Offensichtlich ist der NIMBYismus ein massives Problem in Irland und es gibt unzählige Gründe dafür – Immobilienwerte, Verkehr usw. Viele davon sind unlösbare Probleme und können nicht ohne eine umfassende Planungsreform gelöst werden.
Eine Sache, die jedoch immer wieder zur Sprache kommt, ist der architektonische Stil. Zuletzt war dies ein Problem, das sich auf die geplante neue Einheit im Rotunda-Krankenhaus auswirkte. Die Beschwerde und der eigentliche Grund für die Änderung der Planung bestand darin, dass das geplante neue Gebäude nicht in die Gegend passte und ein Schandfleck sein würde.
Wir können endlos darüber diskutieren, ob dies ein Grund ist, eine kritische Infrastrukturmodernisierung wie diese zu blockieren. Es hat mich jedoch zum Nachdenken gebracht – es herrscht weitgehend Einigkeit darüber, dass der Stil, der derzeit von Architekten und Planern bevorzugt wird (siehe Abbildung links (tatsächlicher Vorschlag für die neue Einheit), von der breiten Öffentlichkeit absolut *verachtet* wird. Die gleiche Kontroverse wirkt sich derzeit auf die Sanierung von Stephen’s Green aus und hat in den letzten zwei Jahrzehnten bei mehr oder weniger jedem großen Bauvorhaben, an das ich mich erinnern kann, für Kontroversen gesorgt. Die Polygonform mit langweiligem Außenmauerwerk und seltsam geformten, asymmetrischen Fensteranordnungen ist einfach ein Stil, den die Öffentlichkeit grundsätzlich hässlich findet. Dennoch ist es *überall*. Ich würde behaupten, dass dieser Stil neben dem, was ich den „dunklen Turm“ nenne, der aus dunkel getönten grünlichen Fenstern und einer schwarzen Stahlkonstruktion besteht, absolut die irische Architektur dominiert, wann immer etwas Neues vorgeschlagen wird. Das Problem ist, dass die Leute es *hassen*. Fast allgemein werden diese beiden Stile als hässliche Schandflecke angesehen, die den Charakter der Stadt zerstören, in der sie gebaut werden, und im Vergleich zu älteren Stilen werden sie negativ bewertet.
In diesem Zusammenhang bin ich fest davon überzeugt, dass ein erheblicher Teil der Kontroversen um neue Entwicklungen verschwinden würde, wenn die Designer aufhören würden, Gebäude aus ihrer Sicht „kantig“ oder „interessant“ aussehen zu lassen, und sich stattdessen auf die Gestaltung von Gebäuden konzentrieren würden, die sich in ihre architektonische Umgebung einfügen, anstatt sich absichtlich von dieser abzuheben.
Warum wird das fast nie diskutiert? Ich glaube, es würde einen großen Teil (wiederum nicht alle, aber viele) der Probleme lösen, die wir bei der Planung von Einwänden haben, die Projekte verzögern. Heutzutage scheint es unvermeidlich zu sein, dass Sie, wenn Sie über eine geplante Neuentwicklung lesen, angesichts der Abscheulichkeit des Entwurfs zusammenzucken oder die Augen verdrehen, wenn Sie den Eindruck des Künstlers davon bekommen. Irische Planer und Architekten müssen sich sicherlich darüber im Klaren sein, dass die allgemeine öffentliche Meinung diesen aktuellen Stiltrend einfach nicht gutheißt. Warum bestehen sie also darauf, ihn fortzusetzen?
https://i.redd.it/tclxi4ldxhkg1.jpeg
Von hatrickpatrick
39 Kommentare
They love producing ugly buildings at any cost
The people yearn for soulless corporate boxes
Maybe it’s concept art by an intern looking to improve their 3D modelling skills or maybe the actual 3D artist was sick.
(I’m just giving the benefit of the doubt though, cause I’m 11 years as a hobbyist using Blender and I still can’t produce anything to the quality of the right impression.)
Yknow, you’ve actually changed my mind on this
There is absolutely no good reason for it not to look like the one on the right
Honestly my main problem with all this is the fact it’s only 4 stories when Im sure between them the Rotunda and the Mater could fill 8 or more
And the reason I bring up the Mater is it is up the road, Mater and Rotunda are practically co-located (this is official policy, the Coombe is meant to move in between the new childrens hospital and st jameses and the same is meant to happen in limerick)
so there isnt a reason they cant share a clinical site once there is clear delineation and you could put things like lab space, diagnostics, that type of thing in the Rotunda to free up space for wards in the Mater site which is developed nearly to its max potential
But thats a tangent… fair play for this post though
Additional construction expense and maintenance expense. You’re looking at millions of euro more. Additional risk of delays because of all the custom pieces needed.
The building was rejected because people reject everything
It doesn’t matter what it looks like they will find a reason to reject it
Architects try to be different while the people want something that is coherent with the surrounding buildings. Being „modern“ is basically following the latest fad that will look terrible in 10 or 20 years time. Lok at all those ugly buildings from the 60s and 70s. Many of those replaced Georgian buildings.
Developers always go cheap-council needs to provide defined regulation
I don’t hate the design on the left. I think it’s a joke that it’s that low though. Add another 5 stories, it’s 2026.
London rebuilt many Georgian buildings that were basically just holes in the ground after the Blitz.
I don’t know why we can’t do the same here (rebuild, not blitz! 🙂 )
For all my other complaints about the place, I actually think DCU usually succeeds as far as exterior design is concerned when they’re building new buildings. I think your suggestion is right on the money as well.
It was easy to spend money on decadent buildings when they were effectively built by penniless lower class peasants.
i do think this needs to be the focus in these conversations, rather than blaming nimbys, as developers are just capitalising on the ridiculous demand for properties of all types to build the lasiest versions of them to pad their own pockets.
my pet peeve building :
clancy quay in dublin 8 is one of the first big blocks you see in the dublin skyline coming in from the west. they built a phase 3 that looks literally like they lifted the design from 90s school prefabs, horrendous look that even gets discoloured in the rain and looks extra crap. it’s a major part of the view from IMMA gardens.
yes you can say they delivered and that’s the main thing, but it’s not the last 1% of the costs that’s putting developers off, the council need to be firmer as there’s a long term cost to the city. if buildings are looking bad when brand new they’ll be horrific in ten years and we’ll be stuck with them for decades.
There’s a good sub on here, r/ArchitecturalRevival, who’d love designs like the above, right.
Sometimes, those designs are massively expensive. But at times, it just takes a little attention to detail to make a much more attractive building; it doesn’t have to cost an arm and a leg.
I wouldn’t build a pastiche 1800s building, but I would like if they built something modern that’s sensitive and doesn’t stick out in the Georgian context. The ESB buildings in Fitzwilliam Street, or the offices in the corner of Herbert St would be good examples.
If you’re gonna spunk that much money you may as well have something nice to look at
B looks better
https://preview.redd.it/64f0a48f1ikg1.jpeg?width=1536&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9fec7ee1e83acab5a14e6871111154363f1a97ad
Sorted
Architects don’t get nearly enough stick for how they’re destroying cities and towns with their god awful geometric blocks. There’s so many areas that could be lovely but have a rotten-looking boom-era apartment building planted in the middle of them.
But apparently making any gesture towards the surrounding architecture is „pastiche“ and the precious artists are too good for that. Nope a stunningly original series of rectangles will do. instead.
Money money money
agree with you 100%
Man neither of them are good…
Yeah Id agree OP and tend to think what the hospital managers were doing submitting a plan for a building in the middle of a Georgian square and not even remaining somewhat faithful to the buildings it is surrounded by. They could have mitigated that by designing a building closer to your alternative and then the architectural argument they find themselves in wouldnt have happened.
I kind of feel the same way about the ESB headquarters on Fitzwilliam Square. Rather than this modern intrpretation of what a Georgian building can look like with black framed windows the Council should have just said no, build it like it was before it was knocked down and build it the same as every other house on the square to maintain uniformity on the square. Now when I look at it I just see an odd building to all the other Georgian buildings on the square which look identical.
Architects hate you, hate cities and, generally speaking, hate the world.
More seriously, in the Anglophone world architects are taught to hold „pastiche“ in contempt.
What is the modern obsession in ireland with Asymmetrical Cubist builds?
I actually don’t mind sound architectural variation, and I think there can be a lot of nice new work done in the contemporary red brick style.
What I don’t understand is how so-called professionals, can ignore simple things like ares of architectural conservation.
I don’t think its about being edgy or experimental but rather more about bringing no imagination to bear on it, and having cost hemmed in.
I’m just going to say the architectural style not a style we should look to maintain. It was awful design originally go look at the building close ip
Can’t read all that but tbh I like both. I can’t complain but I can’t complain if we create a modern nice clean building in the modern era. But also really like that too!
We can’t do that. We need to be MODERN and have asymmetrical janky shapes. You wouldn’t understand true architectural beauty because you’re not an architect.
I agree up to the point that new buildings could be confused with buildings from eras gone by. There’s nothing wrong with letting something new sit well with older buildings around it. It doesn’t suddenly become dishonest if you confine the design within certain visual limits. And obviously this is already done to some extent in that the new design has pretty much the same dimensions and colour as the old one. But I agree that the limitations are often too loose. They could be much tighter and still not be trying to trick anyone into thinking the building isn’t modern. Architects can have their fun outside of these sensitive areas. Look what happened to the ESB building when the architect was allowed to express themselves. That’s the perfect example of someone who needed tighter limitations, Central bank and Dublin Corp headquarters too.
It’s hard to tell but is the entrance to the hospital in the picture on the right up a staircase?
Because Ireland has become a soulless corporate shithole
It’s a real shame we can’t ever seem to afford to build something in line with older architecture.
Every time I hear architects disavow the second design as pastiche I want to crawl into a hole
Why can’t we just build a wall around Dublin and not let anybody in or out then move on as a country 🤔
> is absolutely despised by the public at large
I’ve never heard people care that much about. I’m sure some people in architecture circles hate it but most people don’t put much thought into it.
The requirement outlined by the Master of the Rotunda for the actual needs within the hospital trump the aesthetics of it.
€
Planners often reject pastiche proposals.
The one on the left look hideous as a best possible impression. The developer will of course cut corners so the finished article will look even worse. Nevermind in 10 years once a rubbish management company and Irish weather have had their way with it.
Planners will allow this, but if someone wants to build a modest house on their own land in the county they’ve lived in for over 10 years, its a big no.