Ugliest/Most Beautiful Building in Waterford?

fricatus

There's a similar discussion on the Dublin board just now, so I thought it would be an interesting topic to bring down to the South-East.

What gets your vote for ugliest/most beautiful building in fair Blaa-ville?

Here's my €0.02:

Most beautiful:
- Holy Ghost Hospital, Cork Road: fantastic courtyard view from the road
- Christchurch Cathedral:
- De La Salle College: as imposing now as when I was 10, being told I was about to go there
- New WIT library
- Maritana Gate: contemporary and stylish, top quality finish, wouldn't look out of place overlooking Hyde Park or Stephen's Green

Ugliest:
- That brewery next to the bridge: how the hell did it ever get planning permission?
- Ard Rí (formerly Jury's): and they've gone and painted it an even worse colour!
- Silos on North Quays: please, knock down NOW anything that won't be incorporated into the new development
- New St car park
- Aldi in the Glen: couldn't they have disguised the fact that it's a multi-storey? This can be done you know...

Special award for mingiest structure:
- Those bloody ESB pylons crossing upriver from Rice Bridge.

Danes

The old ESB offices on the Mall have to be a contender for the ugliest

Cabaal

Have to say I think the Guinness brewery looks ok in comparison to other factorys, theyr certainly keep it clean and well kept especially the gates into it.

imho the Tower Hotel looks like **** when you consider what used to be their, also the new development in Railway square hardly fits well with the old town walls....sad really

mike65

I like the Guiness building, of the classical stuff the Bishops Palace gets the nod as does Holy Ghost. The old Government building was the worst facade ever in Waterford, luckily its rather better since the spruce up.

Mike.

Roen

That red brick building next to the Chamber of Commerce on O'Connell street is lovely imo. It used to be FBD I think but now there's a hair dressers in there. No idea what it's original purpose was but it is quite unique in the city.
As for ugly....God, I wouldn't know where to start. Or end for that matter.

kano476

one of the ugliest have to be either that little box buliding beside reggies tower or the train station.

I like the government place in the glen or the bank of scotland thats in between maritana gate and the 3 ships

Cabaal

kano476 wrote:

one of the ugliest have to be either that little box buliding beside reggies tower or the train station.

I like the government place in the glen or the bank of scotland thats in between maritana gate and the 3 ships

the train station is a joke, the retarded thing is Waterford used to have a lovely building for the train station but then they knocked it and built the current joke....all in the name of progress!

Bards

Cabaal wrote:

the train station is a joke, the retarded thing is Waterford used to have a lovely building for the train station but then they knocked it and built the current joke....all in the name of progress!

They will be modernising the train station within the next 12 - 24 months according to Martin Cullen speaking at a conference recently.

col o

Bards wrote:

They will be modernising the train station within the next 12 - 24 months according to Martin Cullen speaking at a conference recently.

That train station won some awards a couple of years ago for something like best kept small train station in UK & Ireland albeit not for architectural significance.

I would not be too hard on it though it may be architecturally important.Busarus in Dublin is an important building now and it is here to stay.IMO Plunkett station is just a smaller version.Also the ESB.You have to remember these buildings are not modern anymore and it is unlikely that buildings of that syle will be built again.I would actually think if we were to demolish them it would be a mistake.Buildings like the ESB and Carrolls factory in Dundalk were built in the Lemass years which was the time of the first Economic Boom which may have let to much better things if it was not for the Oil Crisis of the day.

Nicest building-Hard to say there is quite a few 33 the Mall,St Johns college,Manor of St John (If it was refurbished) That one on the Quay between the GPO and Reg Tower,it has big bay windows on a couple of floors.

Ugliest-The aforementioned boxey structure next to Reginalds tower.The Scar of an otherwise perfect Waterfront and the destroyer of every postcard of Reginalds tower.

Shaws Qauayside facade is a disgrace too especially the roof.They really need to do something.

ToxicPaddy

Good Looking buildings:
The Cathedral
The Town Hall
The building behind the town hall, think it was the old port authority.
Reginalds Tower
Holy Ghost Hospital
Old Infirmary when it was a hospital (donkeys years ago!!!)
Guiness Brewery (really spruced up a very ugly area)
Faithlegg hotel, fantastic original building

Ugliest:
Ard Rí (thank goodness they are finally doing something with it)
Old ESB on the Mall
North Quay in general is terrible, roll on demolition day!!


Tox

brown*eyed*girl

Ugliest looking building:
The Jute Factory

Nicest looking building:
My house of course

Roen

There used to be a little old castle up on the hill where the Ard Rí was built :mad: Ah well, thats progress for ya!

Bards

The old Clyde Shipping building on the Quay is nice too (Dockers strike forced it to close it in the eighties)... McGraths Opticians is there now though...

merlante

Nicest buildings for me:

1. Maritana Gate
2. City Hall
3. St. Declans School
4. Christ Church Cathedral

After that, any of the other Georgrian era stuff: Holy Trinity Cathedral, Newtown School, Presentation Convent, Infirmary, etc. and De La Salle College.

I hear David Flynn has a very nice building on the Cork Rd. but I haven't seen it. Also haven't seen the new WIT building in Carriganore. I'll reserve judgement on Railway Square until it's built.

Nastiest buildings:

1. North Quay Silos
2. Ard Rí
3. ESB Building
4. Train Station

Buildings that piss me off:

Newer, stumpy Shaws building, Pennies for being so low. Any of the ****ty 20th century buildings that were built on the Quay, O'Connell St., etc. that were smaller and uglier than and out of character with the area.

Jor

Good looking old buildings
Most old churches & Bishops Palace ( When the Church had all our money ):(
Houses in South Parade
IDA building on industrial estate ( Has a certain style to it )

Ugly older buildings :
We all seem to agree on ESB offices, North Wharf, Shaws & train station.:mad:
How about the cinema in Patrick St. ( Big Pink Box ):(
Holy Family Church ( Proof that there is such a thing as "too much reb-brick )
The Jute
Lisduggan Shopping Centre ( Replacement looks good on paper )

Ugly new buildings:
New St car park ( Big Grey Box ):eek:
Railway Square development ( Would look better in its own space, not shoved into old part of City )
Most houses on new estates with mock Tudor detail ( What did the Tudors ever do for us? )

lost_for_words

Nice Buildings =

* The Infirmary
* Tax Office at the Glen
* 33 The Mall (was so happy they did it up)
* Old Port Authority Building (top of Gladstone St on O'Connell St)
* The Good Shepherd (despite its sinister past)
* Maritana Gate
* Houses on John's Hill (and in Newtown on the right hand side of the road before branching off to the Dunmore Road)
* Reginalds Tower

Ugly Buildings =

* One beside Reginalds Tower
* New St. Car Park
* Penneys
* Shaws
* ESB Building
* Building beside old ESB Building (was Snap printing there for a while)
* Masons (sorry I just think its an eyesore)
* Cinema
* North Wharf buildings
* Train station

o.k that list is starting to get really long, so I shall abandon it there, but I'm sure there are more.

Vadrefjorde

Nice Buildings:

The old infirmary
Waterford port authority building
John's Hill houses (some of them anyway)

Ugly Crap:

That eyesore growing in Railway square (Pity the people who bought an apartment in the infirmary)
New St. Car Park
Train Station
Jute Factory
Lisduggan Shopping Centre
Strawberry Hill apartments (Behind Old Infirmary) I used to live down there and we were all accidentally sent the conditions attached to the planning permission regarding how they were meant to look. It is beyond belief how different they are and how they were supposed to look. Goes to show what goes on "behind the scenes"

merlante

Guys, I don't want to start a fight over Railway Square, but every time I see it it looks better. Plus it's set off from the tower by a good distance and does not tower over it from Manor St. There's a good courtyard between the tower and the building.

It blocks a view of some if the old towers from John's Hill, but then again, one of these days, all of these towers will be obscured. The city centre has created no new retail space since 1989! (just renovation) We need proper buildings in the city centre.

It's starting to look nice from outside the Henessey's undertakers in Johnstown/Miller Marsh, imho.

Still, like I said, I'll wait till it's finished.

kano476

yeah i wasnt that happy with it at one stage but ill wait till its finished to decide. the cinema part at the back looks interesting apart from the colour i dunno it looks a bit thrown together or something. still its bright and moderna and a lot of new building looks like that - just depends whether we'll be looking back on it in a couple of decades time and its like the buildings of the 60's and 70's are like today. cack!

I forgot about the old cinema it never stood out as an ugly building but when you think about it its awful.

meldrew

I think Railway Square is going to look well when its finished , the New St car park has to be the ugliest building in Waterford the sooner they get to knock it the better imo .
The Enterprise diy shop just opposite City Square is a bit of an eyesore as well , it looks totally out of place there , it could do with being knocked and a new building put in its place that reaches out to the footpath

fricatus

Funny that I had forgotten about Railway Square when I started this thread. I see that a lot of people are very positive about Maritana Gate and if Railway Square turns out to be that class of building, it will be an addition to the city.

However since the hoardings came down about a month ago, it began to look a bit horrible, not as nice as I expected. I suppose the finishing touches have to be put to it and it will look a lot different when the space in front of it opens up. I hope it turns out to look good because it's in a hugely prominent spot.

Incidentally I don't think it's at odds with its location next to the City Walls - if it complements the walls and draws people in towards them, then it will fulfil a useful purpose.

I'm just going to start another thread about when it will be ready, by the way, since I don't want to take this one off topic.

P.S. Meldrew, you got it right about that Enterprise DIY place - horrible!

meldrew

Has anybody seen the new building beside wlr on the ring road ? I think it looks very well also very modern and well designed imo

Sully

Bards wrote:

They will be modernising the train station within the next 12 - 24 months according to Martin Cullen speaking at a conference recently.

Doubtful considering their thinking about moving the terminal somewhere else.

Freddie59

meldrew wrote:

Has anybody seen the new building beside wlr on the ring road ? I think it looks very well also very modern and well designed imo

I would agree to a degree, but it falls down, IMO, with the roof. Every building being constructed now have the ugliest of flat roofs. Nothing finishes a building better than a conventional pitched roof.

Railway square is totally out of keeping with everything around it - as is Maritana Gate. Most of the new flats being built around O'Connell Street have wooden facades. Look lovely now - but who will maintain them in years to come?

There are also some huge gaffes around. The 'extension' on the Theatre Royal is a complete eyseore and out of touch with the design of the building itself.

Anyone remember the fuss over 18 & 19 Lady Lane some years back? Beautifully restored now.......with the equivalent of a bus shelter on the side.

Domestic housing fares no better. Anyone see the new houses opposite Orpens in Knockboy? Lovely bungalows already there......and someone gave permission for three-story FLAT ROOFED houses on top of the hill behind them.

In a street in the upper City a house has been built in a settled area which is totally out of keeping with those around it - it resembles an industrial unit. Very cheap build.

As for the student apartments on the Ring Road with the flat green roofs........................................................:mad:

But I suppose with progress comes a price - I just hope it's not too high. The Council missed an opportunity in Railway Square to provide an interpretive centre which could have been linked to the new site at Woodstown.

Sorry if I'm sounding like a certain Mr. McCann, but I think a lot of us may be viewing things through rose-couloured glasses. But, on the upside, there are many nice new developments as well.

col o

meldrew wrote:

Has anybody seen the new building beside wlr on the ring road ? I think it looks very well also very modern and well designed imo

Yes I was travelling along the Outer Ring the other day.As I approached the last roundabout before the road becomes single carriagewway I thought it liked great from this side.You can see the Narrow side of the building from this approach and it looks nice and modern.

col o

Freddie59 wrote:

Most of the new flats being built around O'Connell Street have wooden facades. Look lovely now - but who will maintain them in years to come?

There is usually an annual maintenance fee with apartments that pays a company for the long term maintenance.

Freddie59 wrote:

But I suppose with progress comes a price - I just hope it's not too high. The Council missed an opportunity in Railway Square to provide an interpretive centre which could have been linked to the new site at Woodstown.

I think the Granary would be better served as an interpretive centre.It cannot sustain itself financially as it is.In my opinion it should be subsidised by the council but not a seperate interpretive centre as well.There is precedent for this in Navan Fort and Trim castle.Both financial sink holes.There is a lot of Viking buffs out there who think the tourist pull of Viking Waterford can provide a foundation for the local economy without any financial appraisal or market research.I think if Waterford pursued this route it would really be soon obvious that the real value of it would only be to the academic and heritage community.

merlante

col o wrote:

I think the Granary would be better served as an interpretive centre.It cannot sustain itself financially as it is.In my opinion it should be subsidised by the council but not a seperate interpretive centre as well.There is precedent for this in Navan Fort and Trim castle.Both financial sink holes.There is a lot of Viking buffs out there who think the tourist pull of Viking Waterford can provide a foundation for the local economy without any financial appraisal or market research.I think if Waterford pursued this route it would really be soon obvious that the real value of it would only be to the academic and heritage community.

Museums are rarely profitable. In any case, some benefit should be derived from the finds in Woodstown. If they are indeed the earliest and most complete example of a viking town outside of Scandinavia then something should be made of it. Ireland is a rich country, therefore there is no excuse for not doing it. Also, it is possible that the Museum of Treasures plus a viking centre might provide the critical mass for museum tourism to really hit Waterford. One Museum, may not be worth a stop off. Two plus a tour of the city walls might be worthwhile. Waterford does not yet have critical mass as a historical centre for tourism. It is often the case in Business where businesses of a feather flock together so that they all do better collectively that they would on their own. e.g. the motor mile on the Cork Road. I think tourist attractions work like this too.

Museums are needed to educate Waterford people and kids as well about their local history. When I was a kid, there was only reginalds tower which was not that impressive, whereas you had whole celtic villages and so no in other counties. And that was back when Ireland was dirt poor.

Has anyone suggested using the viking centre as a foundation for the local economy? I would have thought that Waterford business was in a healthy enough state not to have to rely on tourism. When the economy is mostly based on tourism, you know you're finished as a city.

merlante

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!

lost_for_words

Freddie59 wrote:

Domestic housing fares no better. Anyone see the new houses opposite Orpens in Knockboy? Lovely bungalows already there......and someone gave permission for three-story FLAT ROOFED houses on top of the hill behind them.

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.

fricatus

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...

col o

merlante wrote:

Museums are rarely profitable. In any case, some benefit should be derived from the finds in Woodstown. If they are indeed the earliest and most complete example of a viking town outside of Scandinavia then something should be made of it. Ireland is a rich country, therefore there is no excuse for not doing it. Also, it is possible that the Museum of Treasures plus a viking centre might provide the critical mass for museum tourism to really hit Waterford. One Museum, may not be worth a stop off. Two plus a tour of the city walls might be worthwhile. Waterford does not yet have critical mass as a historical centre for tourism. It is often the case in Business where businesses of a feather flock together so that they all do better collectively that they would on their own. e.g. the motor mile on the Cork Road. I think tourist attractions work like this too.

Museums are needed to educate Waterford people and kids as well about their local history. When I was a kid, there was only reginalds tower which was not that impressive, whereas you had whole celtic villages and so no in other counties. And that was back when Ireland was dirt poor.

Has anyone suggested using the viking centre as a foundation for the local economy? I would have thought that Waterford business was in a healthy enough state not to have to rely on tourism. When the economy is mostly based on tourism, you know you're finished as a city.

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.

However I believe the reality of the situation is that they are completely wrong.Now I love hisory and heritage and I would say with confidence that I have a much greater interest and knowledge than the average person.I also believe that we should preserve and protect it all and that we are lucky to have so much of our city walls intact.

There is a huge but though.As much as I would like to boast about the city walls,I have to acknowledge the fact that they are not the Great Wall of China.The average tourist would not be that impressed with them.I have to look beyond local pride here.There main purpose like you said would be educational and of academic interest.I don't believe we have the money to do this.This kind of money would have to come from central government like the money for the refurbishment of the City Walls.We only got this because Martin Cullen was at the cabinet table.This needs to be remembered.

All the hype about woodstown is a perfect example.All the media reports suggested a Viking Pompeii and although the site is important your average "Da Vinci Code" type tourist would only see holes in the ground and old utensils.

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

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