UCD Architecture versus Trinity's
Seamus Sweeney
One of the most tired arguments used by Trinity Students in a
puerile attempt to prove the alleged superiority of their particular
educational institution is an architectural one. The neo-classical
theme park that is Trinners is constantly held up as exponentially
more beautiful than Stillorgan Tech, the Prefab, Belfield Airport or
whatever other highly original tag they've thought of lately. I have
nothing but the highest scorn and derision for the kind of person who
spends their free time on the whole Trinity vs. UCD deal, but this is
an issue which to be dealt with.
It's even a commonplace among UCD Students that our
architecture is modern and hence ugly while theirs is old and hence
beautiful. This of course is symptomatic of a very deep-seated
tendency. The entire modern movements in Architecture and indeed Art
are all too frequently dismissed out of hand.
Of course no one can deny that modern Architecture has
produced some phenomenally ugly buildings. And unfortunately parts of
Belfield Campus are not especially pulchritudinous. For example, the
Science Building might be quite prepossessing if it wasn't for that
slightly nauseous shade of green tile that covers the whole thing. The
Arts Block is a mess, a user-unfriendly warren on the inside and a
sort of post-modern Gormenghast from the outside.
However other modern buildings in Belfield are far more
aesthetically pleasing. The Ag block, for example, is a pleasant and
airy haven. The Engineering Building is sleek and streamlined, with a
very restrained, high-tech, rather Teutonic cool. The new computer
building has a similar atmosphere, perhaps illustrating that modern
architecture is most suited to more technologically orientated
locations. The Church, the O'Reilly Hall and the Microbiology Centre
are other architectural highlights of Belfield Campus.
What has to be remembered is that Architecture, like all other
facets of culture, is inescapably a portrait of its times. Belfield
campus is a product of the era of Sean Lemass, free second-level
education and the other social changes of the late 60s/early 70s. The
Architecture of Belfield, like that of many hideous schools dotted
around the country from that time, reflects the Brave New World
atmosphere of the time. Belfield Campus is perhaps a better memorial
to that age of rampant Social Engineering than say the Ballymun High
Rises, another building very much of its time. At least Belfield
reflects an engagement with the modern world, sometimes successful,
sometimes less so.
And of course there is life outside Belfield in UCD. The Vet
College is a mix of old and new, the old unfortunately too old for use
as a Veterinary Teaching Institution it increasingly seems. My old
stomping ground Earlsfort Terrace of course is a good aul'
neo-classical monolith, as wannabe-monumental as they come.
And don't forget that the alleged architectural beauty of Trinity
reflects a time when there wasn't much hope of getting into the place
if you weren't male and non-Catholic. Neo-classical architecture's
tendency towards vastness and monumentality, and its implicit
association with Ancient Greece and Rome and therefore some kind of
tradition, has always attracted megalomaniacs and tyrants. Mussolini's
lasting memorial is the quite hilarious "Wedding Cake" in Rome, a
white elephant in every sense. The Nazis condemned most modern art as
"degenerate" and promoted stiff, artificial neo-classicism. The
Russian Revolution abandoned modernism and turned to stodgy Socialist
Realism around the same time it was devoting its energies less and
less towards implementing Karl Marx's ideas and more and more towards
murdering lots of people. Don't forget that the Roman Empire, the
inspiration for much of this, was a genocidal, militaristic
predecessor of the twentieth century's authoritarian empires, based on
slavery and the unquestioned power of the state.
So there's nothing inherently wrong with buildings that dare
to include concrete and steel. Equally, the mere fact that a building
looks like a knock-off from the Roman Empire doesn't necessarily make
it beautiful. Remember that the next time someone from a University
that doesn't even have a Faculty of Agricultural Science (and, I ask
you, what kind of University is that?) tries to give you an
inferiority complex over the alleged beauty of their College.
orm...@my-dejanews.com
me...@yahoo.com (Seamus Sweeney) wrote:
> DANCING ABOUT ARCHITECTURE
Before we start, I'm a Trinity graduate, now exiled to Belfield.
> One of the most tired arguments used by Trinity Students in a
> puerile attempt to prove the alleged superiority of their particular
> educational institution is an architectural one.
Well if you've got nothing more profound to offer... :-)
>The neo-classical
> theme park that is Trinners is constantly held up as exponentially
> more beautiful than Stillorgan Tech, the Prefab, Belfield Airport or
> whatever other highly original tag they've thought of lately.
Once you get past the architecture, the actual differences are pretty
minimal. Each has an edge over the other in particular areas of study but on
balance, they're about the same. Any Trinity student who thinks Trinners sits
atop the Irish university system like some Oxford by the Liffey is deluding
themselves ( Hi Ozy!).
> It's even a commonplace among UCD Students that our
> architecture is modern and hence ugly while theirs is old and hence
> beautiful.
Unless it's old and ugly, like the Edwardian monstrosity that is the GMB in
Trinity (the outside is bad, the inside is truly appalling), or just old and
dull like the Chemistry and Zoology Buildings in Trinity.
> And unfortunately parts of
> Belfield Campus are not especially pulchritudinous. For example, the
> Science Building might be quite prepossessing if it wasn't for that
> slightly nauseous shade of green tile that covers the whole thing.
Science was meant to a temporary structure. Personally I find it drab rather
than actually offensive. UCD has drab modern science buildings; Trinity has
drab Victorian ones.
> The Arts Block is a mess, a user-unfriendly warren on the inside and a
> sort of post-modern Gormenghast from the outside.
Have you visited its counterpart in Trinity? The upper levels are as
claustrophobic as an Egyptian tomb.
> However other modern buildings in Belfield are far more
> aesthetically pleasing. The Ag block, for example, is a pleasant and
> airy haven. The Engineering Building is sleek and streamlined, with a
> very restrained, high-tech, rather Teutonic cool.
It's so cool Trinity copied it to build the O'Reilly Institute, the Hamilton
Building, the Biotech Institute, the new Genetics Dept... Any bets on what
Trinners' new Computer Science building will look like?
> The new computer
> building has a similar atmosphere, perhaps illustrating that modern
> architecture is most suited to more technologically orientated
> locations.
Trinity and UCD are equally oriented towards technology. In UCD you're more
likely to work in a building designed for that purpose. Ironically, when I
moved out to Belfield I went from a drab 60's science building to a
neoclassical mansion ( yes, UCD has them too). The plasterwork on the
ceilings is lovely but the building is totally unsuitable for science. Give
me the 60's cornflake box any day. ( Actually we're getting an early-21st
cornflake box soon).
> At least Belfield
> reflects an engagement with the modern world.
As do Trinity's Berkeley Library and most of the Science end.
> My old
> stomping ground Earlsfort Terrace of course is a good aul'
> neo-classical monolith, as wannabe-monumental as they come.
A sign of the then-new NUI asserting itself. It's a pity the Terrace was
never finished ( it would have had another wing but the First World War put
paid to that). It's even more of a pity that UCD abandoned the old College of
Science on Merrion St. I suppose it wasn't really up to modern scientific
needs but surely Arts could have fitted in quite nicely.
> And don't forget that the alleged architectural beauty of Trinity
> reflects a time when there wasn't much hope of getting into the place
> if you weren't male and non-Catholic. Neo-classical architecture's
> tendency towards vastness and monumentality, and its implicit
> association with Ancient Greece and Rome and therefore some kind of
> tradition, has always attracted megalomaniacs and tyrants.
That doesn't change the fact that it's beautiful. The US Capitol is also
neoclassical, despite not being built by a fascist tyrant.
But as I think back to the people I knew in Trinity, you have may have a
point about attracting megalomaniacs...
> Mussolini's
> lasting memorial is the quite hilarious "Wedding Cake" in Rome, a
> white elephant in every sense. The Nazis condemned most modern art as
> "degenerate" and promoted stiff, artificial neo-classicism.
Yes, but Trinity's neoclassical architecture was built in the 18th century
when neoclassicism was a vibrant movement, not by people trying to stem the
filthy modern tide.
> Don't forget that the Roman Empire, the
> inspiration for much of this, was a genocidal, militaristic
> predecessor of the twentieth century's authoritarian empires, based on
> slavery and the unquestioned power of the state.
Yes but the buildings are splendid. Having good taste does not necessarily
make you a good person and the opposite also holds. Mussolini's buildings are
bad because they're aesthetically bad, not because they were built by a
fascist thug. Political correctness has no place in judging architecture.
> So there's nothing inherently wrong with buildings that dare
> to include concrete and steel. Equally, the mere fact that a building
> looks like a knock-off from the Roman Empire doesn't necessarily make
> it beautiful. Remember that the next time someone from a University
> that doesn't even have a Faculty of Agricultural Science (and, I ask
> you, what kind of University is that?) tries to give you an
> inferiority complex over the alleged beauty of their College.
Trinity's Ag faculty was merged with UCD's in the 60's. And where is it
written that a university has to have one?
Trinity's Front Square is beautiful but much of the Science end is drab and
some buildings should be handed over to the Army for target practice. Both
campuses have their good and bad points. I find Trinity cosy and intimate; I
know UCD graduates who find it claustrophobic.
At the end of the day, Trinity is nice but architecturally and academically,
it's in the same league as UCD, not Oxbridge. There are people who choose to
go to Trinity because they see some nice but hardly extraordinary
neoclassical architecture out front and think they're getting an Irish
equivalent of Oxford. They're not (I know; I was there). They'd be better off
thinking about their future careers, not where they'll be spending a a very
brief period of their lives studying. I was very happy in Trinity but like
UCD it has its fair share of mediocre and worse than mediocre departments.
Tom Walsh
Tom
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Bicycle Repair Man
orm...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <7ari4m$s0s$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <36cf4ce9...@news1.tinet.ie>,
> me...@yahoo.com (Seamus Sweeney) wrote:
>> DANCING ABOUT ARCHITECTURE
>
> Before we start, I'm a Trinity graduate, now exiled to Belfield.
That has to be the worst opening line of any post ever.
Fr. Des
"Bicycle Repair Man" <phi...@TROUSERShotmail.com> wrote:
>
> orm...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <7ari4m$s0s$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > me...@yahoo.com (Seamus Sweeney) wrote:
> >> DANCING ABOUT ARCHITECTURE
> >
> > Before we start, I'm a Trinity graduate, now exiled to Belfield.
>
>
>
It was a dark and stormy night on the architecturally grim wastelands of
Belfield, where I, a Trinity graduate, was exiled. The port in the college
bar was execrable and not a cricket pitch in sight. The only protestants on
the premises were in disguise (as Hindus and Sikhs) and I just called a man
from Carlow a cad and he hit me. The bounder had the temerity to mock my
accent and I castigated him roundly but I did not reckon on a pugilistic
response. These rural types have such rough edges. Beam me up Jeremy.
Fr. Des
!
westprog
...
> > However other modern buildings in Belfield are far more
The least important architectural difference between Trinity and UCD is the
quality of the buildings. The most important differences are the scale and
proportions of the two campuses. Trinity is built on a human scale, and you
can walk from end to end in fifteen minutes.
....
> > At least Belfield reflects an engagement with the modern world.
A head-on collision more like. If you wanted to lay out a plan to integrate a
University with a small city, with a blank sheet, would you set out a plan of
UCD or Trinity?
...
> > And don't forget that the alleged architectural beauty of Trinity
> > reflects a time when there wasn't much hope of getting into the place
> > if you weren't male and non-Catholic. Neo-classical architecture's
> > tendency towards vastness and monumentality, and its implicit
> > association with Ancient Greece and Rome and therefore some kind of
> > tradition, has always attracted megalomaniacs and tyrants.
>
> That doesn't change the fact that it's beautiful. The US Capitol is also
> neoclassical, despite not being built by a fascist tyrant.
The obvious fact about Trinity is that it isn't the least bit vast and
monumental. It was built to be as pleasing as possible to the small minority
who were allowed entrance. As more and more people were allowed in, more and
more people got the benefit of something that was previously the privilege of
the few.
> But as I think back to the people I knew in Trinity, you have may have a
> point about attracting megalomaniacs...
...
> Yes, but Trinity's neoclassical architecture was built in the 18th century
> when neoclassicism was a vibrant movement, not by people trying to stem the
> filthy modern tide.
>
> > Don't forget that the Roman Empire, the
> > inspiration for much of this, was a genocidal, militaristic
> > predecessor of the twentieth century's authoritarian empires, based on
> > slavery and the unquestioned power of the state.
>
> Yes but the buildings are splendid. Having good taste does not necessarily
> make you a good person and the opposite also holds. Mussolini's buildings are
> bad because they're aesthetically bad, not because they were built by a
> fascist thug. Political correctness has no place in judging architecture.
>
> > So there's nothing inherently wrong with buildings that dare
> > to include concrete and steel. Equally, the mere fact that a building
> > looks like a knock-off from the Roman Empire doesn't necessarily make
> > it beautiful. Remember that the next time someone from a University
> > that doesn't even have a Faculty of Agricultural Science (and, I ask
> > you, what kind of University is that?) tries to give you an
> > inferiority complex over the alleged beauty of their College.
>
> Trinity's Ag faculty was merged with UCD's in the 60's. And where is it
> written that a university has to have one?
I am only aware of three sciences myself (and I only admit Chemistry and
Biology grudgingly). There is a good case for having vocational studies at
third level - there is also a case for keeping Universities as places of pure
research.
> Trinity's Front Square is beautiful but much of the Science end is drab and
> some buildings should be handed over to the Army for target practice. Both
> campuses have their good and bad points. I find Trinity cosy and intimate; I
> know UCD graduates who find it claustrophobic.
I find this very strange (though I of course accept it). Five minutes walk
from Trinity and you have cathedrals, shops, resteraunts, pubs, clubs, parks,
museums, etc etc. Fifteen minutes walk from UCD and you have?
> At the end of the day, Trinity is nice but architecturally and academically,
> it's in the same league as UCD, not Oxbridge. There are people who choose to
> go to Trinity because they see some nice but hardly extraordinary
> neoclassical architecture out front and think they're getting an Irish
> equivalent of Oxford. They're not (I know; I was there). They'd be better off
> thinking about their future careers, not where they'll be spending a a very
> brief period of their lives studying. I was very happy in Trinity but like
> UCD it has its fair share of mediocre and worse than mediocre departments.
Forget the buildings. Forget the academic quality. It's location, location and
location. I would tell anyone to go to Trinity if the course were as good as
UCD, purely on the basis of being in the heart of Dublin.
J.
orm...@my-dejanews.com
"Bicycle Repair Man" <phi...@TROUSERShotmail.com> wrote:
> > Before we start, I'm a Trinity graduate, now exiled to Belfield.
>
> That has to be the worst opening line of any post ever.
Jesus, do you plebs have to be fucked in the ass by irony before you can
recognise it? I'm in UCD by my own choice.
I was merely indicating that I have experience of both places and that my
comments weren't based on hearsay and stereotypes.
orm...@my-dejanews.com
westprog wrote:
> A head-on collision more like. If you wanted to lay out a plan to integrate a
> University with a small city, with a blank sheet, would you set out a plan of
> UCD or Trinity?
UCD is built at the edge of a city and has plenty of room for expansion.
Trinity is severely restricted by its location.
> I find this very strange (though I of course accept it). Five minutes walk
> from Trinity and you have cathedrals, shops, resteraunts, pubs, clubs, parks,
> museums, etc etc. Fifteen minutes walk from UCD and you have?
Another fifteen minutes walk to establish a base camp for further
exploration. After another three years or so, when you can just make out
Donnybrook on the horizon, it's time to graduate and learn to say 'Have here
or takeaway' with something approaching enthusiasm.
Gearóid Mac Cuinneagáin
>Forget the buildings. Forget the academic quality. It's location, location and
>location. I would tell anyone to go to Trinity if the course were as good as
>UCD, purely on the basis of being in the heart of Dublin.
The best in Dublin IMO is the new work at Bolton St...
Rayull Dublin, on de nortside.
--
An Cuinneagánach
abardubh at wwa dot com
Read the Damn FAQ at http://www.muc.de/~cpm/irish-faq
Urmhumhan
>westprog wrote:
>
>>Forget the buildings. Forget the academic quality. It's location, location and
>>location. I would tell anyone to go to Trinity if the course were as good as
>>UCD, purely on the basis of being in the heart of Dublin.
Belfield is a bit isolated alright. It's surrounded by nothing but housing
estates as far as the eye can see.
>The best in Dublin IMO is the new work at Bolton St...
Anywhere in the centre of the city is better than being out in Stillorgan
or Glasnevin, all else being equal.
Tom
Sweeney7
UCD people do seem to be much more friendly and down to earth ... maybe I've
just been unlucky.
Also things like Ag Science and the fact that more boyos from the whole
country go to UCD make for better crack, a mon avis.
I bet I've offended someone!
Urmhumhan wrote in message <7as6lk$3...@web3.tcd.ie>...
>Ger@r.d wrote:
>>westprog wrote:
>>
>>>Forget the buildings. Forget the academic quality. It's location,
location and
>>>location. I would tell anyone to go to Trinity if the course were as good
as
>>>UCD, purely on the basis of being in the heart of Dublin.
>
Gearóid Mac Cuinneagáin
>Also things like Ag Science and the fact that more boyos from the whole
>country go to UCD make for better crack, a mon avis.
IME TCD was full of culchies. Got numbers on this, or just stirring?
westprog
Ger@r.d wrote:
> Sweeney7 wrote:
>
> >Also things like Ag Science and the fact that more boyos from the whole
> >country go to UCD make for better crack, a mon avis.
>
> IME TCD was full of culchies. Got numbers on this, or just stirring?
IME it was full of culchies, Dubs, prods, Brits, taigs, Yanks, Africans, etc.
Cosmopolitan was the word. UCD tended to be more uniform, AFAIK. Meeting
people from different backgrounds was a major plus for Trinity.
westprog
Ger@r.d wrote:
> westprog wrote:
>
> >Forget the buildings. Forget the academic quality. It's location, location
and
> >location. I would tell anyone to go to Trinity if the course were as good as
> >UCD, purely on the basis of being in the heart of Dublin.
>
>
Dublin holds no finer vista than a horde of drunken Bolton St. students
spilling out of the King's Inn at exam time (and frequently spilling their
stomach contents as well).
orm...@my-dejanews.com
"Sweeney7" <me...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Sorry to generalise and sound like some kind of UCD bigot, but on the whole
> UCD people do seem to be much more friendly and down to earth ... maybe I've
> just been unlucky.
It has to be said that Trinity attracts a higher proportion of pretentious
arseholes. I reckon the architecture of Belfield was a cunning plan to
discourage this element. Of course you're always going to attract undesirables
when you teach subjects like Commerce and Law.
> Also things like Ag Science and the fact that more boyos from the whole
> country go to UCD make for better crack, a mon avis.
So that's why there are all those wide open spaces.
Urmhumhan
>
>IME it was full of culchies, Dubs, prods, Brits, taigs, Yanks, Africans, etc.
The School of Pharmacy seemed to be populated entirely by country people.
>Cosmopolitan was the word. UCD tended to be more uniform, AFAIK. Meeting
>people from different backgrounds was a major plus for Trinity.
From what I've seen of both, there's sod-all difference in the makeup. Of
course you get a better class of culchie in Trinners.
Tom
>J.
Sweeney7
No shortage of any of the groups you talk about.
All this is just stirring really anyway - its not the sort of thing you can
subjectively prove/disprove.
westprog wrote in message <7atv7e$vlm$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>>IME it was full of culchies, Dubs, prods, Brits, taigs, Yanks, Africans,
etc.
>Cosmopolitan was the word. UCD tended to be more uniform, AFAIK. Meeting
>people from different backgrounds was a major plus for Trinity.
>
westprog
"Sweeney7" <me...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Believe me, UCD is equally cosmopolitan.
>
> No shortage of any of the groups you talk about.
>
> All this is just stirring really anyway - its not the sort of thing you can
> subjectively prove/disprove.
> westprog wrote in message <7atv7e$vlm$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >>IME it was full of culchies, Dubs, prods, Brits, taigs, Yanks, Africans,
> etc.
> >Cosmopolitan was the word. UCD tended to be more uniform, AFAIK.
But it appears I was wrong.
>> Meeting people from different backgrounds was a major plus for Trinity.
And also for UCD.
> >J.
> >
> >-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> >http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
>