Petition to Prioritise the Ring Road over the Central Access Scheme

Sky King

I actually think the courthouse looks grand, if a little gloomy. Maybe that's just the weather on the day.

If you look at the cultural quarter masterplan though, the new area appears to be a highly congested area in terms of building and by Kilkenny standards it rises pretty high.

I can't think of a mistake worse than filling the new 'cultural quarter' with sterile, austere, cold, glassy, empty looking buildings that look like the back of the courthouse. I really *really* hope they don't go down that road. A green park is fine, thanks.

Einhard

catbear wrote: »

There seems to be a lot of fans of brutalist architecture in these parts, the cult of new.

Ummm, if you think the Court House extension is an example brutalist architecture then you obviously haven't a clue about architecture. Abd brutalist architecture is almost 100 years old, so hardly new either.

Einhard

Mocadonna wrote: »

The courthouse extension might not be a monstrosity taken as a unique modern building, but it is when looked at in the context of the original courthouse, and the medieval character of the city. I know several tourists who said thought the opposite to you. They came over expecting to see "The most intact medieval town centre in Ireland" and left quite disappointed.

No offense, but this is an absurd argument. You admit that the building itself may not be a monstrosity, but then claim it is merely because it's built in Kilkenny. So we should go back to wattle and daub? Medieval style construction? We should be stuck in an architectural time warp? There are only a few significant medieval buildings intact in Kilkenny, and yet people demand that all new buildings are designed to look and feel like them? The extension to the courthouse is a sleek, moden building, and I think quite handsome. Moreover, not only does it not detract from any heritage building as some seem to think, but it actually covers up what was once a glaring eyesore. Modern architecture can quite easily be integrated into a heritage landscape, s towns and cities all over Europe are testament too. Yet people here think that they are mutually exclusive, and that one necessarily disbars the other. Which IMO is completely bogus.

Mocadonna

Einhard wrote: »

No offense, but this is an absurd argument. You admit that the building itself may not be a monstrosity, but then claim it is merely because it's built in Kilkenny. So we should go back to wattle and daub? Medieval style construction? We should be stuck in an architectural time warp? There are only a few significant medieval buildings intact in Kilkenny, and yet people demand that all new buildings are designed to look and feel like them? The extension to the courthouse is a sleek, moden building, and I think quite handsome. Moreover, not only does it not detract from any heritage building as some seem to think, but it actually covers up what was once a glaring eyesore. Modern architecture can quite easily be integrated into a heritage landscape, s towns and cities all over Europe are testament too. Yet people here think that they are mutually exclusive, and that one necessarily disbars the other. Which IMO is completely bogus.

Context in architecture is a huge thing, and I think attaching that to the back of an 18th century building is crazy. That was my point. But it seems to be a matter of opinion, you like it, I don't. Yes modern architecture can be incorporated into a heritage landscape. I don't think this was achieved.

Kilkenny's medieval character is more than "a handful of buildings" the lanes and slips and streets all add to this, and many tourists come here for that reason. If you market yourself as "Ireland's medieval city" then you should try to maintain as much of that character as possible. Maintaining this doesn't mean "architectural time warps" or "wattle and daub". That's just sensationalising.

Sky King

Einhard wrote: »

brutalist architecture is almost 100 years old, so hardly new either.

Ah no - 60 years old max.

Personally, I don't have any issue with contemporary design provided that it is employed with taste and sympathy for the surroundings. It can work quite well as a contrast... think of the pyramid outside the Louvre.

With respect to the courthouse, I think what they did to the front of it is far more worthy of your collective vitriol than the brand new structure at the back.

So yes, I think new buildings could work great in the new quarter. emphasis on the *COULD* !!

I am just afraid that (inadvertently or otherwise) they will made a complete balls of it.

catbear

Einhard wrote: »

Ummm, if you think the Court House extension is an example brutalist architecture then you obviously haven't a clue about architecture. Abd brutalist architecture is almost 100 years old, so hardly new either.

Maybe you've no taste.

Einhard

Mocadonna wrote: »

Context in architecture is a huge thing, and I think attaching that to the back of an 18th century building is crazy. That was my point. But it seems to be a matter of opinion, you like it, I don't. Yes modern architecture can be incorporated into a heritage landscape. I don't think this was achieved.

There was nothing at all of merit in the bare stone facade facing onto the Market Yard. It was an eye-sore. I fail to see what the fuss is about. Nothing at all of merit was altered, and nothing at all of merit was detracted from.

Kilkenny's medieval character is more than "a handful of buildings" the lanes and slips and streets all add to this, and many tourists come here for that reason. If you market yourself as "Ireland's medieval city" then you should try to maintain as much of that character as possible. Maintaining this doesn't mean "architectural time warps" or "wattle and daub". That's just sensationalising.

I said there are only a handful of intact medieval buildings in Kilkenny. Which i true. The medieval character of the city is another thing entirely, but I never mentioned it. I agree with you that we should retain as much of our architectural heritage as possible, I just don't see how building a modern bulding in front of an ugly, blank exterior wall goes against this.

catbear wrote: »

Maybe you've no taste.

Possibly. It's still not an example of brutalist architcture though.

randylonghorn

Einhard wrote: »

No offense, but this is an absurd argument. You admit that the building itself may not be a monstrosity, but then claim it is merely because it's built in Kilkenny. So we should go back to wattle and daub? Medieval style construction?

You accuse others of absurd arguments, then suggest that if people don't like ultra-modern with no sense of context, the choice is wattle-and-daub?!

Einhard wrote: »

There are only a few significant medieval buildings intact in Kilkenny, and yet people demand that all new buildings are designed to look and feel like them?

No, to fit in with them. Big difference.

Einhard wrote: »

The extension to the courthouse is a sleek, moden building, and I think quite handsome.

I don't think it's a monstrosity, but I don't think it's as good as it could be either. In my personal opinion, it's kind of, well, mehhh, as the kids would say.

Einhard wrote: »

Modern architecture can quite easily be integrated into a heritage landscape, s towns and cities all over Europe are testament too. Yet people here think that they are mutually exclusive, and that one necessarily disbars the other. Which IMO is completely bogus.

They're far from mutually exclusive, but they do require great care.

For a gem of an example of incorporating the old with the new right here in Kilkenny, look to the interior of the Parade Tower in the Castle (in my opinion anyway).

Mocadonna

Einhard wrote: »

There was nothing at all of merit in the bare stone facade facing onto the Market Yard. It was an eye-sore. I fail to see what the fuss is about. Nothing at all of merit was altered, and nothing at all of merit was detracted from.



I said there are only a handful of intact medieval buildings in Kilkenny. Which i true. The medieval character of the city is another thing entirely, but I never mentioned it. I agree with you that we should retain as much of our architectural heritage as possible, I just don't see how building a modern bulding in front of an ugly, blank exterior wall goes against this.



Possibly. It's still not an example of brutalist architcture though.

A bare stone facade may have been the only thing covered up, but again my point is that i think it could have been covered up with something better, if they felt it had to be covered up.

You didn't mention the medieval character of the city (in fairness nobody mentioned wattle and daub either but it didn't stop you introducing that!!) but to say those buildings and the medieval character of the city are different things entirely is a bit of a stretch, and as Randy said above the main thing people are looking for are things to fit in with these surroundings and buildings, be they modern style or not. This is not the same thing as stifling progress or living in the past as some seem to think. It's not that black and white

What it boils down to is that this to me is not an old versus new or past versus future debate, it's more about symapthetic versus unympathetic architecture. If you look at it from that standpoint we're actually on the same page, though I'll never agree with you on that courthouse!

catbear

To sum up. We can create new anywhere but there's only one Kilkenny.

It makes more sense to develop that uniqueness than try to be like everywhere else!

chickcharnley

randylonghorn wrote: »

You accuse others of absurd arguments, then suggest that if people don't like ultra-modern with no sense of context, the choice is wattle-and-daub?!

No, to fit in with them. Big difference.

I don't think it's a monstrosity, but I don't think it's as good as it could be either. In my personal opinion, it's kind of, well, mehhh, as the kids would say.

They're far from mutually exclusive, but they do require great care.

For a gem of an example of incorporating the old with the new right here in Kilkenny, look to the interior of the Parade Tower in the Castle (in my opinion anyway).

it will be interesting to see how you get on

padyjoe

The traffic around 8.30 am is unreal! Was leaving the city at 7.30, heading Gowran, streets were empty, coming back 1 hour later, insane! How I'm suppose to get onto the Freshford Road? I pulled over and waited 30 mins for the traffic to clear. Still busy after 30 mins. Turning at Troy's Gate roundabout, still queue. What the f3ck? Borough workers, or who were they, collecting the rubbish in rush hour in the middle of Bishops's Hill slope. I wish there were more bridges in the city! Or whatever! It's unbearable now!

catbear

padyjoe wrote: »

The traffic around 8.30 am is unreal! Was leaving the city at 7.30, heading Gowran, streets were empty, coming back 1 hour later, insane! How I'm suppose to get onto the Freshford Road? I pulled over and waited 30 mins for the traffic to clear. Still busy after 30 mins. Turning at Troy's Gate roundabout, still queue. What the f3ck? Borough workers, or who were they, collecting the rubbish in rush hour in the middle of Bishops's Hill slope. I wish there were more bridges in the city! Or whatever! It's unbearable now!

A completed ringroad sure would help.

road_high

According to Sue Nunns Page "no evidence of Medieval building" on Vicar st. What a surprise.

linny

finally some good news now hopefully the nonsense can stop and they can get on with the new bridge http://www.kilkennypeople.ie/news/kilkenny-news/vicar-street-building-is-not-manse-house-survey-1-5608196

holyhead

Its not nonsense Linny. People care about the historical fabric of the city which includes structures and road layout. Rubbishing peoples take on this does nothing to advance your own views on this.

redtelephone

linny wrote: »

finally some good news now hopefully the nonsense can stop and they can get on with the new bridge http://www.kilkennypeople.ie/news/kilkenny-news/vicar-street-building-is-not-manse-house-survey-1-5608196

I think everyone who signed the petition and marched is aware of where the nonsense is.

Threadhead

I think all 6,500 people who signed the petition and the 1,000 people who marched are well aware of where the nonsense is.

road_high

linny wrote: »

finally some good news now hopefully the nonsense can stop and they can get on with the new bridge http://www.kilkennypeople.ie/news/kilkenny-news/vicar-street-building-is-not-manse-house-survey-1-5608196

Exactly. Enough taxpayers money squandered on archeology on an irrelevant shack of a house or two on vicar st.I hope people actually accept now what the experts are saying and move on.

Einhard

Threadhead wrote: »

I think all 6,500 people who signed the petition and the 1,000 people who marched are well aware of where the nonsense is.

Population of Kilkenny urban area: 24, 423 in 2011.

Population of Kilkenny county: 95, 419.


When put in the context of the populations of the city and county, and given the fact that people rarely put too much thought into signing a petition, the 6,500 signatures is pretty underwhelming. Hardly "the silent majority" as Malcolm Noonan trots out. Especially considering only a tiny percentage actually bothered to turn up and march for that in hich they allegedly believe.

Threadhead

Because all those people who marched in favour of the CAS and signed the petition demanding it really made their voices heard.

S28382

Threadhead wrote: »

Because all those people who marched in favour of the CAS and signed the petition demanding it really made their voices heard.

Why would anyone who supports the CAS want to go marching in support of it when its already got the go ahead?

Dozen Wicked Words

I don't have opinion either way, but 6,500 signatures on a petition is significant in such a small town/city. People clearly do care as this thread shows, not really seen anything as devisive on any other Kilkenny thread anyway. Belittling opinions of either side just seems childish to me.

Threadhead

S28382 wrote: »

Why would anyone who supports the CAS want to go marching in support of it when its already got the go ahead?

And if it doesn't go ahead do you think they will take to the streets to protest?

S28382

Threadhead wrote: »

And if it doesn't go ahead do you think they will take to the streets to protest?

No I doubt it very much tbh I don't really care who goes out marching or protesting the fact of the matter is that Kilkenny as a town historical or not will not be affected in a detrimental way if this does go ahead. The whole protesting and marching lark is nonsense with regards the building of this bridge.

catbear

6,000 is a significant number when matched against how many actually vote in council elections.

Mankbag

road_high wrote: »

Exactly. Enough taxpayers money squandered on archeology on an irrelevant shack of a house or two on vicar st.I hope people actually accept now what the experts are saying and move on.

Believing what the experts were saying is one of the things that has this country the way it is.

It's experts who have given us that abomination of a Parade "plaza" (or whatever name they attached to it to make it sound more exotic than it was). Forgive me if I choose not to believe anything they say.

road_high

Mankbag wrote: »

Believing what the experts were saying is one of the things that has this country the way it is.

It's experts who have given us that abomination of a Parade "plaza" (or whatever name they attached to it to make it sound more exotic than it was). Forgive me if I choose not to believe anything they say.

They're archeologists (presumably qualified as such) saying there's nothing significant in those houses (which is hardly surprising). They were just reporting back on what they found, i sinecerely doubt they're making it up.

Mankbag

road_high wrote: »

They're archeologists (presumably qualified as such) saying there's nothing significant in those houses (which is hardly surprising). They were just reporting back on what they found, i sinecerely doubt they're making it up.

Fair enough. It's the experts in County Hall I'd be more worried about.

Einhard

6000 isn't all that significant in a county with a population of almost 100 000, considering the efforts put into collecting the signatures, and the nature of the petition. I was with a few people on High St and we were asked to sign it. My friends did; I didn't. I asked them why they signed it after, and it was obvious they hadn't thought it through at all. It was more a case of, "Why not?" Obviously that wouldn't have been the case of all those who signed it, but I'd bet it was for a large proportion.

In saying this, I'm not dismissing the concerns of anyone or belittling them. It just always annoys me that people assume that they are part of some form of "silent majority". It's such a dickish idea. I'm in the right and everyone agrees with me, but eh, I have no proof of that because, er, those who agree with me keep quiet about it. Hmmm, such logic.

If you feel a certain way about something, great. Good luck with that. I'll respect your opinion even if I don't agree with it. But please stop claiming that everyone else feels the same way unless you can actually back this up with some evidence.