Ugliest/Most Beautiful Building in Waterford?

col o

fricatus wrote:

Sorry Freddie59, but I have to disagree about the houses in Knockboy. I think they're cool. Only time will tell if they were a good design, but at least they're interesting. In a way, that's the purpose of their design - to be noticed. And it's worked, since we're discussing them here.

I don't know if anyone saw a documentary recently by a guy called Alain de Botton (www.alaindebotton.com) on Channel 4. He's a British philosopher who grew up in Switzerland (or maybe he describes himself as Swiss, full stop), but it was a very interesting piece. He's written a book called "The Architecture of Happiness", which I think shares a lot of common material with the documentary.

His main contention though, was that modern home design in Britain is being stifled by a need to create a pastiche of the past (I don't think we can consider ourselves any different in this regard). New houses tend to imitate designs from 200 years ago because developers are too scared to do anything contemporary. Personally I was won over by his arguments, especially as regards the sameness of most new housing. I live in a huge estate between Blanchardstown and Clonee on the border of Dublin and Meath, and it's depressing how samey everything looks. When I drive over to Lucan, it's exactly the same, like bloody Legoland.

Don't get me wrong: it's fine to live in houses like these, but it would be nice to see a little more diversity of design. Why should a building necessarily be "in character with its surroundings"? Is the Empire State Building "in character with its surroundings"? How about the Gherkin (St Mary's Axe/Swiss Re) in London? Or the Eiffel Tower? Taking it back to Waterford, would Christchurch Cathedral get planning permission today? Surely it would be too high...

This is exactly the problem.Peoples perception of what is good design is in fact wrong and is a reaction to previous mistakes.Example don't build high rise because of Ballymun.The result we'll build Tallaght/Clondalkin instead.

Also one mans meat is another mans poison.Pennys in John Roberts Square was given as an example of an ugly building.However I'm almost sure the front facade is a listed structure.

There was a guy giving a lecture in TCD recently (Dr Pat Malone).He was a former head of Urban Planning and design (something like that) in Manchester Uni.He had a very dim view of the relativly low rise structure that have been built in Dublins Docklands.He also advocates penalties against the motor car and discouragies profiteering if his bona fides are in doubt.The Dublin docklands where supposed to be high rise but the "no high rise brigade" prevented it thereby curbing inovation.

Another perfect example is the two storey buildings next to Reginalds tower.A taller strucure here would have been much more appropriate.

Moving on to the North Quays in Waterford.The Councils template for it according to the Development Plan are no linear structures.The emphasis is to be on vertical structures with large space around them.Can you imagine what Brendan McCann thinks of this.His vision for Waterford is no structures over three stores in the city centre.Despite the fact that the majority of buildings are 4,5 or even 6 floors and have been for over a century.

merlante

col o wrote:

An interpretive centre IMO would just have been a thinking mans "Celtword" and would have gone the same way.On the other hand the woodstown finds and interpretive centre would(I think) be better served providing the museum of treasures with more substance and make it more sustainable.

I could just imagine an interpretive centre at railway square and Shammy and the boys offering their services to the tourists:D

I don't think that such a museum and interpretive centre should be in the museum of Treasures for the following reasons:

1. The Musuem of Treasures already takes hours to get through and is full of great stuff. Adding more to it will only insure that people pay less attention to what is there. (personally I get musuem burnout after about 2.5 hrs and I just want to get out of there)

2. The MoT tells the story of a slightly different place. Mingling finds from the "other" viking town with existing finds would only confuse people.

3. Two musuems are better than one big musuem as a tourist draw -- provided there is enough material for two. If the viking site at Woodstown really has yielded a lot of finds, then it ought to be shown in a building of its own.

In Berlin, where I am currently living, there are probably 100 musuems. They have museums on every conceivable topic and some of them are not that big. I like this idea, since you know what you are going to see and you don't have to go in a general, say, history musuem just to learn about, say, the berlin wall. (it has its own musuem) Also, there are many art galleries, so you don't have to go in to a gigantic art musuem to see modern, fringe art. Even in Waterford there are a handful of galleries: the one beside the French Church and the one of Dyehouse lane. Musuems and Galleries need not be massive.

Having said that, the funding should come at least partly from central government because the site is of international significance. In that light, perhaps it should be a viking musuem for all Ireland. That mandate would justify a large musuem and there would be no better place to put it.

In any case the Musuem of Treasures is a great musuem, and it has one awards, but it won't make money until tourists come to Waterford in greater numbers. That ain't the musuems fault -- although it could have a better web site.

Freddie59

merlante wrote:

Freddie59, I don't really get your problem with flat roofs. I think pitched roofs like silly on modern buildings to be honest. Do you know of any examples of a modern, large building with a pitched roof?

Can anyone remember (from a picture obviously) what roof the Jail had on Ballybricken -- probably the biggest building in Waterford at the time. (maybe it would still be) There's a book out now with photographs of Waterford from around the turn of the 20th century called Shadows of the Past, or something like that. It is absolutely excellent. The scary thing is how it shows a Waterford that is probably higher rise than it is now!

Well I suppose it's all a matter of personal taste Merlante. I can see where you're coming from. I might gather a couple of photos and post them during the week just to compare some new buildings. It would be interesteing to see what everyone thinks.:)

Freddie59

lost_for_words wrote:

I had forgotten about those, add them to my list! I think they are possibly the most disgusting houses in the whole city, totally out of keeping with the area, and just plan horrible to look at.

They probably are fabulous inside, but on the outside they're just screaming "The Glen Tax Office From the 1970s" at you. I suppose only time will tell, but they really are, in my opinion, a carbunkel on the Knockboy area. However, Waterford City coucil are going one better opposite the Gaelscoil by building FOUR Story (I kid you not!) houses. They're like British army watchtowers!:eek:

Freddie59

fricatus wrote:

Sorry Freddie59, but I have to disagree about the houses in Knockboy. I think they're cool. Only time will tell if they were a good design, but at least they're interesting. In a way, that's the purpose of their design - to be noticed. And it's worked, since we're discussing them here.

I don't know if anyone saw a documentary recently by a guy called Alain de Botton (www.alaindebotton.com) on Channel 4. He's a British philosopher who grew up in Switzerland (or maybe he describes himself as Swiss, full stop), but it was a very interesting piece. He's written a book called "The Architecture of Happiness", which I think shares a lot of common material with the documentary.

His main contention though, was that modern home design in Britain is being stifled by a need to create a pastiche of the past (I don't think we can consider ourselves any different in this regard). New houses tend to imitate designs from 200 years ago because developers are too scared to do anything contemporary. Personally I was won over by his arguments, especially as regards the sameness of most new housing. I live in a huge estate between Blanchardstown and Clonee on the border of Dublin and Meath, and it's depressing how samey everything looks. When I drive over to Lucan, it's exactly the same, like bloody Legoland.

Don't get me wrong: it's fine to live in houses like these, but it would be nice to see a little more diversity of design. Why should a building necessarily be "in character with its surroundings"? Is the Empire State Building "in character with its surroundings"? How about the Gherkin (St Mary's Axe/Swiss Re) in London? Or the Eiffel Tower? Taking it back to Waterford, would Christchurch Cathedral get planning permission today? Surely it would be too high...

Fair points all round. But, as I've already said, it is a matter of personal taste. But I firmly believe that we must try and maintain some kind of continuity in settled areas. Railway Square, to me, is a very ugly eyesore.....but is the price we pay for progress.

And my blood boils every time I look at that shed which is attached to the Theatre Royal. Times change, fashions change, and we move on. But we must preserve what is, IMHO, a very beautiful City. Lego-like buildings such as Railway Square, Maritana Gate, and the Student Apartments (with those disgusting green roofs) on the Inner Ring Road really must be avoided at all costs.

One of the nicest three buildings in recent years for me are:

1. The Royal Bank Of Scotland at Canada Street (next to Maritana Gate).
an absolute pleasure to look at.

2. The Grattan Apartments (facing the Bridge and built on what used to be the Crystal City Bar)

3. The new offices at Colbeck Street which are perfectly matched to the existing buildings. The Council architechts should really take these as an example of how it should be done.

Freddie59

col o wrote:

This is my point.A lot of the people who put forward ideas such as interpretive centres are under the impression that the are worth their weight in Gold.Some of the people in Brendan McCanns entourage are convinced of this and publicly stated it.

Col o - please do not confuse me or connect me in any way to that person. He is stifling all growth in the City - I am merely offering an opinion on some of the buildings mentioned in this thread.

Likewise, I, like many others, feel that an opportunity was missed in Railway Square - purely because of profiteering on the City Council's part.

That does not make me a part of McCann's entourage.;)

lilmissprincess

The meteor shop just sticks out completely in the otherwise lovely blended in square...just my thoughts.
Reginalds tower is gorgeous, but teh box...ruins it!!

merlante

Freddie59 wrote:

Well I suppose it's all a matter of personal taste Merlante. I can see where you're coming from. I might gather a couple of photos and post them during the week just to compare some new buildings. It would be interesteing to see what everyone thinks.:)

I guess so.

Sounds like a good idea. I have some pictures myself but not to hand.

Roen

Oooo, that red brick building at the junction of the Waterside and Catherines street is lovely.

mire

visited waterford recently - in my opinion, railway square is actually a very good repsonse to the site, its context and finishing/detail would appear to be high standard, architecture is not bad, very little impact on city walls. maritana (spelling?) gate development is a good example of a parkside scheme - the scale is good - although some of the finishing is poor. the new building on the ring road next to wlr is probably the worst building i have seen in a long time - who 'designed' (drew) this does anyone know? 33 the mall is top class restoration - food just as good.

merlante

mire wrote:

visited waterford recently - in my opinion, railway square is actually a very good repsonse to the site, its context and finishing/detail would appear to be high standard, architecture is not bad, very little impact on city walls. maritana (spelling?) gate development is a good example of a parkside scheme - the scale is good - although some of the finishing is poor. the new building on the ring road next to wlr is probably the worst building i have seen in a long time - who 'designed' (drew) this does anyone know? 33 the mall is top class restoration - food just as good.

Sounds like you know your buildings. You an architect?

Jason Todd

This thread has been a nice read. Interesting snapshot of Waterford back when I took everything for granted lol!

Are people's opinions the same now? One of people's least favourite buildings (the ESB building) could now be one of the nicer buildings in town? And one of the other least popular buildings next to Reg's Tower has been knocked!

Tess Tickle

The bishops palace and he town hall are lovely.So also is the old house in Newtown school.some of the old houses around south parade.

Ugliest is "flowers by lucy" and the WLR building at Ardkeen

danjo-xx

+1 Flowers by Lucy,

how in gods name did that ever get planning permission for gross signage, do they think none of us goes to specsavers:D

Jason Todd

Was that not a petrol station first?

shockwave

danjo-xx wrote: »

+1 Flowers by Lucy,

how in gods name did that ever get planning permission for gross signage, do they think none of us goes to specsavers:D

The shop itself is grand, its the manky old garage forecourt that looks crap especially as its used as a mini carpark now.

Wanderer2010

Most beautiful I think is the new Medieval Museum, a really striking structure that draws your attention and is lit up very well at night. Ugliest? Treacys Hotel, ugh even looking at it makes my stomach turn and its cheap and colourless exterior does nothing to change its rep as a scumbag magnet.

Jason Todd

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Most beautiful I think is the new Medieval Museum, a really striking structure that draws your attention and is lit up very well at night. Ugliest? Treacys Hotel, ugh even looking at it makes my stomach turn and its cheap and colourless exterior does nothing to change its rep as a scumbag magnet.

+1 for the Medieval Museum.

I also like the building where Foxy Chopper is, where Gladstone St. meets O'Connell St. Actually, The Bank Bar is a fine structure when there is something done with it.

Not keen on the Supermac's building in Red Square tbh.

I'd have to think of some more now!

wmpdd3

http://goo.gl/maps/KpQdd

I love the port of Waterford building.

.....and 33 the Mall.

TheGormog

In true Celtic Tiger style -

The Most Beautiful: My House
The Ugliest: Your House

fricatus

Yeah, the Medieval Museum is just incredibly good. Not only does it look good up close, and from the Mall, it completely transforms the view down Lady Lane at night when it's lit up in purple. Just an absolute gem of a building.

Finnbar01

The Presentation convent is a beautiful building.

There used to be a castle where the Ard Drí is now, Redmond's Castle I think it was called.

There was also another impressive building down in the Glen. That was Edwardian ( I think) and was called the Fanning institution. It fell into ruin and was knocked down to be replaced by a massive cement block called the Tax office or whatever it is called.

Other Beautiful buildings were the Tower Hotel before it was destroyed and a building on top of Newgate Street, where the dentist used to be. Destroyed too.

mccarthy37

This to me is the most beautiful building in Waterford.
Leave religion out of it if you like and go in and admire the fabulous workmanship.
This building is over 200 yrs old with a lot of repair work done on it over the years but always kept to a very high standard.
Have a look at the carved pulpit its a real work of art.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/feargal/3256133309/lightbox/

comeraghs

I have to agree. The new Medieval museum is wonderful.

I like the HYPE hairdressers shop too.

Worst! Ard Ri.

dzilla

On a smaller scale i think that areas like the red brick houses @south parade are lovely, that old fashioned house at the fried egg roundabbout on where the newtown road meets the dunmore road is lovely aswell..

I think that the Bill Martins Hib building is a fine job, and even though not still a drinking establishment it has a character, reminds me of a pub from the east end of London , like the queen vic in eastenders...

Other nice pub buildings are jordans, grimes, the munster.. these pubs devided against totally retransforming themselves during the boom snd renovating the soul out of themselves

Finnbar01

Is this the red brick mental institution?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/our-shameful-asylums-221854.html

shockwave

Finnbar01 wrote: »

Is this the red brick mental institution?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/our-shameful-asylums-221854.html

I dont think so, it looks a lot bigger than St Otterans.

7upfree

Ugliest building? That eyesore that replaced Manor Street school. A carbuncle on the city.

fricatus

7upfree wrote: »

Ugliest building? That eyesore that replaced Manor Street school. A carbuncle on the city.

It's pretty damn bad all right - indeed it's probably the ugliest building in town, however the Ard Rí has to get the gong as it's ugly and big and in a really prominent location.

Another awful building in the wrong location is the brewery on Grattan Quay. It's basically an industrial building which would be fine on the industrial estate, but it's totally, totally in the wrong place, where everyone arriving into the city can see it. How it got planning permission I will never know. Brown envelopes?

I think Lonely Planet or someone like that mistook it for a "refinery". Hardly the image we want to project. :mad:

Chiparus

Great to see that mini office block beside the reginald was demolished.