘Development management Guidelines’ and the ‘Housing Density Guidelines’ – critical planning guidance documents produced by planners for architects.
• Instead of referring to planning as a mess, the column presents a picture of things done, much to do. Variation in management and staffing of planning authorities, not planning per se, appear now to be recognised as the problems.
Mr Pike refers to the need for best practice in planning. Now, best practice is surely something planners understand only too well. The difficulty is implementing best practice with 15 files (each produced by a different architect or agent who needs it done now – and granted, of course) vibrating on a planner’s desk. The point is that planners should not be under the pressures they are; they should not have to stop answering the phone for weeks to be able to do their job.
Does Mr Pike’s conversion from blaming planners to his recognition of resourcing problems as being at the root of the problems endemic in planning administration mean architects now understand the pressures and constraints under which planners are working all over the country? It certainly appears so. We are told of how architects are joining in to help solve the problems. A committee has been formed to detail proposals on the management of the system. Few planners will wonder at what those recommendations might say.
It appears a recent colloquium on the 24th of January has helped to turn Mr Pike’s views around. He now understands how the performance of planning is directly correlated to the administration of any given planning authority – stopping ultimately with County Managers.
The RIAI are formulating proposals with a view to eliminating inconsistencies in planning. This is welcomed; however, the RIAI’s efforts should be hand in hand with those of planners – the common aim? More resources for planning (read: more planners). Without such planners, the plans, which are noted as being key, will not be produced and will not be available to: “relieve pressure on development control”.
Mr Pike has the why of bad planning it in his grasp. He nearly understands; nearly gets it. What’s missing is the final piece. The mantra in this article is close to: resources, resources, resources, with which planners would agree. But there remains one element Mr Pike needs to review – one more reason to have another short holiday break (a week should do it). A final comment near the end of the column states: “This leads to a further problem of an almost complete lack of long-term planning … ”
Planners find references to the lack of plans as being at the root of bad planning as being just plain bonkers. What part of the National Development Plan, National Spatial Strategy, Regional Planning Guidelines, Development Plans, etc., does not represent long-term planning? What is wrong is not a lack of long term planning, but a lack of implementation. Who implements? Not planners. Show me a Draft Development Plan which hasn’t been ‘edited’ by Councillors. Show me a National Plan which has been consistently followed (I have decentralised to Wicklow, so I am all for …).
Ireland’s planning history is littered with excellent plans produced by planners with excellent reputations; planners who have fought to have their various visions implemented. Implementing these plans requires vision and resourcing. Neither of which the current Government administration (whether national or local) appears to provide.
Almost every aspect of what Mr Pike calls bad planning arises from either: (1) Lack of resources; or (2) Lack of implementation of plans produced by planners. Planners have little control over either of these points.
The change of tone toward planning represented by this column is welcomed, but it still appears odd to a planner (I pointed this out in my office to a round of nods) for an architectural journal’s president’s column which comprises of 12 paragraphs, to contain 7 on planning – a related discipline. In this regard and in the tone presented in the present column, the interest of architects shows how exciting planning in Ireland is at present.
Brendan Buck
March 7 2006
Sunday, 7 January 2007
Solstice Arts Centre
Had a look at this building by Grafton Architects at the weekend. See what do you think? Cick the following link:
http://www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/meath/navan/solstice_arts_centre.html
For those who can't make it to this link. Here's the review:
The space includes a 320-seat theater, three visual-arts areas and a cafe bar. At a cost of 13.5 million euro, Solstice is now hailed as one of the Republic's most impressive arts venues outside of Dublin. It was funded by a grant of €2.9m from the Department of Arts Sport and Tourism, some local contributions and the significant balance from Meath County Council and Navan Town Council. Originally it was primarily meant to facilitate a theatre building and courthouse, but over the course of its development it emerged as a hybrid of interchangeable spaces appropriate also to visual art. The centre was designed to reinstate the centre of the town and is intended to operate as a civic monument for the people of Navan and elsewhere.
The sloping ground and the geometry of the site have contributed to the dynamic form of the building. A civic space occupies the southern edge of the site. This space forms the main entrance to the new facility. The theatre space is located to take advantage of the sloping site and creates an intimate public room with a unique character. The fly tower is integrated into the roof while actors� dressing rooms and scene dock are located at the lower ground floor level.
The arts centre is called Solstice a name that references the ancient rituals associated with the county and the light that the arts bring to this community.
http://www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/meath/navan/solstice_arts_centre.html
For those who can't make it to this link. Here's the review:
The space includes a 320-seat theater, three visual-arts areas and a cafe bar. At a cost of 13.5 million euro, Solstice is now hailed as one of the Republic's most impressive arts venues outside of Dublin. It was funded by a grant of €2.9m from the Department of Arts Sport and Tourism, some local contributions and the significant balance from Meath County Council and Navan Town Council. Originally it was primarily meant to facilitate a theatre building and courthouse, but over the course of its development it emerged as a hybrid of interchangeable spaces appropriate also to visual art. The centre was designed to reinstate the centre of the town and is intended to operate as a civic monument for the people of Navan and elsewhere.
The sloping ground and the geometry of the site have contributed to the dynamic form of the building. A civic space occupies the southern edge of the site. This space forms the main entrance to the new facility. The theatre space is located to take advantage of the sloping site and creates an intimate public room with a unique character. The fly tower is integrated into the roof while actors� dressing rooms and scene dock are located at the lower ground floor level.
The arts centre is called Solstice a name that references the ancient rituals associated with the county and the light that the arts bring to this community.
Saturday, 6 January 2007
Happy architecture ...
I finally managed to read this book which has been on my shelf for months. Here's a reviewby Hugh Pearman:
Do buildings talk to us? Can they communicate something directly to our psyches? If so, and if we can learn that language, then how come there is so much awful architecture around us? Shouldn't it be possible, after all this time, to guarantee that a new building will be both beautiful and useful?
Well, clearly not. Nor does Alain de Botton's latest book make itself a hostage to fortune by attempting a new list of commandments on how to build. Too many before him have failed in that task. The book is more in the nature of a quest, as much a journey through its author's mind as through the matters of style, patronage or typology which are the more usual concerns of writers on architecture.
De Botton tries a different tack. He wants to get into the bones of architecture and find out what makes it go right or wrong: not so much aesthetically, though that is clearly important, as psychologically. Because our notions of beauty constantly shift. What is ugly to one generation is lovely to the next, and vice-versa.
But certain buildings share something. At one end of the spectrum you get the Royal Crescent in Bath, say. At the other end you might find one of the better buildings by Norman Foster, or Swiss superstars Herzog and de Meuron. Somehow these buildings can talk to each other across the centuries, and fulfil some need in us. We are satisfied by them, they feel right in some way. But what way is that?
De Botton ponders why it is that the flexible rules of Palladian neo-classicism, so successful in Britain from the 17th to the 19th centuries, should somehow not offer the same all-purpose solution today? If adhering to the rules laid down in the Italian Renaissance by Andrea Palladio were all it took to guarantee excellence, how come a late 1980s Quinlan Terrry villa in Regent's Park, which follows these rules, is so uninspiring? Come to that, why it is that a faithful reproduction of Old Amsterdam, built in Japan, should be so unconvincing? (clue: it's not in the Netherlands).
At time the slightly artless de Botton style grates somewhat, but mostly it is refreshing. He tackles the troublesome business of taste, for instance, not as one promoting or defending a given position, but simply as someone who would like to know what it's all about. Given that his own known personal preference is for modernism, this attempt at neutrality is commendable.
He suggests how and why different people like different things ("We can imagine that a whitewashed rational loft, which seems to us punishingly ordered, might be home to someone unusually oppressed by intimations of anarchy"). Similarly an exuberant, colourful home might well be the reaction of a unimaginative bureaucrat to his dull, ordered existence. Well, maybe. But nobody can argue with de Botton's assertion that "A diversity of styles is a natural consequence of the manifold nature of our inner needs."
For me the book comes alive when de Botton, as emotional as he is intellectual, wears his heart on his sleeve. He describes situations - a family row, a fraught meeting - in terms that can only elicit sympathy.
"Imagine a man in an especially tormented period, sitting in the waiting room of a Georgian townhouse before a meeting...he looks up at the ceiling and recognises that at some point in the 18th century, someone took the trouble to design a complicated but harmonious moulding...The ceiling is a repository of the qualities the man would like to have in himself: it manages to be both playful and serious, subtle and clear, formal and unpretentious."
So is this Adam ceiling any help to this, ah, acquaintance of our philosopher narrrator? Not much. "He is embroiled in professional complications which he cannot resolve, he is permanently tired, a sour expression is etched onto his face, and he has begun shouting intemperately at strangers - when all he wants to explain is that he is in pain. The ceiling is the man's true home, to which he cannot find his way back. There are tears in his eyes when an assistant enters the room to usher him to his meeting."
Indeed, the quest for the soul of architecture does at times seem a thankless task. I am with de Botton when he remarks that beauty and apparent perfection are saddening things - either because we cannot attain them, or because we know that they are doomed to disintegration and decay. Entropy is the final arbiter.
He seems irked somewhat by icon-buildings ("Architecture should have the confidence and the kindness to be a little boring.") Most of today's "signature" architects, from Frank Gehry to Rem Koolhaas, are tellingly ignored. There are exceptions. Foster's Canary Wharf Underground station is compared to the Alhambra for its "lightness in the face of downward pressure" while he commends a Herzog and de Meuron house for its harmonious juxtaposition of materials.
In the end, he suggests, good architecture comes down to such harmony. "The balance we approve of in architecture, and which we anoint with the word 'beautiful', alludes to a state that, on a psychological level, we can describe as mental health or happiness." Echoing (though not acknowledging) Churchill's famous aphorism "We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us", de Botton suggests that we project ourselves into architecture and that consequently what we see in it explains more about us than it.
So bad architecture is a failure of psychology while good architecture - what we call beautiful - is "the child of the coherent relationship between parts."
Nobody could claim that these are great revelations. But they have the virtue of being true. Those who control our built environment would do well to take heed. And those who love de Botton's continued chronicling of his sometimes anguished mental state will be delighted.
De Botton website: http://www.alaindebotton.com
Foster andPartners website: http://www.fosterandpartners.com
Do buildings talk to us? Can they communicate something directly to our psyches? If so, and if we can learn that language, then how come there is so much awful architecture around us? Shouldn't it be possible, after all this time, to guarantee that a new building will be both beautiful and useful?
Well, clearly not. Nor does Alain de Botton's latest book make itself a hostage to fortune by attempting a new list of commandments on how to build. Too many before him have failed in that task. The book is more in the nature of a quest, as much a journey through its author's mind as through the matters of style, patronage or typology which are the more usual concerns of writers on architecture.
De Botton tries a different tack. He wants to get into the bones of architecture and find out what makes it go right or wrong: not so much aesthetically, though that is clearly important, as psychologically. Because our notions of beauty constantly shift. What is ugly to one generation is lovely to the next, and vice-versa.
But certain buildings share something. At one end of the spectrum you get the Royal Crescent in Bath, say. At the other end you might find one of the better buildings by Norman Foster, or Swiss superstars Herzog and de Meuron. Somehow these buildings can talk to each other across the centuries, and fulfil some need in us. We are satisfied by them, they feel right in some way. But what way is that?
De Botton ponders why it is that the flexible rules of Palladian neo-classicism, so successful in Britain from the 17th to the 19th centuries, should somehow not offer the same all-purpose solution today? If adhering to the rules laid down in the Italian Renaissance by Andrea Palladio were all it took to guarantee excellence, how come a late 1980s Quinlan Terrry villa in Regent's Park, which follows these rules, is so uninspiring? Come to that, why it is that a faithful reproduction of Old Amsterdam, built in Japan, should be so unconvincing? (clue: it's not in the Netherlands).
At time the slightly artless de Botton style grates somewhat, but mostly it is refreshing. He tackles the troublesome business of taste, for instance, not as one promoting or defending a given position, but simply as someone who would like to know what it's all about. Given that his own known personal preference is for modernism, this attempt at neutrality is commendable.
He suggests how and why different people like different things ("We can imagine that a whitewashed rational loft, which seems to us punishingly ordered, might be home to someone unusually oppressed by intimations of anarchy"). Similarly an exuberant, colourful home might well be the reaction of a unimaginative bureaucrat to his dull, ordered existence. Well, maybe. But nobody can argue with de Botton's assertion that "A diversity of styles is a natural consequence of the manifold nature of our inner needs."
For me the book comes alive when de Botton, as emotional as he is intellectual, wears his heart on his sleeve. He describes situations - a family row, a fraught meeting - in terms that can only elicit sympathy.
"Imagine a man in an especially tormented period, sitting in the waiting room of a Georgian townhouse before a meeting...he looks up at the ceiling and recognises that at some point in the 18th century, someone took the trouble to design a complicated but harmonious moulding...The ceiling is a repository of the qualities the man would like to have in himself: it manages to be both playful and serious, subtle and clear, formal and unpretentious."
So is this Adam ceiling any help to this, ah, acquaintance of our philosopher narrrator? Not much. "He is embroiled in professional complications which he cannot resolve, he is permanently tired, a sour expression is etched onto his face, and he has begun shouting intemperately at strangers - when all he wants to explain is that he is in pain. The ceiling is the man's true home, to which he cannot find his way back. There are tears in his eyes when an assistant enters the room to usher him to his meeting."
Indeed, the quest for the soul of architecture does at times seem a thankless task. I am with de Botton when he remarks that beauty and apparent perfection are saddening things - either because we cannot attain them, or because we know that they are doomed to disintegration and decay. Entropy is the final arbiter.
He seems irked somewhat by icon-buildings ("Architecture should have the confidence and the kindness to be a little boring.") Most of today's "signature" architects, from Frank Gehry to Rem Koolhaas, are tellingly ignored. There are exceptions. Foster's Canary Wharf Underground station is compared to the Alhambra for its "lightness in the face of downward pressure" while he commends a Herzog and de Meuron house for its harmonious juxtaposition of materials.
In the end, he suggests, good architecture comes down to such harmony. "The balance we approve of in architecture, and which we anoint with the word 'beautiful', alludes to a state that, on a psychological level, we can describe as mental health or happiness." Echoing (though not acknowledging) Churchill's famous aphorism "We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us", de Botton suggests that we project ourselves into architecture and that consequently what we see in it explains more about us than it.
So bad architecture is a failure of psychology while good architecture - what we call beautiful - is "the child of the coherent relationship between parts."
Nobody could claim that these are great revelations. But they have the virtue of being true. Those who control our built environment would do well to take heed. And those who love de Botton's continued chronicling of his sometimes anguished mental state will be delighted.
De Botton website: http://www.alaindebotton.com
Foster andPartners website: http://www.fosterandpartners.com
Thursday, 7 December 2006
'New World Architecture' Exhibition
'New World Architecture' Exhibition
16 Nov 2006 - 22 Dec 2006
The Chicago Athenaeum: Museum of Architecture and Design, together with The European Centre for Architecture, Art, and Urban Studies and Metropolitan Arts Press Ltd., have organized the first exhibition of 'New World Architecture' as a way in which to honour and celebrate the most outstanding architecture designed and built throughout the world.
'New World Architecture' opens at the Architecture Centre of The Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland, 8 Merrion Square, Dublin 2 on 16 November 2006 and continues until 10 January 2007.
The exhibition is curated by Christian K. Narkiewicz-Laine, President of The Chicago Athenaeum, and is co-presented with ABITARE Magazine in Milan.
Over 60 new projects are presented and designed by the world’s most prestigious architecture firms in Asia, Africa, Australia, Europe, and North America. The works were selected and awarded in The Chicago Athenaeum's Awards programs for 2006: The International Architecture Awards and The American Architecture Awards.
Exhibited works include new corporate headquarters, skyscrapers, cultural institutions, schools, sports and transportation facilities, airports, urban planning projects, sacred spaces, and private residences and multi-family housing designed by architects in their countries of origin or abroad for both built and unbuilt projects alike, as of 1 January 2002.
Location: Architecture Centre, RIAI, 8 Merrion Square, Dublin 2.
Dates: 16 November 2006 – 10 January 2007
(RIAI closes from 1pm on 22 December until 9am on 2 January 2007)
Times: 9am – 5pm; Monday to Friday
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)