Menu
Ireland's political and cultural magazine
Temple Bar whose architectural framework plan
was spearheaded by Group Architects, of which
Keogh was a key member, which won the triennial
town planning and development prize from the
Union Internationale des Architects in . And
at the moment McCullough Mulvin, De Blacam
and Meagher, Grafton Architects, Heneghan Peng
and Buchholz McEvoy, are internationally recog-
nised. When pushed he is hard pressed to name
areas outside Dublin - particularly smaller com-
munities, that have overall been architecturally
improved over the last sixty years. He points to
Westport which has had a town architect since the
‘s. He adverts too to the influence of particular
architects: Owen Lewis, formerly of UCD who has
been doing cutting edge research on sustainability
and who now heads Sustainable Energy Ireland;
Patrick and Maura Shaffrey who long championed
vernacular architecture; Ciaran Cuffe, junior min-
ister for planning and transport, is an architect. He
reckons Duncan Stewart was talking about climate
change in College forty years ago.
So, I note, that’s the best: what of the average?
He reckons of the half million houses built in our
generation less than ten per cent were designed
by a qualified architect. He admits this figure is
anecdotal but isn’t surprised there are no official
statistics on this since we don’t even know how
many houses, vacant houses, schools, hospitals or
how much leisure infrastructure, we’ve built. He
reiterates that the quality outside of cities is not
so good. Indeed he once did a report advocating
design standards for Mayo County Council which
was dismissed by the elected representatives who
did not want architects from Dublin telling them
what to do. There’s a battle for hearts and minds
to be fought. But he feels – somewhat optimisti-
cally - there may now be an impetus for improved
design in rural towns from county managers. And
that is important.
He answers many questions about archi-
tecture and architects, by citing the best. He
doesn’t focus on the worst or the average – and
that is the problem. But Keogh believes that in
years they’ll only really look back at the best
things as the worst will be demolished to meet
climate-change or other newly-stringent require-
ments as happened with s schools. Some
of Zoe Developments excesses will go. There are
rumours of problems with other NAMA-bound
buildings. It appears that he’s not too concerned
about the logistics or sustainability of such demo-
litions. Decisions like that should be dealt with by
a matrix and evidence-based approach.
He is a little edgy when I ask if architects and
their institute are reflecting the science of global
warming, whether like politicians they are ignor-
ing the science and going through the motions
with measures that may be a distinct improve-
ment but simply will not be enough to counter
what science is saying will happen. He improvises
something agreeable about our children bearing
the brunt of our failures but doesn’t really address
the question.
He believes the popular perception of archi-
tecture has changed radically. There were
consultations of architects in the recent Simon
Open door free public consult-an-architect
scheme which raised €, for charity. Many
people participated in the Open House days over
recent years where the public was invited inside
buildings of architectural significance.
He notes the popularity of architect Duncan
Stewart and his tv programmes.
As an architect he genuinely thinks you get less
of the ‘architects designed Ballymun or Hawkins
House’ type of abuse than you would have a dec-
ade ago.
Does he think the planning bill will radically
change planning and architecture? He is enthusi-
astic about the planning bill though understanda-
bly concerned about the ‘democratic process’ and
the possibility that the current government won’t
be returned in two years to implement it. He
thinks simplistic zoning is the problem. Under
pressure he agrees absolutely all zonings should
be linked to a local area plan but then adds “in
general”.
Having Green Minister Gormley and Cuffe
in office and the recently-launched government
policy on architecture gives us a good base, he
believes. I ask if there’s a need for radical action
and he makes it clear he would use a different
word. He admits there have for a long time been
many good policies but we’re not good at imple-
menting them. Anyway getting back to radical I
suggest what we’ve had hasn’t worked and that
we need radical action and measures with teeth.
Should the government take radical action to deal
with climate change, planning and architecture.
Finally he says yes. He agrees with me (speaking
in his personal capacity, which is all I have asked):
the planning bill should contain a requirement
that all developments represent “excellence in
design”. Yes Yes, there is a spatial planning crisis.
Now he’s even quoting Einstein – “the mindset
that got us in to this problem is not the appropri-
ate one to get us out”.
Very good but what did the RIAI do up against
the boomtown architectural and planning prof-
ligacy? Did it stand up against quality-free con-
struction incentives in Dublin City, coastal resorts
and the Upper Shannon region. Again he doesn’t
think it was really the place of the RIAI to do so
(though he says he did so himself). But perhaps,
it seems to me, the problems facing the envi-
ronment, particularly climate change, and the
extraordinary mistakes in planning and yes archi-
tecture in the past, demand a rethink. The RIAI
will address those problems only incrementally.
I am struck that everyone from Brian Cowen down
tries to avoid responsibility for the excesses of the
boom. The RIAI is no different.
I wonder what eco-architecture will look and
be like. Will it be led by architects or is there a
danger architects will be superseded by profes-
sionals whose expertise and focus is sustainabil-
ity? Keogh is comfortable that architects are
upskilling to deal with this advancing agenda.
He believes, or hopes, that NAMA, the ubiqui-
tous Smart Economy and sustainable planning
will help to provide employment opportunities
for the fifty per cent of architects currently scan-
dalously unemployed.
Keogh claims that the emphasis “will now
again be on real issues and the importance of
things that we really need – not golf resorts and
spas – but schools, healthcare, streets, parks and
neighbourhoods”. He is optimistic.
In his inaugural address in February Paul
Keogh quoted his contemporary, Gerry Cahill,
who wrote in that “it is refreshing to be
an architect in Dublin at the moment…the eco-
nomic boom that perpetrated the excesses of the
late modern movement is over, allowing us time
for thought and redefinition of direction”. For
the moment no architect sees anything remotely
refreshing about the economic situation but,
for the profession, in it is again time for
thought and redefinition.
“He is a little
edgy when I ask
if architects and
their institute
are reflecting the
science of global
warming”
