Thomas Street & James Street, Dublin!

Re: Thomas Street & James Street, Dublin!

Postby rumpelstiltskin » Mon Jul 06, 2009 4:16 pm

Perhaps he was referring to the essential "uneasiness" of the conglomerate, which has manifested itself in the past as owning both Burger King and Guinness at the same time. Perhaps he finds no evidence of a vast change in their nature sufficient to rid it of "uneasiness" and therefore ascribes the same quality to the current company as that version of it which existed pre-2002, implying a kind of innate "uneasiness" which manifests itself in different ways in different times!
rumpelstiltskin
Member
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:51 pm

Re: Thomas Street & James Street, Dublin!

Postby Rory W » Tue Jul 07, 2009 8:28 am

rumpelstiltskin wrote:Perhaps he was referring to the essential "uneasiness" of the conglomerate, which has manifested itself in the past as owning both Burger King and Guinness at the same time. Perhaps he finds no evidence of a vast change in their nature sufficient to rid it of "uneasiness" and therefore ascribes the same quality to the current company as that version of it which existed pre-2002, implying a kind of innate "uneasiness" which manifests itself in different ways in different times!


Perhaps he was, or pehaps he just plain didn't know.

Spoken like a true politcian sir!
Rory W
Old Master
 
Posts: 1331
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Drogheda & Blackrock

Re: Thomas Street & James Street, Dublin!

Postby gunter » Tue Jul 07, 2009 9:33 am

by Ciaran Cuffe:

[INDENT]''Dublin could do something different though; it could reinvent the city creating new workplaces and neighbourhoods that learn from the mistakes of Temple Bar and elsewhere. St. James’ Gate could give us a new model for living and working; hopefully greener and more child-friendly that some of the development that has occurred up and down the Quays in recent times.'' [/INDENT]

Leaving the exact composition of Diageo's portfolio aside for the moment, I think Cuffe's point is that Diageo are sitting on a massive land bank at James' Gate that is essentially a blank urban canvas (one or two interesting 20th century industrial buildings aside) and that this presents a huge (potential) opportunity to plan a whole future section of the city centre free from the forces of competing property interests and maybe free from the sterility of the docklands.

There no reason that a glorious site like this should ever end up with just more of the same, which is what is very likely to happen if the uniqueness of the opportunity isn't grasped.

In this regard does anyone know what happened to the seamingly similar Carlsberg Brewery site in Copenhagen? I think there was talk of an international architectural competition, maybe some interesting ideas emerged from that! . . . I know I should probably look it up, but somebody will know and save me the bother:)
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Thomas Street & James Street, Dublin!

Postby gunter » Tue Jul 07, 2009 9:59 am

And another thing,
. . . . for reasons which haven't been published, but I suspect are beyond my comprehension, An Bord Pleanála have apparently requested further information on the Frawley's application (PL 29S.231916) from both Dublin City Council and the applicants (Danninger Ltd.), with 14 August as the deadline for submission!

I can't get any other information on this other than that the letter from ABP is two pages long . . . which doesn't sound like it says . . . ''WHAT THE F#*K WERE YOU THINKING ABOUT??'' . . . . . unless it's just printed in a very large font!

GrahamH wrote:Have faith dear boy! ABP will see you right.


I don't know about you, but my faith is gone . . . . replaced by a feeling in my gut that we're looking at a car crash in slow motion here
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Thomas Street & James Street, Dublin!

Postby aj » Tue Jul 07, 2009 10:48 am

I don't know about you, but my faith is gone . . . . replaced by a feeling in my gut that we're looking at a car crash in slow motion here[/QUOTE]

Given the fact that Liam Caroll / Danninger is effectively bankrupt means there is no danger this will be built in my opinion.

Also given that building in prime locations are lying empty at the moment,a speculative medium sized office block in Thomas Street is hardly one that Banks would want to finance in the current environment!

The big risk is that the site is cleared in anticpation of something that is never built!
aj
Member
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Thomas Street & James Street, Dublin!

Postby GrahamH » Tue Jul 07, 2009 10:51 am

I'd agree that either way this development will not see the light of day for many years. Still, we should remain confident about the ABP case. There is precedent for ABP requesting significant modification of a major project at Additional Information stage (the recent Arnotts scheme springs to mind), rather than rejecting it outright. I'd imagine in this climate it is increasingly desirable to do that, rather than throw a case out. As such, it is possible the retention of the historic sections of streetscape (which after all only comprise a modest portion of this development) is being demanded, with a redesign/reintegration of the rear proposal. Straws and clutching and whatnot perhaps, but entirely possible.

Reading through the planning file there, I have never encountered a case with such an enormous professional and informed local input in submissions. Quite an extraordinary body of evidence stacked against this case, even if in a Jumble Tower formation which may collapse at any moment.
GrahamH
Old Master
 
Posts: 4592
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 11:24 am
Location: Ireland

Re: Thomas Street & James Street, Dublin!

Postby gunter » Tue Jul 07, 2009 11:55 am

It's pretty sad if we have to end up praying for the recession to last long enough to kill off all the bad planning decisions!

We cannot allow these building be demolished, that's the bottom line IMO, but delivering the right Planning decision here is also absolutely crucial.

The whole problem with planning in Dublin is that it has has repeatedly failed to recognise the value (in terms of heritage, streetscape and pure economics) of existing building stock.

Historic streets like Thomas Street are an absolute godsend. Heritage is the gift that keeps on giving and it belongs to all of us, not just the bloke who momentarilly has his name on some of the title deeds.

DCC gave permission for this development because, deep down, they don't believe this, they see Thomas Street as a crooked, low grade, transport artery that needs 'economic' regeneration, the kind of place, far removed from the sensitive 'Georgian' areas, that they can allow spec developers stick in all the generic office blocks that they can't (anymore) permit on the likes of Fitzwilliam St.

All that guff in the Development Plan, all the progressive talk at 'urban' conferences, all the spin around 'Architectural Conservation Areas' and 'Local Area Plans', it all comes down to this: Frawleys is a test case and DCC failed that test and now we're watching ABP failing it too . . . . in slow motion.
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Thomas Street & James Street, Dublin!

Postby GrahamH » Tue Jul 07, 2009 3:47 pm

Spot on, especially re the "transport artery that needs 'economic' regeneration.."

In the light of Clarence, such an interpretation may seem nieve, but I view this case quite simply as a benchmark as to whether or not we live in a civilised society. It is just inconcievable that the broadly sophisticated and informed ABP would even contemplate the permitting of the demolition of these houses. The very act of refusing this is as important to our value system as a society as is the physical retention of the houses to the streetscape of Thomas Street and the heritage of the city.

It is uncontemplatable that these houses will vanish. The implications of such a decision would be calamitous for the integrity of our planning system.
GrahamH
Old Master
 
Posts: 4592
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 11:24 am
Location: Ireland

Re: Thomas Street & James Street, Dublin!

Postby igy » Wed Jul 08, 2009 8:48 pm

To be honest, I also didn't realise they'd sold Burger King, but I suppose your point is that HE should have known better
igy
Member
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 1:09 pm
Location: Glas Naíon, BÁC 11

Re: Thomas Street & James Street, Dublin!

Postby GregF » Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:00 am

De Blacam and Meagher?

Morelike "To Blacken and Mar" this historic old part of the city.



Gas too, when you think of it, that just up the road, the buildings all around Christchurch have been built just within the last 30 years. One of the oldest parts of the city, Christchurch, was an island surrounded by distruction, ie High St, Wood Quay, Fishamble St. Cornmarket, Winetavern St, Christchurch Place.
User avatar
GregF
Old Master
 
Posts: 1610
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2000 1:00 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Thomas Street & James Street, Dublin!

Postby aj » Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:47 pm

GregF wrote:De Blacam and Meagher?

Morelike "To Blacken and Mar" this historic old part of the city.



Gas too, when you think of it, that just up the road, the buildings all around Christchurch have been built just within the last 30 years. One of the oldest parts of the city, Christchurch, was an island surrounded by distruction, ie High St, Wood Quay, Fishamble St. Cornmarket, Winetavern St, Christchurch Place.



at least we have learned to value our historic fabric since then:D
aj
Member
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Thomas Street & James Street, Dublin!

Postby Devin » Thu Jul 30, 2009 2:51 pm

gunter, if it's any comfort, the original Manor Park Homes plannng application for Crane Street / Thomas Street languished in An Bord Pleanala for over a year before receiving a no holds barred refusal (PL 29S.219930).

The letter sent by the Board to DCC and the applicant could be about .... anything. It could be about some leasehold technicality.

Or they might possibly be asking DCC for information on the status of the Conservation Area. This has come up before: On Thomas Street, the hatched map lines indicating the Conservation Area cover only the street itself, whereas in other locations, for example the Quays and Aungier Street, the hatched lines extend back over the buildings too. In cases like Thomas Street, developers naturally try to say that buildings fronting the street are not included in the Conservation Area, and so are not subject to its provisions. But there is a precedent to show that, when buildings are on a street where only the street is indicated as a Conservation Area, they are considered to be "in" the Conservation Area.

Since the Conservation Area formed the main grounds of some of the appeals, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a wrangle going on about that.
Devin
Old Master
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 10:27 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Thomas Street & James Street, Dublin!

Postby johnglas » Thu Jul 30, 2009 6:23 pm

Devin: if I understand what you're saying it's that the street (sic) is indicated as the conservation area (also sic), but not the buildings fronting it. Bizarre to say the least; can a 'street' be an 'area'? No wonder the law in Dublin prospers!
johnglas
Senior Member
 
Posts: 864
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:43 am
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Re: Thomas Street & James Street, Dublin!

Postby gunter » Thu Jul 30, 2009 6:32 pm

Devin wrote: The letter sent by the Board to DCC and the applicant could be about .... anything. It could be about some leasehold technicality.


If we're talking Frawleys here, did you not get a copy of the letter? . . . I got mine a day or two after complaining that we should have got notification.

The letter asks DCC, and the applicants, to comment further on the specific objections lodged by the Dublin Civic Trust and some named third parties. These objections had focussed principally on the inherent value of the existing, early to mid, 18th century structures, (nos. 32, 33 and 36), with the probable 'twin Dutch Billy' heritage of no. 32 getting a particular outing.

In this regard, we'll have to see how your recently posted comments on the DB thread play out :rolleyes:

We know that the applicants have already plundered an archiseek photograph for their report, so we know that they're tuned into this wavelength. What we don't know, yet, is what hay they may have made with the public airing of your various doubts and insecurities and your ''come on now gunter, can we really say that this house was a twin Billy etc.'', . . . . we'll just have to wait and see.

I'll not say any more this stage, . . . but if this were to go belly up, and if concrete evidence were to be found (say in the ABP inspector's report) that certain perceived divisions in the conservation camp had let the juggernaut through, it might not be wise for Devin to go down any dark alleys anytime soon!

Devin might find that Luke Gardiner wasn't the only ugly man prowling the streets of Dublin looking for somewhere to leave his mark :mad:

Hasn't it turned out a lovely evening, . . . . must clear out the potting shed.
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Thomas Street & James Street, Dublin!

Postby Devin » Thu Jul 30, 2009 7:00 pm

Ah come off it gunter !!!!

If you want to save an endangered species of Mongolian horse, suggesting it may have been a Unicorn in a former life is not going to help your case.
Devin
Old Master
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 10:27 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Thomas Street & James Street, Dublin!

Postby Paul Clerkin » Thu Jul 30, 2009 7:18 pm

Did you notice that An Bord Snip recommended the amalgation of NCAD with Dun Laoghaire in Dun Laoghaire


4. Amalgamation of National College of Art & Design (NCAD) and the Dún Laoghaire Institute of Art, Design & Technology
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Group notes that the number of students attending the NCAD is quite low and concludes that a single third level institution for art and design could deliver savings in back-office and programme delivery costs.

There should also be capital savings arising from the likely cancellation of the planned capital re-development of NCAD. Savings on the same basis as 3 and 4 above are estimated at €700,000.
User avatar
Paul Clerkin
Old Master
 
Posts: 5430
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 1999 1:00 am
Location: Monaghan

Re: Thomas Street & James Street, Dublin!

Postby gunter » Fri Jul 31, 2009 12:19 am

Devin wrote:Ah come off it gunter !!!!

If you want to save an endangered species of Mongolian horse, suggesting it may have been a Unicorn in a former life is not going to help your case.


The time has come for me to get very serious with you.

You're a conservation advocate, that's no secret, and being a vocal and dedicated one, you'd be a member of a tiny band of like minded people who will have made a real difference over the years with your relentless campaigning for the protection of heritage and against bad planning.

I can't boast those credentials, I'm only an occasional objector to what I perceive to be bad planning, because I find the process costly and mostly disheartening and it takes time away from what I should be doing, which is trying to design better buildings myself and not worry so much about other people's.

It's no big secret that I'm fascinated by the gabled house tradition. I consider it to represent possibly the pinnacle of urbanism. Across Europe, the gabled house tradition created streets, squares and entire cities where the conduct of business and the business of living mingled effortlessly and where the public realm achieved levels of sophistication and celebration that has seldom been achieved since. Best of all, the gabled tradition created a medium in which the competing forces of the 'collective' and the 'individual' could be accommodated in a near perfect balance.

Ireland shared in this gabled tradition, we know that, I think the evidence is overwhelming. In the 'Dutch Billy' phase, the evidence suggests that we had an urbanism that was up there with some of the best in Europe. When we turned away from that tradition to adopt the sober uniformity and rigid social segregation of the Georgian model, I believe that we lost a part of our innate understanding of what urbanism is.

Because it is virtually a lost chapter in our architectural record and because of what it can still teach us about urbanism, I believe that our heritage of gabled houses deserves to be studied and surviving examples deserve to be conserved and protected. I don't know a fraction of what I'd like to know about these houses, their streetscapes and the urban entity they contributed to, but I have studied the subject as deeply as time permits and I don't make claims about individual structures without believing them to be true and without them being grounded in some research.

I believe that, in Dublin, we developed a particular fondness for a twin gabled design of house and that no. 32 Thomas Street was an example of such a house. Obviously I can't know this for sure, without finding an actual print, or photograph, of the house showing it with twin gables, but as an architect with some conservation experience, I can tell you that the means of finding out this information will, most probably, still exist within the structure of the house, if the right level of detailed investigation is brought to bear.

I can explain what I mean in more detail again but you'll only go on again about how I can't possibly know that there's a beam under the valley gutter :rolleyes:

A while ago, did you not challenge me (on the DB thread) to come up with a concrete example of a two-bay 'twin-Billy'? . . . . and did I not come up with a pretty clear cut example of one on Newmarket?

Am I to understand from your 'Unicorn' remark that you still do not accept the existence of narrow-plot 'twin-Billys'?

Apologies to anyone who's been studiously avoiding the 'Dutch Billy' thread and feels that this argument has now spilled out of the living room and into the kitchen :)


Paul Clerkin wrote:Did you notice that An Bord Snip recommended the amalgation of NCAD with Dun Laoghaire in Dun Laoghaire


NCAD is the best thing on Thomas Street, particularly since the completion of the new building with it's 'shop window' . . . . always tasty and always full of arty goodness,

Dun Laoghaire can f*#k off!
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Thomas Street & James Street, Dublin!

Postby hutton » Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:11 am

gunter wrote:NCAD is the best thing on Thomas Street, particularly since the completion of the new building with it's 'shop window' . . . . always tasty and always full of arty goodness


Agree 110%

gunter wrote:Dun Laoghaire can f*#k off!


On the contrary - perhaps it should be looked at bringing DL into the city and amalgamating it on Thomas St with NCAD? I know of a number of derelict sites and buildings along a certain stretch that certainly aren't going to now get redeveloped as 52-floor-whatever-you're-trying-on type schemes... What say?
hutton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: NAMA HQ

Re: Thomas Street & James Street, Dublin!

Postby Devin » Fri Jul 31, 2009 11:50 am

gunter, I'm getting a bit tired of this. I've really said all I have to say on the issue in Post 332 of the Dutch Billy thread - ie. if the houses you refer to existed, or were as claimed a common Dublin house type, where is the visual/pictorial evidence, out of the huge body of such evidence that regular-to-smaller sized houses had single gables? (And for that matter, where is the fabric evidence? - out of the four or five extant claimed former twin gabled houses, none has yet been proffered.) Isn't it odd or disproportionate that four or five roof types should survive in 2009 of a house type for which there is no visual representation in their claimed original form, when so few survive for houses for which there is clear visual evidence of hundreds of? I don't see why disagreeing with you on this should be such a big problem.

If you've been through Shaw's Directory of 1850, which no doubt you have, you'll have seen that there are several more of those roofs just like on 32 Thomas Street and 7 Bachelor's Walk: a couple Arran on Quay, one on Dawson Street, one on College Green and a couple more on Bachelor's Walk near the corner of O'Connell Street, and a few others. But, like the existing ones, there's nothing about them otherwise that might betray the origins you promulgate of them.

On a planning level, if you wanted to make an argument for 32 Thomas Street as an original twin-gabled house, you couldn't do it. The evidence just isn't there. It would be highly dangerous to do so. Up against a canny planning consultant, you could be torn to shreds, and lose your building, current Georgian character and all. Arguments for it should be made on the basis of what's there, and/or what the building clearly was at an earlier point (and they have been). The house has early-to-mid 18th century origin, as is clear from the plan form, and it has a late-Georgian brick upper elevation of handsome classical proportions. That, and its location in the streetscape close to St. Catherine's makes it more than worthy of retention. It would be an absolute scandal if An Bord Pleanala granted permission for its demolition.

gunter wrote:A while ago, did you not challenge me (on the DB thread) to come up with a concrete example of a two-bay 'twin-Billy'? . . . . and did I not come up with a pretty clear cut example of one on Newmarket?
Admittedly, I did not respond to this at the time ... more to do with the way things get in the way every day that prevent one from spending time on internet forums. I have just put on a reply now.

gunter wrote:It's no big secret that I'm fascinated by the gabled house tradition. I consider it to represent possibly the pinnacle of urbanism. Across Europe, the gabled house tradition created streets, squares and entire cities where the conduct of business and the business of living mingled effortlessly and where the public realm achieved levels of sophistication and celebration that has seldom been achieved since. Best of all, the gabled tradition created a medium in which the competing forces of the 'collective' and the 'individual' could be accommodated in a near perfect balance.

Ireland shared in this gabled tradition, we know that, I think the evidence is overwhelming. In the 'Dutch Billy' phase, the evidence suggests that we had an urbanism that was up there with some of the best in Europe. When we turned away from that tradition to adopt the sober uniformity and rigid social segregation of the Georgian model, I believe that we lost a part of our innate understanding of what urbanism is.

Because it is virtually a lost chapter in our architectural record and because of what it can still teach us about urbanism, I believe that our heritage of gabled houses deserves to be studied and surviving examples deserve to be conserved and protected.
I agree with a lot of what you say here and as usual it is nicely written. But I don't necessarily agree about the gabled house tradtion 'possibly representing the pinnacle of urbanism'. I think certain smaller and medium sized Irish towns with their predominant 19th century architecture exhibit urbanism as good as you will get anywhere in Europe through the ages.


Paul Clerkin wrote:Did you notice that An Bord Snip recommended the amalgation of NCAD with Dun Laoghaire in Dun Laoghaire
Em, shouldn't any amalgamation between those two entail the one in the low-density, out-of-the-way suburban location winding up shop and moving to the ultra-sustainable, stimulating urban location of the other?
(no offence to residents oF DL :) )


[quote="Johnglas"]Devin: if I understand what you're saying it's that the street (sic) is indicated as the conservation area (also sic), but not the buildings fronting it. Bizarre to say the least]
Yes! Another take on that situation where only the 'street' of a given street is indicated as Conservation Area is that the Conservation Area only pertains to the street and the front walls of the buildings lining it. Developers use that version as well when it suits them :rolleyes:
Devin
Old Master
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 10:27 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Thomas Street & James Street, Dublin!

Postby gunter » Sat Aug 01, 2009 12:20 am

Devin wrote:gunter, I'm getting a bit tired of this
. . . . if the houses you refer to existed, or were as claimed a common Dublin house type, where is the visual/pictorial evidence,


Devin, I want to hit you with a plank, you just go on to list the visual evidence yourself:

All of the twin roofed houses you've mentioned, and about a dozen more, fall into the category of probable-twin-Billy, because of their roof proflile, number 1, and because of the fact that they all have other standard 'Billy' characterists, or are located in a 'Billy' context.

We have the photographic evidence of close-coupled twin Dutch gables on the corner of New Row South and Ward's Hill, we have the survey evidence from Leask for the same thing at 30 Jervis St. and we have the print and photographic evidence of the tripple gable on Speaker Foster's house on Molesworth St.

That should be enough to tell any rational person that when it comes to houses of this period, houses that exhibit Dutch Billy characteristics, in plan or detail, multiple roof configurations and multiply gables go together.

You'd have to be some class of stubborn Mongolian mule not to acknowledge this!

Devin wrote: . . . I don't see why disagreeing with you on this should be such a big problem.


If I can't even persuade the people who are clearly on the same side (in most conservation debates), there's not much chance of getting through to the people in the positions to make the decisions on the fate of several of these houses.

Devin wrote:On a planning level, if you wanted to make an argument for 32 Thomas Street as an original twin-gabled house, you couldn't do it. The evidence just isn't there. It would be highly dangerous to do so. Up against a canny planning consultant, you could be torn to shreds, and lose your building, current Georgian character and all.


I've already made those arguments for what I believe this house to be, and I'd go toe to toe with any sleezebag planning consultant to defend what I've said. And just so we're clear on this, I do not advocate undoing any of the later Georgian alterations to this house which sits perfectly in the streetscape as it is, I just want it protected, conserved and acknowledged as a valuable survivor from our gabled house tradition and as a representative example of a house that was changed to conform to Georgian taste, just like no. 6 Bachelor's Walk.

Devin wrote:. . . . I don't necessarily agree about the gabled house tradtion 'possibly representing the pinnacle of urbanism'. I think certain smaller and medium sized Irish towns with their predominant 19th century architecture exhibit urbanism as good as you will get anywhere in Europe through the ages.


That's a debate for another day and another thread, I want to explain more fully what I meant by those remarks, but I'll have to get out the pictures to do that properly.

Returning to the issue of Thomas Street, there was a significant development earlier today (Friday) in the Frawley's case (PL29S.231916)

Bord Pleanála have circulated for comment a revised alternative scheme for the site submitted by Danninger on 27 July. The alternative scheme would retain and conserve all of the structures from 32 to 36 Thomas St., in their entirety, and build the new office block to the rear separated by a glazed atrium!

However, the applicants make it clear that they would only do this grudgingly and that their prefered solution is for their DCC permission for the original scheme to be upheld by the Bord. They also make it clear that they don't accept the existing structures are worthy of retention and to no one's surprise they're at one with Devin in their assessment of no. 32:rolleyes:
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Thomas Street & James Street, Dublin!

Postby aj » Sat Aug 01, 2009 12:15 pm

Returning to the issue of Thomas Street, there was a significant development earlier today (Friday) in the Frawley's case (PL29S.231916)

Bord Pleanála have circulated for comment a revised alternative scheme for the site submitted by Danninger on 27 July. The alternative scheme would retain and conserve all of the structures from 32 to 36 Thomas St., in their entirety, and build the new office block to the rear separated by a glazed atrium!

However, the applicants make it clear that they would only do this grudgingly and that their prefered solution is for their DCC permission for the original scheme to be upheld by the Bord. They also make it clear that they don't accept the existing structures are worthy of retention and to no one's surprise they're at one with Devin in their assessment of no. 32:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

are the ammended plans publically available, i checked the dcc site and abp site nothing there
aj
Member
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Thomas Street & James Street, Dublin!

Postby Devin » Sat Aug 01, 2009 1:12 pm

Hey gunter leave out the 'physical threats'. It's not good internet parlance. I have tried to be polite while believing there isn't a shred of real evidence to show those roofs belonged to twin gables. What if I used the terms 'makey-up twin gables', 'fantasy drawings' and 'distortion of history'?

Anyway if you really want to follow through on your threats, you know where to find me ........ but you'd better be ready ;)
Devin
Old Master
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 10:27 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Thomas Street & James Street, Dublin!

Postby Smithfield Resi » Sat Aug 01, 2009 10:08 pm

Image

Smithfield Resi get's comfy....
Smithfield Resi
Member
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:03 am

Re: Thomas Street & James Street, Dublin!

Postby gunter » Sun Aug 02, 2009 4:04 pm

Devin wrote:. . . you know where to find me . .


yea I know where to find ye, with hutton, round at Robert O'Byrne's house, ogling his Palladian etchings!

Devin wrote:. . . . 'makey-up twin gables' . . . 'fantasy drawings' . . . 'distortion of history'?


your remarks have been noted and will be replayed to you at the appropriate time.

There are some people in this city who think that the glories of Dublin start and end with Georgian architecture. Such people are mostly kindly sorts, honourable types for the most part, the sort of people who take things at face value. These people are reluctant to dig under the surface, because they fear that they will find only unpleasantness there and anyway they are quite happy with 'reality' as it's always been.

In their world, the sober dignity of the Georgian house offers the calm reasurance that taste once prevailed in these parts and if only the brutish types who threaten this Georgian Idyll would go away, everything could be fine once more. This is a world of shallow mouldings and pastel colours, it is a Wedgewood world.

But the people who brought this Georgian idyll to our shores were not great innovators, creators of something new, they were import merchants and they were in the second hand business. They preyed on the insecurities of a planter population adrift from it's cultural roots and went about their business clutching soiled copies of Vitruvious Britanicus, Volumes 1 & 2.

And they didn't just peddle second hand architecture, they peddled snobbery. In their developer led world, social class would be segregated and sordid commerce would be banned from their speculative developments, the fundamentals of urbanism were to be cast aside, so that the gullible, moneyed, classes of Dublin could live in immitation of the Whig aristocracy of London.

In their developers' paradise, 'the square', that fundamental civic and commercial focal point of the city, was transformed into a cruel carricature, stripped of commercial activity, ringed by the staid houses of the nobility and railinged off as a private park.

Georgian architecture has it's place in the story of Dublin, we all know that, but the gabled tradition should have it's place too, and to a large extent it doesn't. McCullough said it existed as a folk memory, but I don't even think it does. I think it's been so completely lost that people doubt that it ever really existed. We look at the pictures, we murmur ''curious'' to ourselves and we turn the page.

I believe, if we dig deep enough, it will be posible to reveal something like the full story of the 'Dutch Billy', it's origins, it's multiple variations and the scale and depth of the domestic architectural movement it represented. I suspect also that when we are able to look at the full story, I won't be the only one cursing Luke Gardiner and his bag of grey squirrels :)


aj wrote:Returning to the issue of Thomas Street, . . . . are the ammended plans publically available, i checked the dcc site and abp site nothing there


I'm not sure if it's the practice of ABP to make late alternative submissions available on it's website, but it should be.

I'll post up some of the more relevant stuff below.

Image
Alternative proposal showing office block behind retained buildings. For some reason no. 32 is shown with a single hipped roof, but I imagine it's just a graphic error.

Image
Typical upper floor plan showing the retained buildings separated from the office block by an atrium.

Image
More accurate rear elevation/section through the atrium showing some replacement windows.
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Thomas Street & James Street, Dublin!

Postby johnglas » Mon Aug 03, 2009 11:25 am

gunter: can you live with the revisions, or is it the best of a bad (if slightly more sensitive) lot? Just how obtrusive would the 'extension' be from street level?
johnglas
Senior Member
 
Posts: 864
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:43 am
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

PreviousNext

Return to Ireland