Architecture And Morality

at | 29 Replies

Fight!

Any excuse.

Sponsored Link

29 thoughts on “Architecture And Morality

  1. Duncan Wheeler

    Sure, who could fail to ignore the pure poison seeping from the stones of said structures. Symbols of control and abuse hidden and buried along with the poor souls who are the victims of two insidious belief systems.

    Reply
    1. K. Cavan

      You’re more at home with the brutalist, neo-fascism of modern architecture, then, Duncan? You’ve been thoroughly inculcated, clearly, blind to the inhuman control & abuse which form your own religious beliefs, which can brook no deviation from their irrational dogmas, all reflected in the dark satanic mills (with colourful corporate logos out front), destroyers of the soul with their propaganda & lies, their utter artificiality, their plastic disposability, the dreams of Nazism, finally unbound, convinced of the newly-minted, interchangeable New Wisdoms contained in the chanting & chattering of the empowered bourgeoisie, the slogans of the billionaires’ astroturfed NGOs, unaware of how easily manipulated you are, like rats in a lab, indeed, rats in a lab, how apposite.
      There are none so blind…

      Reply
  2. anolderman

    Interesting trend abroad in fake architecture. Think of foam that has the forward facing side dipped in a hard coating. Its light you stick it up and paint over it. Very low cost. Can pass for the real thing. Can go inside or outside. Greek Roman etc. Think of plaster works. It’s the dipping & making a hard exterior surface that’s the trick. Have some & well happy with it.

    Reply
  3. Dr.Fart

    honestly, one of the big plusses to the Brits invading was they gave us our only good architecture. Anything we built afterwards, right up til now, is bland and done as cheaply as possible. Constantly undone by our own miserly and greedy nature. For references see ‘bungalow bliss’ and ‘literally any hotel or office built in Ireland in the last 20 years’

    Reply
    1. SOQ

      It’s nothing to do with Brits because it’s happening world wide- and the reason is cost. Property developers are not interested in landmark designs, only landmark profits- and the same goes for the clients.

      Back in the day, the people who commissioned such buildings- including Catholic Churches- were never constrained in such a manner.

      Reply
      1. K. Cavan

        Good point, SOQ, the commodification of our Built Environment, no longer intended to raise the spirits or impress you with wonder or even provide a nice environment to live in, it’s all about corporate profits. Art, Politics, Music, Media, Architecture, the Corporate World owns it all, bought it all with debt created out of thin air, their own money-printing press, now they want to grow their profits in our actual bodies, to actually own us.
        Eventually, their plan is that no human being will have ownership over anything in the real world, it will all be the property of non-corporeal entities which have no physical reality. You will own nothing…
        Now that’s spooky.

        Reply
    2. scottser

      you simply can’t get those materials anymore. african mahogany? finnish birch? irish oak?
      there was a lad on rte yesterday lunchtime talking about fastnet lighthouse and they used cornish granite to build it because it’s flawless and can cope with extreme weather. good luck trying to get that today.

      Reply
      1. K. Cavan

        You can’t get it because you can’t afford it, scottser. Mahogany still grows in Africa, Birch in Finland, Oak in Ireland. The rich are richer than rich people have ever been, at any time in history, they can pay more than you, because, relative to their wealth, people have never been poorer.

        Reply
    3. Kali

      Could be that without dealing with hundreds of years of occupation, we might have built something like this ourselves

      Reply
      1. K. Cavan

        I doubt it Kali, the Irish were notable for their failure to build towns, even when the ancient population was rather large. The Norwegian vikings built the first towns in Ireland, we were cattle-driving nomads, when there were cities all across Europe.

        Reply
      2. jonjoker

        Yes Kali, I’m sure our native betters would have eventually followed European trends if they had not been dispossessed. Look at the hundreds of the castles/tower houses they built around the country after the Normans provided the model.
        But we will never know what could have been, thanks to our nearest neighbours decapitating society.

        Reply
      3. Fergalito

        Indeed it could – look at our ancient burial chambers, monastic settlements and draw a line from there. Like the ol “Elegy in a Country Churchyard” who knows what we might have dreamed up, what we might have built upon if it wasn’t for the unenlightened brutal savage invading our shores.

        Truthfully, nowadays, yer commoner gardener building design is bland. Same with jammers – they’d a whole lot more design soul until the 90s now they all look the same. Yawn.

        Reply
  4. paul

    there are the odd nice bits of modern architecture. I’m quite fond of the structure (VHI HQ) surrounding the Presbyterian Church on Abbey street in Dublin. I don’t pass it often enough. But yeah, modern architecture in Ireland is more blemish than blandishment.

    Reply
    1. K. Cavan

      Truth be told, paul, that’s the church, not the huge window surrounding it. I hate it, personally.

      Reply
  5. Barry

    The National library was built using plundered resources in the 19th century. There was no government spending on things like healthcare or education then and labour was cheap due to the lack of workers rights of any kind. They don’t makes buildings like that in Britain any more and the catholic church doesn’t build them either.
    I’m guessing a contributor to the Burkean would prefer nice cornices to workers rights and public services.

    I suppose he hasn’t noticed the Samuel Beckett Bridge. To be fair it is easy to miss.

    Reply
    1. SOQ

      The Samuel Beckett Bridge only allows one lane of traffic and the number of vehicles crossing it is very limited so no- it is not an example of good design.

      Reply
    2. K. Cavan

      I wonder at the mind that sees art & beauty in conflict with worker’s rights. What nonsense, Barry, the Artisan was revered & well paid, the assembler of giant Lego pieces earns peanuts, far, far less in equivalent terms.

      Reply
      1. barry

        You’re delusional if you think paying workers at today’s rates to do that kind of work would be affordable. The 19th century was not know for its high standard of living conditions or workers rights. Architects were well paid, the people who climbed ladder weren’t.

        Reply
    1. Paulus

      Hah; until someone upset the apple tart.

      At chez Paulus I’ll have you all know
      We’ve a grand PVC portico.
      And out at the gate
      Two eagles create
      A tastefully classic tableau.

      Reply
  6. barry

    Incorrect. There are two regualr traffic lanes, two bus lanes, and two bike lanes in addition to the footpaths.
    When the bridge opened congestion reduced by 20%

    You’re also incorrect in assuming the sole purpose of the bridge is for “vehicles” to cross the river.
    In a 2019 traffic survey 3,427 pedestrians and 1,302 cyclists crossed the bridge during the peak morning hour.

    Reply
    1. K. Cavan

      Why does Barry’s post put me in mind of Up With The Partridge, on Norwich local radio?
      Indeed, a car park would reduce the congestion around the outskirts of Paradise.

      Reply
      1. barry

        It was a response to SOQ’s post but ended up in the wrong place by mistake. He said:

        “The Samuel Beckett Bridge only allows one lane of traffic and the number of vehicles crossing it is very limited so no- it is not an example of good design.”

        Reply
  7. Kali

    You might be right but 800 years is a long time to pull up your boot straps. Although if the best we could come out with to mark the millennium was a feckin spike, and our most famous architect is Dermot Bannon we might have to declare that architecture is not our forte

    Reply
    1. barry

      Our most famous architects are Yvonne Farrell and Shelley McNamara of Grafton Architects who recently won the Stirling Prize. They also won the Pritzker Architecture Prize in 2020 and curated the Venice Biennalle of Architecture in 2018

      Dermot Bannon is famous for a tv show.

      Reply
  8. Oro

    Monsieur Brennan contradicts himself within his short tweet and shows off his lack of understanding from the get-go. The reason there are no modern ‘ornate’ public spaces (does he mean buildings or exteriors? (Or both?)) is because modernism in architecture generally rejected the concept of buildings being ornate.

    Side note this whole thread is a little bit too obviously generated from a reddit red pill synopsis of the handmaids tale or whatever it’s called.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Sponsored Link