Architecture -v- Heritage @ King John's Castle

Karmafaerie

zing zong wrote: »

agreed, though a café noir wouldn't be bad, a BBs or *shudder* star bucks would be awful.

chances are it'll be none of 'em, just an over priced underused café that will close down and be an awful sight in an otherwise great park.

as for the look of it, I bet it'll get the same stupid treatment King Johns Castle got :mad:

If you're talking about the glass structure, I am so fed up of people hating that without knowing what it is, and why it had to be constructed rather than rebuilding a wall.

No it's not perfect, but it was against the law for them to rebuild the original, and it would have been a travesty if they had!

Raiser

zing zong wrote: »

agreed, though a café noir wouldn't be bad, a BBs or *shudder* star bucks would be awful.

chances are it'll be none of 'em, just an over priced underused café that will close down and be an awful sight in an otherwise great park.

as for the look of it, I bet it'll get the same stupid treatment King Johns Castle got :mad:

Murray Ó Laoire Architects designed this particular eyesore.

- Personally I think they deserved commendation for employing the blind and talentless - until they went out of business earlier this year......

Karmafaerie

Raiser wrote: »

Murray Ó Laoire Architects designed this particular eyesore.

- Personally I think they deserved commendation for employing the blind and talentless - until they went out of business earlier this year......

And do you know the reason why they had to design that eyesore?

Raiser

Karmafaerie wrote: »

And do you know the reason why they had to design that eyesore?

Malice?

Bribe from Aughinish Alumina?

Senility?

zing zong

Karmafaerie wrote: »

No it's not perfect, but it was against the law for them to rebuild the original

you're right it's not perfect, its awful.

I don't care about rebuilding the original wall, but they could have made it look more in keeping with the castle at the very least! it looks like a greenhouse-shed thing. even putting up some stone to cover it up would be brilliant and more attractive to tourists.

Amazotheamazing

Raiser wrote: »

Malice?

Bribe from Aughinish Alumina?

Senility?

Oddly enough, none of the above.

the centre is built in a manner that it doesn't impact on the viking settlement found under the walls of the castle. I'm sure an engineer could explain further but basically the weight of it isn't distributed immediately below it, it has different sort of foundations.

It's become something of a whinge for the usual moaners who like to cry about things without ever wondering what's the reason for the designs.

Amazotheamazing

zing zong wrote: »

you're right it's not perfect, its awful.

I don't care about rebuilding the original wall, but they could have made it look more in keeping with the castle at the very least! it looks like a greenhouse-shed thing. even putting up some stone to cover it up would be brilliant and more attractive to tourists.

Yeah, would be great, and as soon as you find a way to build a 30 metre high stone wall about 5 metres thick without foundations which also allows us view the Viking settlement you can forward your design to Shannon development.

zing zong

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Oddly enough, none of the above.

the centre is built in a manner that it doesn't impact on the viking settlement found under the walls of the castle. I'm sure an engineer could explain further but basically the weight of it isn't distributed immediately below it, it has different sort of foundations.

It's become something of a whinge for the usual moaners who like to cry about things without ever wondering what's the reason for the designs.

what you're saying is true, BUT they still could have covered up the steel (or whatever) walls with stone, and the Viking settlement would still be grand, you can't argue with that

zing zong

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Yeah, would be great, and as soon as you find a way to build a 30 metre high stone wall about 5 metres thick without foundations which also allows us view the Viking settlement you can forward your design to Shannon development.

its all about the LOOK, it doesnt even have to be real stone 5 metres thick. "faux stone" even??

how bout wood? look good? yup, better than whats there now

Amazotheamazing

zing zong wrote: »

what you're saying is true, BUT they still could have covered up the steel (or whatever) walls with stone, and the Viking settlement would still be grand, you can't argue with that

I can, how would they build foundations for it without destroying the Viking settlement. As is, it probably couldn't even support any more that light polystyrene affect stone which would just be a pastiche.

Amazotheamazing

zing zong wrote: »

its all about the LOOK, it doesnt even have to be real stone 5 metres thick. "faux stone" even??

how bout wood? look good? yup, better than whats there now

Faux stone? Most of that looks absolutely crap and ages terribly. It would just be pastiche.

zing zong

pastiche beats shed in this instance

Karmafaerie

Raiser wrote: »

Malice?

Bribe from Aughinish Alumina?

Senility?

After demolishing the old buildings that used to be inside the castle, the houses and barracks and such, the plan was to reconstruct the wall.
There was even plans to use the period stones for authenticity.
The started digging out foundations, directly under the glass structure there at the moment, when they discovered two (IIRC) habitats dating from 800AD.
400 years older then the castle, in the ground undernet where the wall was.
The castle it seems was originally built on an older setlement.
These are the oldest settlements found (at least at the time) inside the city.
and being 1,200 years old they're also protected.
The original plans to rebuild the wall had to be scrapped, as it's not exactly safe to build a wall without proper foundations, and they couldn't lay proper foundations without digging up this remains.

So the building that's there now, was a bit of construction genius.
It has no foundations, and for the most part doesn't touch the ground bellow it.
It is an eyesore yes, but it's literally the only thing they could build.

The only other option they had was to destroy a structure that's half again as old as the castle.
And I'm not for destroying our history personally.

So yes the building is ugly, and I wish things were different, but there is a reason for it, and in reality they had no choice.

Karmafaerie

zing zong wrote: »

you're right it's not perfect, its awful.

I don't care about rebuilding the original wall, but they could have made it look more in keeping with the castle at the very least! it looks like a greenhouse-shed thing. even putting up some stone to cover it up would be brilliant and more attractive to tourists.

The building has no foundations, and no weight beraring on the ground beneat it.
They couldn't have put up a stone building.

zing zong

Karmafaerie wrote: »

The building has no foundations, and no weight beraring on the ground beneat it.
They couldn't have put up a stone building.

stone LOOK, not real stone. the structure is fine, but cover it up with some stone/wood, not BUILD it from stone, its not hard to do or conceive

Amazotheamazing

zing zong wrote: »

pastiche beats shed in this instance

No it doesn't.

Have you see how badly the wood cladding has aged out by UL?

Raiser

I'm no expert, but I'm guessing that Architecture has as one of its core principles a requirement to combine aesthetics with the implementation of function and practicality in designing Buildings.

Obviously the inherent risk is that if you don't succeed you may meet the functionality criteria and still lose out on all aesthetic consideration.

The Kings Johns Castle attempt is a massive Failure - I cannot imagine any way in which it could have been more poorly conceived and executed.

- Nobody, but nobody has a right to defend this calamity it by simply quoting Vikings, Igloos or Martian Spaceships...... There is simply no excuse.

Amazotheamazing

Raiser wrote: »

I'm no expert, but I'm guessing that Architecture has as one of its core principles a requirement to combine aesthetics with the implementation of function and practicality in designing Buildings.

Obviously the inherent risk is that if you don't succeed you may meet the functionality criteria and still lose out on all aesthetic consideration.

The Kings Johns Castle attempt is a massive Failure - I cannot imagine any way in which it could have been more poorly conceived and executed.

- Nobody, but nobody has a right to defend this calamity it by simply quoting Vikings, Igloos or Martian Spaceships...... There is simply no excuse.

Listen, you've already been given the reasons for it's design, you might prefer to take a JCB to the Viking settlement for something more pleasing to your eye, the designers luckily had more sense than you.

zing zong

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Listen, you've already been given the reasons for it's design, you might prefer to take a JCB to the Viking settlement for something more pleasing to your eye, the designers luckily had more sense than you.

you are completely ignoring whats being said, no one wants to knock it, just dress the stupid thing up to look better

Raiser

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Listen, you've already been given the reasons for it's design, you might prefer to take a JCB to the Viking settlement for something more pleasing to your eye, the designers luckily had more sense than you.

You're confusing the facts of the matter with your own strong personal opinion.

- You're entitled to your opinion, but it will never, ever be remotely correct in this particular instance.

Amazotheamazing

Raiser wrote: »

You're confusing the facts of the matter with your own strong personal opinion.

- You're entitled to your opinion, but it will never, ever be remotely correct in this particular instance.

What facts?

You find it ugly, that's an opinion, not a fact.

ugliness and attractiveness are subjective, not factual.

I gave you reasons that would help you form an educated opinion on the building, nothing more, nothing less.

talkingclock

I am still amazed by the fact that people can defend the biggest pile of shíte as long as it has a "Limerick" sign on it!

Amazotheamazing

talkingclock wrote: »

I am still amazed by the fact that people can defend the biggest pile of shíte as long as it has a "Limerick" sign on it!

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but at least people should try and understand the constraints the designers were under.

King's Island has a fascinating history, probably one of the most historic places in Munster, a side-affect of this that any building there runs the risk of running across Viking remains, medieval remains etc. The City council has neglected the area, as have groups like An Taisce, imo.

For example, few people realise that Star Rovers pitches are built ontop of the ruins of an old Star-shaped British fort, or that the Abbey River actually takes it's name from a long gone Christian Abbey (where the Gaelcolaiste now is, iirc).

Nicholas street used to the main street in Limerick city before the walls were knocked. It's depressing to see the state of it now.

Insect Overlord

New thread started to keep the one about the gallery at People's Park on topic.

Kess73

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Yeah, would be great, and as soon as you find a way to build a 30 metre high stone wall about 5 metres thick without foundations which also allows us view the Viking settlement you can forward your design to Shannon development.

Karmafaerie wrote: »

After demolishing the old buildings that used to be inside the castle, the houses and barracks and such, the plan was to reconstruct the wall.
There was even plans to use the period stones for authenticity.
The started digging out foundations, directly under the glass structure there at the moment, when they discovered two (IIRC) habitats dating from 800AD.
400 years older then the castle, in the ground undernet where the wall was.
The castle it seems was originally built on an older setlement.
These are the oldest settlements found (at least at the time) inside the city.
and being 1,200 years old they're also protected.
The original plans to rebuild the wall had to be scrapped, as it's not exactly safe to build a wall without proper foundations, and they couldn't lay proper foundations without digging up this remains.

So the building that's there now, was a bit of construction genius.
It has no foundations, and for the most part doesn't touch the ground bellow it.
It is an eyesore yes, but it's literally the only thing they could build.

The only other option they had was to destroy a structure that's half again as old as the castle.
And I'm not for destroying our history personally.

So yes the building is ugly, and I wish things were different, but there is a reason for it, and in reality they had no choice.

Thanks for that. I never knew that was the reason the glass front was there. Did not even know about the Viking settlement still being visible. As for the look of the glass bit, I have to say that I am quite indifferent to it, and it does not bother me either way.

The last time I was in John's Castle was when I was a kid, and that was long before the new bit was built.

How much of the viking settlement can be seen nowadays and is it well preserved? I really must take a trip out to it and have a look.

talkingclock

Kess73 wrote: »

How much of the viking settlement can be seen nowadays and is it well preserved? I really must take a trip out to it and have a look.

I've been in there 2 or 3 years ago (and wastet my money btw - those "exhibitions" with those life-sized dolls in the towers was shabby!). It's some foundations under the new building. Do not expect anything village like. A bit of dug out walls.

bigpink

It should be a free visitor attraction a total waste of money

kilburn

my god some of you people amaze me with you comments, amazon is right about the building constraints and raiser is right about its appearance. As to the comments about the castle being a waste of time and money, ridiculous, its a piece of history what do you want them to do to enhance it a castle is a castle?
If you find a village under a castle, you think it should be rebuilt?

zuroph

Damn vikings coming along and ruining our future castle. bast@rds

talkingclock

kilbourn, it is not about rebuilding a village found under a castle. it's about the way the castle alltogether is presented. i have seen afew castles big and small in europe transformed into museums. only a few of them look as tacky and lazyly executed as the Limerick Castle.

munstergirl

I too think they ruined the castle, didn't know the reasons behind it. (foundations).

Drove past it tonight + must say the glass part is filthy, have they ever heard of a window cleaner, if its going to be modern it should be shiny + new.

Amazotheamazing

talkingclock wrote: »

kilbourn, it is not about rebuilding a village found under a castle. it's about the way the castle alltogether is presented. i have seen afew castles big and small in europe transformed into museums. only a few of them look as tacky and lazyly executed as the Limerick Castle.

Are you actually from Limerick city? I've never heard anyone from the city call in Limerick Castle but howandever, it could probably do with an upgrade alright, it was put together in simpler times.

talkingclock

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

it could probably do with an upgrade alright

judging from all your posts in this very forum I'd expect something along "That fine building is the most beautiful all over the world! Nothing compares to Limerick's KING JOHN'S CASTLE! I am proud to be rable rable rable..."

padma

Personally i think its the final example of a Norman castle we have in Ireland, nestled along the mighty Shannon where the swans play in their droves and the drowsy water rats scupper along the nettles.

Amazotheamazing

talkingclock wrote: »

judging from all your posts in this very forum I'd expect something along "That fine building is the most beautiful all over the world! Nothing compares to Limerick's KING JOHN'S CASTLE! I am proud to be rable rable rable..."

As usual you fail understand my point of view. I've no issue with people having valid criticisms of Limerick, most of my time here is spent pointing out valid reasons for the current situation, be it the state of the city centre, the social housing estates, the castle etc. I don't think Limerick city dropped from the sky as is, I try and give people some background as to why things are they are and if possible, positive examples of how things are changing.

Out of curiosity, what city centre castles in Ireland do you think are better examples of fortified castles than King John's Castle? It's clearly a subject you know a considerable amount about.

talkingclock

as usual you fail completely to read/understand my postings. i said "i have seen afew castles big and small in europe transformed into museums" but i never mentioned any other "city centre castles in Ireland".

as usual pick and choose combined with twisting arguments to fit your limited views.

Raiser

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

As usual you fail understand my point of view.

There seems to be a constant theme on here where People frequently and consistently "fail to understand your point of view."

- I cannot even begin to imagine the sheer horror, dismay and frustration of your daily life where those in your midst insist on stubbornly holding on to their personal views and opinions which just so happen to be at variance with your own more correct and unassailable opinions.......

Amazotheamazing

Raiser wrote: »

There seems to be a constant theme on here where People frequently and consistently "fail to understand your point of view."

- I cannot even begin to imagine the sheer horror, dismay and frustration of your daily life where those in your midst insist on stubbornly holding on to their personal views and opinions which just so happen to be at variance with your own more correct and unassailable opinions.......

Yeah, the internet, it's a serious business...

Amazotheamazing

talkingclock wrote: »

as usual you fail completely to read/understand my postings. i said "i have seen afew castles big and small in europe transformed into museums" but i never mentioned any other "city centre castles in Ireland".

as usual pick and choose combined with twisting arguments to fit your limited views.

Fair enough, what other castles, of a similar era and design to King John's castle in Europe, would you recommend to people? Were these castles built on a Viking settlement? how did they deal with the situation where a viking building was found under the breach in one of the walls?

talkingclock

Fail again! my point is about the presentation of that castle as a "museum".
It's not about visiting a viking settlement under a castle in southern europe, visited on the 2nd tuesday after the first spring full moon on an uneven date. It's about the presentation of a fecking castle (be it in ruins or be it still intact) and it's history.

I give up. I wont waste my time with you any longer. Discussing with you is like talking to a wall...

Amazotheamazing

talkingclock wrote: »

Fail again! my point is about the presentation of that castle as a "museum".
It's not about visiting a viking settlement under a castle in southern europe, visited on the 2nd tuesday after the first spring full moon on an uneven date. It's about the presentation of a fecking castle (be it in ruins or be it still intact) and it's history.

I give up. I wont waste my time with you any longer. Discussing with you is like talking to a wall...

Fair enough, what presentations in any castles, anywhere, are better? The castle in Disneyland doesn't count.

zuroph

talkingclock wrote: »

I give up. I wont waste my time with you any longer. Discussing with you is like talking to a wall...

A glass wall,strategically supported at either end to allow the preservation of a viking settlement discovered just below the surface? :pac:

dave 27

sorry if this is off topic but in the intrest of architecture the castle should be lit up..

Amazotheamazing

zuroph wrote: »

A glass wall,strategically supported at either end to allow the preservation of a viking settlement discovered just below the surface? :pac:

Oh you see right through me...

zuroph

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Oh you see right through me...

ur such a pane.

sioda

The building at the castle is not a museum but an interpretive centre there is a huge difference. Isnt it better we have the building we have than what the council did in dublin and built their headquarters over the viking ruins at wood quay.

Raiser

I read a post on here on Boards about a year or 18 months ago where some Builder type Boards.ie Member working on a Site dug up a pile of nicely preserved Archaeological type materials from our Ancestors, gave it 30 seconds thought and revved up his JCB again cause he didn't need the hassle :eek:

Haven't a clue where to go looking now - Think it may have been one of the "Worst things you saw/did at work" type After Hours Threads.

- He got a bit of abuse allright but just laughed it off.

(P.S. It might have just been a píss-take [?] )