'Dutch Billys'

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby Paul Clerkin » Tue May 14, 2013 3:52 pm

Apologies if already here - just dont recall seeing it.... the former Stafford St, now Wolfe Tone

wolfetone.jpg
User avatar
Paul Clerkin
Old Master
 
Posts: 5418
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 1999 1:00 am
Location: Monaghan

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby Paul Clerkin » Sat May 18, 2013 2:31 pm

And Haymarket

haymarket.jpg
User avatar
Paul Clerkin
Old Master
 
Posts: 5418
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 1999 1:00 am
Location: Monaghan

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby Morlan » Wed Aug 21, 2013 11:27 am

A rare view of those reproductions on Lamb Alley. They almost look authentic from this distance.

Image

http://www.maxlearning.net/Mike/BI-Trav ... Dublin.htm
User avatar
Morlan
Senior Member
 
Posts: 831
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2003 2:47 pm
Location: Áth Cliath

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby Praxiteles » Mon Sep 02, 2013 3:44 pm

Praxiteles
Old Master
 
Posts: 6044
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 7:02 pm

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby gunter » Thu Sep 05, 2013 12:59 am

I hadn't seen the Flora Mitchell version before, very cute.

Flora Mitchell was drawn to all those crumbling parts of Dublin where remnants of the gabled tradition could still be found in the 1950s and '60s. In this case, as the caption says, the subject mater of her painting was long gone and she had to base her representation of the Swift birth-place on a 19th century print, which itself may have been partly conjectural. It's interesting how she rationalized the profile of the curvilinear gable, a feature which is less clearly represented in the original print.

Whether the house in question was the actual house in which Swift was born in 1667 is open to speculation. Swift had the advantage of being venerated in his own time so it is possible that his birthplace was widely known to his contemporaries and never subsequently forgotten. On the other hand, in high-lighting the birth place of a notable citizen there is a vererable urban tradition of fixing on the nearest presentable house and letting time and repetition do the rest.

Could the house depicted in the Hoey's Court print date to the 1660s?

It is just possible. Brick construction was well established in the city by the mid-17 century and was becoming the norm in the grand expansion of the Restoration period which was occurring at exactly the time of Swift's birth and if the various claims we've made in recent times for the Clancarty House on College Green are true, then sophisticated curvilinear gabled houses were being built in Dublin in the mid-1660s, but whether this sophistication would have infiltrated the street-architecture scene in back-land locations like Hoey's Court already by the mid 1660s is another matter.

Even allowing for the uncertainty about the original gable profile, and the roof structure behind it, in most respects the elevation of the Hoey's Court house looks more likely to date to 1700 than 1660. If we're looking for parallels, the house that the Hoey's Court house most closely resembles, in the density of its façade fenestration and general detail and proportion, is the 'Ireton' house in Limerick [albeit a storey taller] which was a circa 1700 rebuilding and re-fronting of an older house and there is the suspicion of a re-fronting too about the Hoey's Court house, with the odd stepping of the first floor string course as though a pre-existing step in the floor levels inside had to be accommodated. Also the unusual profile of the gable might conceivably have derived from the need to screen some untidy existing roof profiles belonging to an earlier house.

ImageImage
the 19th century print on which the Flora Mitchell painting is based compared with the façade of the 'Ireton' house on Nicholas Street in Limerick

Certainly, the heavy sash windows and the relieving arches over the windows in the attic storey would seem to link the façade to the main phase of the Dutch Billy tradition, which still leaves open the possibility the house behind this new façade may well have been mid 17th century and conceivably therefore the house that himself might have been born in.

In any other city, this would all have been researched and resolved and there'd be access to the excavated basement from the delightful little museum and coffee shop now sitting on the site.
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1905
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby gunter » Thu Sep 12, 2013 11:17 am

Further to the discussion we've been having on the Thomas Street thread about the, so called, 'Protected Structure' at 37 Thomas Street, the hugely important house at 91 Camden Street is currently being subjected to similar unauthorized works.

Dublin City Council were notified last Friday that these works were under way and of the significance of the house, but, to date, no notices have been served on the property and no effective action has been taken, either to halt the unauthorized works, or assess the damage already done.

Image

Image
unauthorised works under way on Friday 6th Sept, with the rare, stone-built rear gable already partially rebuilt in blockwork and the cruciform roof stripped.

Image
unauthorised works still on-going this morning.

Photographs from two years ago show the remarkable completeness of the original roof structure, the last cruciform roof in Dublin to retain this level of original fabric.

Image
the interior of the attic storey looking towards the rear gable

Image
the interior of the attic storey looking towards the crossing from the rear

Image
a section of the original slating

Image
a view through the crossing to the lunette window on the front façade. The front and back attic spaces can only be accessed by crawling under the primary cross beams that form the main structure of the cruciform roof, suggesting that these spaces were only ever intended for storage
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1905
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby gunter » Thu Sep 12, 2013 5:50 pm

Work proceeding this afternoon, full throttle, with the rear elevation being given a nice coat of cement render!

Image

Although there has been something of a breakthrough on the legalities front, with some of the boys now wearing high-vis jackets . . . . possible evidence of a Corpo visit??

You couldn't make this stuff up
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1905
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby Clinch » Tue Sep 17, 2013 1:01 pm

What is the problem with DCC enforcement dept?
People need to start making formal complaints instead of just accepting thats the way it is.
Clinch
Member
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 2:23 pm

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby gunter » Wed Sep 18, 2013 10:41 pm

The damage to 91 Camden Street may be far more extensive than we feared. There are disturbing reports that the entire original cruciform roof structure may have been ripped out.

If this is the case and the owner, builder and architect responsible for this act of cultural vandalism are not held to account by the local authority, then it is the local authority who must be held to account.
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1905
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby Punchbowl » Thu Sep 19, 2013 1:27 pm

This would be a tragedy if true - the damage detailed above was enough, but for the whole interior structure to be binned too is a total disgrace, and a sad, sad loss for Dublin.
Punchbowl
Member
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 2:22 pm
Location: Echlin St

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby Paul Clerkin » Fri Sep 20, 2013 3:35 pm

is there an architect involved Gunter?
User avatar
Paul Clerkin
Old Master
 
Posts: 5418
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 1999 1:00 am
Location: Monaghan

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby StephenC » Sat Sep 21, 2013 9:59 pm

Has there been any response from Enforcement, given the inertia of that department on Thomas Street?
User avatar
StephenC
Old Master
 
Posts: 2483
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Dublin

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby gunter » Sat Sep 21, 2013 11:38 pm

The enforcement section apparently finally gained access to the building a week after the City Council were notified of the unauthorised works. It is through DCC that word has filtered out that the entire original roof structure is gone and a new roof structure erected. Since the original roof sprang from about 450mm below the second floor ceiling level, I can only assume that the damage extends to the second floor also.

The guy I talked to in enforcement was very pleasant, which, frankly, is not what you want from an enforcement officer. He claimed to have no knowledge of what the original roof structure would have been and therefore had nothing to compare the new roof structure with, although even with this limited insight he could observe that all the timbers were new.

My understanding is that there is an architect of some kind engaged in the unauthorised works currently under way at 91 Camden Street.

The legislation pertaining to 'Protected Structures' is crystal clear.

None of the works of repair and renewal that can be assumed to be exempted development in the case of ordinary buildings can be assumed to be exempted development in the case of Protected Structures.

To avoid any doubt, Section 57 of the Planning & Development Act sets out the procedures by which the owner of a Protected Structure may apply for a Declaration from the local authority determining whether certain specified works are, or are not, exempted development.

In the case of works to a building on the 'Protected Structure Register', only works specifically detailed in a Section 57 Declaration, issued by the local authority, can be claimed to be exempted development.

In making that determination, the only works that can be considered permissible as exempted development are ''. . those works [that] would not materially affect the character of: (a) the structure, or (b) any element of the structure which contributes to its special architectural, historical, archaeological, artistic, cultural, scientific, social or technical interest.''

The roof structure of no. 91 Camden Street was the defining characteristic of the house, there was no other cruciform roof in Dublin that was comparable to it in terms of the survival of original fabric, it is inconceivable that any layman, let alone any professional, could have misunderstood that.

Knowing the the removal of the original roof structure could never be deemed exempted development, it was the clear obligation of the owner of 91 Camden Street, and his architect, to apply for planning permission if they intended to carry out any works to the structure and particularly any works to its distinctive roof.

Because the building is a Protected Structure, such a planning application would always be preceded by a number of consultations with the local authority conservation officer where the scope of the works would be discussed and any misunderstandings on the value of the structure put to rest. As the works pertain to a Protected Structure, the local authority would have advised the owner that the planning application itself would need to be assembled by an architect specifically accredited in conservation and be accompanied by a detailed appraisal of the historic/architectural value of the structure and accompanied also by a detailed method statement setting out the case for the proposed works and the manner in which they are proposed to be carried out so as to specifically minimise any loss of original fabric, or loss of character, in the structure.

What is happening to 91 Camden Street is the exact opposite of what is set out in the legislation and it is impossible not to conclude from the manner in which the works have been carried out, without any visible scaffolding, protective mesh or site signage, that it was entirely the intention of the owner and his crew to carry out these works under the radar and thereby avoid all the obligations that pertain to Protected Structures detailed above.

This will keep happening in Dublin until the local authority are forced to make a stand.

The legislation says:

58. (4) Any person who, without lawful authority, causes damage to a protected structure or a proposed protected structure shall be guilty of an offence.

If the local authority do not take effective action against the people who have caused this damage to 91 Camden Street, then they will be among the people directly responsible for the damage to the next Protected Structure that the cowboys gut.
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1905
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby GrahamH » Tue Sep 24, 2013 11:40 am

What is going on at this building is a scandal. Red cessation of works notices have been slapped on two-up two-downs in Portobello when the will was there, while here on Camden Street, on one of the most important buildings in the city, things merrily chug along as they always do with the proud new owners of this building. The well known czars of Camden Street. In any civilised city, there would be a team of officials and the police down at a site of this significance. Here, as we speak, two and a half weeks after being brought to the planning authority's attention, a team of operatives continue to crawl over the roof, full steam ahead, finalising their gut job, while the crisp Section 152 warning letter sits on a doormat out in Lucan of the 'architects' involved in this unholy debacle.

What a complete farce. This is beyond GUBU stuff. Not least as it's contrived from all sides.
GrahamH
Old Master
 
Posts: 4580
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 11:24 am
Location: Ireland

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby gunter » Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:47 am

Anyone with an interest in the Dutch Billy tradition and the place it should hold in the record of Irish street-architecture, would have been well advised to steer clear of the 'Street View: Urban Domestic Architectures 1700 – 1900' symposium in Trinity today .

It wasn't just that no aspect of the entire gabled tradition featured in any of the papers presented, or that the first presentation appeared to chronologically pick the development of a house on Henrietta Street as the day's starting point, as though B.H. [before Henrietta Street] was some kind of primordial ooze out of which the classical Dublin town house magically emerged, it was that the whole significance of the 18th century gabled tradition, as a distinctive native phenomenon and as a critical factor in influencing the street-architecture that followed it, simply hasn't registered.

The pre-lunch discussion was almost comical in its absurdity. Something like two hundred of the best minds in the field of Irish architectural history floundering on the question; why was it that the façades of Georgian houses in Dublin were so plain, compared to the façades of contemporary Georgian houses in Britain?

This is the same question that the morning chair, Christine Casey, had herself posed in her chapter of 'The Eighteenth Century Dublin Town House,' published in 2010, to which there is no satisfactory answer . . . . unless one considers the exuberantly banded and gabled houses of the typical Dublin streetscape that immediately preceded the emergence of the dull brick box. This is precisely the comparison that everyone in the field seems bound and determined not to make

Every exuberant phase in architecture is followed by a phase of deliberate restraint, we all know this. In turn, every minimalist phase succumbs eventually to a renewed interest in more elaborate or decorated forms. Dublin began to adopt a distinctly plain form of Georgian architecture in the middle years of the 18th century in a deliberate reaction against, what a small coterie of Dublin developers portrayed as, the excesses and irregularity of the prevailing gabled tradition.

We can justifiably fume against the cowboys who illegally butchered the original cruciform roof of 91 Camden Street in the last few week, but if our academic classes continue to under value the extent and significance of the tradition that this house belongs to, as this symposium did, are we in any position to point the finger at the cultural vandals in the yellow jackets?
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1905
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby Punchbowl » Sat Nov 09, 2013 4:55 pm

Planning notice just posted at No 91 (for retention obviously)

Image
Punchbowl
Member
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 2:22 pm
Location: Echlin St

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby CologneMike » Fri Dec 27, 2013 10:33 pm

Image

Sean Curtin (Limerick – A Stroll Down Memory Lane Vol. 13) has managed to get hold of the best version of this particular photo.

The other versions of the Tholsel along with the three buildings that I have seen to date were very blurred (Limerick Museum).

Even the watercolour from Thomas Ryan was based on a poorer one.

This documents nicely the existence of yet another Dutch gable on Mary Street / Gaol Lane.

Image
User avatar
CologneMike
Old Master
 
Posts: 1146
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 3:24 pm

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby Paul Clerkin » Tue Feb 18, 2014 7:35 pm

Platten Hall, Co. Meath
http://archiseek.com/2014/1700-platten- ... wOnZ_ldX3Q

Described in a publication of 1907 as "It is an ugly building now, in spite of its rich red colouring; but in formelr days, when it was a story higher, and had a gabled roof, its appearance was doubtless more attractive. "
User avatar
Paul Clerkin
Old Master
 
Posts: 5418
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 1999 1:00 am
Location: Monaghan

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby Paul Clerkin » Tue Feb 18, 2014 7:59 pm

Ànd more on Turvey, images and a description from 1906
http://archiseek.com/2014/17th-c-turvey ... wOtPfldX3Q
User avatar
Paul Clerkin
Old Master
 
Posts: 5418
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 1999 1:00 am
Location: Monaghan

Previous

Return to Ireland



cron