Yeah, it's been New Years, tsk! Time for another round! :-Dgunter wrote:We haven't had a good row about twin 'Billys' in a while;)
I'd be inclined to say Paddy Whelan Cycles (No. 120) is a mid-18th century building with original roof ... 1760s, something like that. The things you list there in regard to the basement, return, brickwork and window are not exclusive to an earlier date.gunter wrote:
Another look at nos. 119 [Paddy] and no. 120 [Whelan] Cork Street.
Without getting information on the interior, we still can't provide conclusive evidence that no. 120 was a twin gabled house, but from an examination of the exterior, it is substantially an early 18th century structure, it has a basement, the return is original, if now slightly reduced with a lean-to roof, the brickwork and rear window fragments are consistent with a house of the 'Billy' period and, though the pitch of the roofs has been lowered, the twin volume is there for all to see.
gunter wrote:Currently sandwiched between a pair of apartment blocks the present nos. 84 and 85 [Cork Street] don't look to have much going for them, but no. 84, outlined in red on the map [the numbering system seems to have moved up one since the '60s] is actually a fascinating little survivor whose only hint of antiquity is the central chunky chimney stack and a extra rain-water outlet between the two front windows.
From the building site opposite we can see that no. 84 originally had a pair of roofs perpendicular to the street, just like no. 120 further east. Only the gables survive what looks like a quite recent alteration to a flat roof.
from the rear, the antiquity and the cuteness of this little vernacular version of a twin gabled house becomes apparent.
Devin wrote:I'd be inclined to say Paddy Whelan Cycles (No. 120) is a mid-18th century building with original roof ... 1760s, something like that. The things you list there in regard to the basement, return, brickwork and window are not exclusive to an earlier date.
Devin wrote:Roofs to the basic Georgian terrace building were double in section. Sometimes you laid it side-to-side, more often you laid it front-to-back. These side-by-side double roofs are just Georgian roofs.
Before this "row" ever started, I had thought these roofs on 2-bay houses were funny, almost whimsical ... that you would go to the trouble of creating a double roof with such a short distance to span.
Devin wrote:. . . . wonder what date it's from? [84 Cork Street] Probably anywhere in the 18th century, or even a little into the 19th. This was quite a distance out of town at the time.
It may have been twin-gabled, not in a deliberate stylistic way but in a functional, vernacular way. But given that twin gable fronts are nowhere to be seen on small buildings, those rear gables are more likely just the backs of hip-fronted roofs.
Devin wrote:. . . 27 Bachelors Walk . . . . . Very much the same type of thing as 32 Thomas Street and Paddy Whelan:
a Georgian building in every way but retaining some features of an earlier period (a probable full-height nib return, and a corner-fireplace plan, as indicated by the appearance of the chimney stack in Shaw's):
It's you who's putting them in the wrong drawer - give me a moment. 'Transitional' is the best term for these houses - though I don't like that term much myself as it implies a lack of inherent validity, or of simply moving from one perfect moment to another, which is not the case. But it can be used here to convey buildings which are basically Georgian in style but still utilising earlier construction features.gunter wrote:Returns on the chimney side, but without fireplaces, are not Georgian [except in parts of Limerick]. The only way that you can make houses of this type 'Georgian' is to take this whole body of the historical building record and put it in the wrong drawer.
Not at all the case. They were small, light, and probably relatively untroublesome roofs, sitting on top of heavy Georgian walls. I can see how they they were popular for a while. The central valley has three resting points, on the front wall, spine wall and rear wall. It's no surprise a couple still survive today.gunter wrote:What kind of insane builder would disregard the layout of the internal walls of the house he'd just built and construct a double roof profile that required an additional structure and twice the lead valley, unless it was for a specific design purpose?
Yes, I certainly do - a pattern of buildings from the round about the 1760s which were designed to be "Georgian" in appearance (ie. having the essential cut of a 4-storey building built between 1750 and 1840) but with a construction that had been in use for many decades already, and had that roof. It's not particularly remarkable that a house of this period should have had an old fashioned style of return or plan. There are examples of corner chimney breast construction right up to 1800. It was a cheaper and easier than the more famailiar Georgian chimney breast construction.gunter wrote:Why is that every time we find one of these double roof structures, the house also has a central corner chimney stack and a rear return on the same side?
Do you not see a pattern here?
That's a rather arrogant assumption. Conservationists, urban historians and others have known the early Georgian house type for decades now and its characteristics and the many clues to its age.gunter wrote:
...... as this house did until it was swept away by Zoe Developments because everyone presumably accepted that it was an early 19th century low-grade-Georgian, as it appeared in the middle photograph just before demolition in the late 80s.
Very atmospheric print.CologneMike wrote:
Sorry, I omitted to include "pre-Georgian" house type in there also ........ perhaps an unconcious reaction to the billy-on-the-brain tendency of the thread :-DConservationists, urban historians and others have known the early Georgian house type for decades
Devin wrote:'Transitional' is the best term for these houses - though I don't like that term much myself as it implies a lack of inherent validity, or of simply moving from one perfect moment to another, which is not the case. But it can be used here to convey buildings which are basically Georgian in style but still utilising earlier construction features.
Devin wrote:Not at all the case. They were small, light, and probably relatively untroublesome roofs, sitting on top of heavy Georgian walls. I can see how they they were popular for a while. The central valley has three resting points, on the front wall, spine wall and rear wall. It's no surprise a couple still survive today.
Devin wrote:That's a rather arrogant assumption. Conservationists, urban historians and others have known the early Georgian [and pre-Georgian] house type for decades now and its characteristics and the many clues to its age.
Devin wrote:I also note that, like 32 Thomas Street, the Paddy Whelan twin roof building does not appear on Rocque in its current format, indicating that it also belongs to the post-1756 drawer.
Devin wrote:I know that those roofs have nothing to do with twin gable fronts. I would bet my life on it.
Fine, I would agree with that.gunter wrote:'Transitional' is the right term for houses that attempted to appear, more-or-less, Georgian, but which included in their design and construction significant elements of the previous gabled-house tradition. I think it is appropriate that the term implies an element of artisan head-stratching as builders grappled with the challenges of adapting modern taste to the long established building tradition that they would have been schooled in and comfortable with.
But the houses in question are not altered. They're originals. You're refusing to concede that even though two of the prime examples at Thomas Street and Cork Street do not appear on Rocque, 1756 (in addition to other evidence against the existence of twin gables on standard-plot houses).gunter wrote:We cannot however use the definition 'Transitional' for houses that have been altered to appear more Georgian
Rocque it seems is inaccurate when he doesn't suit your reading of the buildinggunter wrote:It's been pointed out again and again that we just can't rely on Rocque for that level of detail, and certainly not in the more crowded built-up areas like Thomas Street
That's nice. It's nice to find a probable original view of a drawn group of altered but obviously early houses. But by no means everything on Shaw goes back to a gable. The next 15 or so houses east of this group up to St. Paul's Church are dominated by mid- and late-Georgian new-builds.gunter wrote:These are two glimpses of another section of Arran Quay, a bit further to the west.
a circa 1820 view possibly by Petrie. A group of the houses towards the Queen Street junction are shown with their original curvilinear gables.
Shaw again . In the thirty year interval the gabled houses have all been altered and given flat parapets.
There would have to be a consesus of course ]-o-o-o-[/align]gunter wrote:..... comprehensive study of this period ...... IMO, It would be relatively easy to categorise all the various house types in the gabled tradition
Was discussed - see 3rd & 4th paragraph of post 427 following pics of the building.GrahamH wrote:How do you explain this Devin?
It's interesting that little bits of urban pruning were still being undertaken at this time .... someone carrying the torch for the defunct Wide Streets Commsissioners. Wonder if the other buildings in the group were rebuilt altogether or just shaved back like the Bachelor Inn? In the '80s aerial photo their plans are weirdly shallow if they were rebuilt .. then again maybe there wasn't room to move back. So they might be Edwardian front walls with a shallow 18th century shell behind ...GrahamH wrote:Almost certainly the quay was half-heartedly pulled back to more smoothly grade the streetline into the earlier Wide Streets Commission section
Devin wrote:. . . . but the houses in question are not altered. They're originals.
Devin wrote:You're refusing to concede that even though two of the prime examples at Thomas Street and Cork Street do not appear on Rocque, 1756
Devin wrote:[INDENT]From the Irish Times, April 16 2002:[/INDENT]
Devin wrote:Look what happened when you assumed 42 Manor Street was a twin gabled house - conservation architects working on the building conclusively demonstrated that the parapet had always been flat.
Vernacular doesn't preclude 'deliberately stylistic', as we've seen with some of the examples from Limerick, and apparently also Bundoran, according to Dr. Loeber.
apelles wrote:Dutch gables must of had an have influence & given rise to some of the more unusual or unique buildings dotted around the country. .this is in the Main Street, Coolaney, Co. Sligo
I was told it was once the Town Hall, you can see the join where the decorative barge has been added at a later stage.