'Dutch Billys'

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby Devin » Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:48 pm

GrahamH wrote:And for what it's worth, another look at the fabulous rear of the adjacent two Billies with their massive central chimneystack and paired returns that Rocque got so badly wrong.
Come off it Grahamh!! That just sounds like grovelling, snivelling 'siding' ..... internet-board ass-licking of the worst kind. A bit of objectivity please!!!

A glance around Rocque shows that returns to early-18th century houses were not exclusively paired together, but often ribbed on their own along the back of a terrace (see Essex Street houses backing onto Old Custom House, for one). That return to 28 Anne Street that Rocque alledgedly put on the wrong side has a weird, newey appearance ... not to the mention the general alterations / rebuilding in early 20th century brick that went on at the rear elevations of the two houses. There are multiple possibilities of what went on here. Rocque is generally regarded as a very accurate map and there are hundereds of examples to testify it. I mean, who is some two-bit internet kid to come along 250 years later and declare Rocque "so badly wrong" ......... really.
(no disrespect to you Grahamh :) )
Devin
Old Master
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 10:27 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby archipig » Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:32 pm

archipig
Member
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 12:08 am

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby gunter » Thu Mar 18, 2010 1:23 am

archipig wrote:Check this out:

http://www.wam-architecten.nl/inntel.php


:)


Devin wrote:Rocque is generally regarded as a very accurate map and there are hundreds of examples to testify it . . .


http://www.tcd.ie/History_of_Art/research/john.php

If this treatise does half what it says on the tin, we could shortly be able to put this whole ''how accurate was Rocque'' debate to bed, once and for all.

Devin wrote:That return to 28 Anne Street that Rocque alledgedly put on the wrong side has a weird, newey appearance ... not to mention the general alterations / rebuilding in early 20th century brick that went on at the rear elevations of the two houses. There are multiple possibilities of what went on here.


Devin, sweetie, would you ever look at the pictures.

Image Image Image

Nos. 27 + 28 South Anne Street are the Rosetta Stone of 18th century Dublin Houses. We've gone through all this before. The Georgianification of these houses was uniquely half-assed, leaving us a remarkable permanent record . . . in two architectural languages.

Some time later in the 18th century, the visible-from-the-street front half of both 'Billys' was re-made as a full fourth storey, complete with a flat parapet and a cute little hipped roof over each half house, while [to use Graham's perfect phrase] - bless their frugal hearts - the hidden back half of both houses was left completely untouched.

These houses are a Godsend, there can be no wriggle room here, no scope for passing these houses off as some kind of 'transitional' Georgian type with one of those ''wondrous and manifold Georgian roof profiles'' that you've somehow managed to convince yourself once existed, as a means of explaining away all the 'Billy' features :rolleyes:

These two houses are definitively a pair, they are as close to a mirror image of each other as you can get, the staircases are virtually identical, the 'newey' return on no. 28 is completely consistent with being an original feature. OK, it's lost it's little gable - big deal.

Image Image
the heavy staircases in no. 28 [align=left] and no.27 [align=right] respectively

95% of Dutch Billys in Dublin had a return on the fireplace side and in virtually every case the constructional quirk of a half-brick step-in in the main gable above the roof of the return can be seen. This was to do with the laying out of the foundations with the external wall [of greater thickness] following the outline of the return, and wall between the main back room and the little closet return being of internal wall thickness.

Image

Despite the total renewal of the facing brickwork of the rear elevation of no. 28, this step-in can still clearly be seen [marked in red behind the vent duct]. This is 'Billy' DNA, pure and simple. There just are not ''multiple possibilities of what went on here''.
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby Devin » Thu Mar 18, 2010 5:57 pm

gunter wrote:Devin, sweetie
Oh the wryness of this thread is becoming almost unbearable!! :D


gunter wrote:Nos. 27 + 28 South Anne Street are the Rosetta Stone of 18th century Dublin Houses. We've gone through all this before. The Georgianification of these houses was uniquely half-assed, leaving us a remarkable permanent record . . . in two architectural languages.

Some time later in the 18th century, the visible-from-the-street front half of both 'Billys' was re-made as a full fourth storey, complete with a flat parapet and a cute little hipped roof over each half house, while [to use Graham's perfect phrase] - bless their frugal hearts - the hidden back half of both houses was left completely untouched.

These houses are a Godsend, there can be no wriggle room here, no scope for passing these houses off as some kind of 'transitional' Georgian type with one of those ''wondrous and manifold Georgian roof profiles'' that you've somehow managed to convince yourself once existed, as a means of explaining away all the 'Billy' features :rolleyes:

These two houses are definitively a pair, they are as close to a mirror image of each other as you can get, the staircases are virtually identical, the 'newey' return on no. 28 is completely consistent with being an original feature. OK, it's lost it's little gable - big deal.

95% of Dutch Billys in Dublin had a return on the fireplace side and in virtually every case the constructional quirk of a half-brick step-in in the main gable above the roof of the return can be seen. This was to do with the laying out of the foundations with the external wall [of greater thickness] following the outline of the return, and wall between the main back room and the little closet return being of internal wall thickness.
Granted, I bunged on that last post without even checking the OS maps myself or other details to see that the return does go back a long way (nevertheless examples of where the return is not on the same side as the chimney can indeed be cited - not to mention the subsequent Georgian era, where the return switched sides forever).

But, apart from giving you the opportunity to post yet another eulogistic sermon from the church of billy, taking any opportunities for pointscoring, rhetorical swagger and attempts to discredit (wry! wry!), is there anything there that hasn't been put on earlier?


gunter wrote:http://www.tcd.ie/History_of_Art/research/john.php
If this treatise does half what it says on the tin, we could shortly be able to put this whole ''how accurate was Rocque'' debate to bed, once and for all.
And show that those two "twin-gabled, dutch billy" houses on Thomas Street and Cork Street which do not appear on Rocque might be the victim of inaccuracy, hopefully (wry alert).

But that's great news about this project on Rocque - very worthy. A study along those lines was published a year or two ago in the 'Irish Architectural & Decorative Studies' journal (perhaps acting as a spur to the current study?). It began a fascinating dissection of the map, but was obviously limited by what you could publish in such a journal. So a major one is very deserving.


[align=center]-o-o-o-[/align]


gunter wrote:Image
This is a, two bay, twin-Billy is it not?



Devin wrote:So is there anything else this central rainwater outlet - on a house in a market square - could have been? Could it have held a beam to hoist goods into the building's enlarged second-floor window ope, before being reused as a water outlet?
Btw gunter, you haven't addressed the above, from 3 pages ago.



ImageImage
Temple Bar (now demolished).


ImageImage
ImageImage
Image

All Amsterdam.





....... At your convenience (he said wryly)
Devin
Old Master
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 10:27 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby gunter » Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:50 am

Devin wrote:

ImageImage
Temple Bar (now demolished).

Devin wrote:
Originally Posted by Devin
So is there anything else this central rainwater outlet - on a house in a market square - could have been? Could it have held a beam to hoist goods into the building's enlarged second-floor window ope, before being reused as a water outlet?


Btw gunter, you haven't addressed the above, from 3 pages ago.

....... At your convenience (he said wryly)


Sorry Devin, . . . . I didn't think you were serious.

'Could the central rainwater outlet have held a beam to hoist goods?'

Well, . . . . that is possible, if distinctly unusual for Dublin.

The example you've posted from Temple Bar is just about the only example I know of and I can't think of another 'Billy' that is recorded as having one. Of the 180, or so, 'Weaver's Houses' in the vicinity, where you could well imagine a hoist beam being a useful feature, not one is recorded as having a projecting hoist beam. Having said that, quite a number of the Weavers Houses that featured a central attic storey window also featured a kind of recess above it, high up near the apex of the triangular gables. In surviving photographs this recess is often shown bricked-up, but it may well have originally been a shuttered opening out through which a movable hoist beam could have been manoeuvered . . . in theory.

This Newmarket house is a challenge to re-imagine in it's original form, there's no question about that, but the first step has to be to separate out the features that are clearly alterations [like the flat parapet with it's odd slated capping that merges with the roof apexes] and the features that are clearly original [like the twin roof structure iself], everything else in the analysis should flow from this first step.

I'll try and get my hands on a clearer copy of this image, and of the Barker drawing that appears to show a twin-Billy of remarkably similar design, before you start complaining again that I'm posting nothing new.:rolleyes:
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby Devin » Fri Mar 19, 2010 6:17 pm

Industrial buildings with cranes are "distinctly unusual for Dublin"?? Where have you been looking? There's one directly across from that one in the Temple Bar picture - now the Granary apartments - with a hinged crane at a lower level. And another large one can be seen further down the street in the picture (its 5-bay facade survives - minus the crane - as the Button Factory's 'Wall of Fame' adorned with the great and good of Irish popular music).

There's a good one still with its crane on Anglesea Row behind Capel Street, though it was badly restored within the last decade, and there's one just off Usher's Quay at Usher Street with the large central opes (though possibly without its crane).

Leaving aside whether or not that building on Newmarket has a double roof structure or not (I don't think it's clear at all), with the location on a market square (where a stone potato market still stands) and its large ope and hole above, I think it's a real possibility that it was a 'crane' building at one point.
Devin
Old Master
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 10:27 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby gunter » Fri Mar 19, 2010 6:57 pm

Devin wrote:Industrial buildings with cranes are "distinctly unusual for Dublin"?? Where have you been looking?


Well, I hadn't been looking at ''industrial buildings with cranes'', that's true.

Those are all warehouses Devin. You're not telling me that you think that this probable twin-Billy on Newmarket was a warehouse?

Devin wrote:. . . and there's one just off Usher's Quay at Usher Street with the large central opes (though possibly without its crane).


I do know that crumbling little brown one, it is a dote. Every time I go around that corner I expect to see it gone. I sure hope An Taisce have their eye on it, Lets hope they haven't classified it as Art Deco :rolleyes:
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby Devin » Fri Mar 19, 2010 7:14 pm

gunter wrote:Those are all warehouses Devin. You're not telling me that you think that this probable twin-Billy on Newmarket was a warehouse?
I thought it was clear already that I said that that house on Newmarket could have been altered for warehouse-type of use, not like that from the start. It was fairly clearly a gabled house of some type from the start.


gunter wrote:Lets hope they haven't classified it as Art Deco :rolleyes:
I don't know what that is a reference to ......... just digs for digs sake?:rolleyes:
Devin
Old Master
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 10:27 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby gunter » Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:43 pm

Yeh, pretty much, I guess :)

We looked at nos. 27 and 28 South Anne Street already.

This is nos 14 - 17 on the north side of the street.

Image

The impression is of slightly unimpressive Georgians, so unlike almost everything else on South Anne Street, these house are not 'protected structures', except for no. 15 [the brick facade]

From the rear and above, it seems pretty clear however that this terrace dates back to the original development of the street in the 1720s and 30s and again what we're looking at is a row of altered 'Billys' that are perhaps 60 - 70% intact.

Image Image Image
Flush window frames to rear of no. 14 and a nice pair of returns to the rear of both 14 and 15. New flat roofs on 16 and 17. Paired chunky chimneys

All the original roof structures have disappeared over time with the last to go [no. 16] having been replaced with flat roof only in the last year or two.

Image

The Google-earth image shows something like a cruciform roof behind the flat parapet of no. 16, but again, since this house wasn't a 'protected structure', that valuable element that could have told us a great deal about the original configuration of the structure is now lost.

So we're back to dealing with scraps of information, like this isolate gable fragment left in position on the party wall after the roof it defined was carted off in a skip.

Image

gunter is getting angry :mad:
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby Devin » Wed Mar 31, 2010 8:36 pm

That's sad about the removal of those roofs .... and so recent, ooh it hurts!

But the harsh reality is that the majority of Dublin's small 18th century former gabled houses are no more than featureless shells and would not possess the necessary "character and special interest" to make it on to the Record of Protected Structures. A surviving plan form, return etc. just isn't rare enough or remarkable enough.

Yes, the remaining examples are all significant in that they represent a type, but the problem is there are too many of them in too basic a condition, especially in the commercial areas.

Only a small number of the city's gabled houses are in something resembling a good state of survival - with original timber wall panelling, cornicing, staircase etc. within a reasonbly intact exterior envelope - and these are generally PSs. There may be some others which could be brought in too but, after that, there are a huge number which have just been too heavily altered or worn out to ever be accorded any conservation or preservation status.
Devin
Old Master
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 10:27 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby gunter » Thu Apr 01, 2010 12:14 am

Devin wrote:. . . . . but, after that, there are a huge number which have just been too heavily altered or worn out to ever be accorded any conservation or preservation status.


Devin, that's the 1960s Fitzwilliam Street counter argument:

''one damed house after another'' . . . . ''second rate'' . . . . ''no significant internal features'' . . . ''riddled with dry rot'' . . . . and so on . . . and so on.

This is 2010, there is no excuse for that kind of nonsense today. Many of these houses are now three hundred years old, many represent the survival of original fabric from the initial development of important Dublin Streets, they are hugely significant in both cultural and architectural terms.

We've treated the Dutch Billy as the daft auntie of the Irish architectural record. She's been shut up in the attic and air-brushed out of the family album.

If we're serious about valuing heritage in this country, we could start by setting the architectural record straight, and in doing this I believe that we could reveal a lot about our cultural identity in the process. These houses might have worn their protestant-loyalism on their slieve, but they were also distinctively national in their distribution and the contrast that they represent with contemporary British building practice and that's not someting you can say about the the 'Georgian' phase that succeeded it and which seems to absorb so much of our heritage consciousness.

There is no doubt in my mind that we need to start to re-evaluate these structures and the contribution that the whole gabled tradition made to the development of our towns and cities. We have a cultural achievement here of national, perhaps international, significance and instead of celebrating it and doing everything we can to let the story tell itself, we seem to want to brush it under the carpet, or be content just to treat it as a footnote.

I just don't understand why that seems to be so.
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby Devin » Thu Apr 01, 2010 2:07 am

Well I don't understand the 'gunter against the world' line you push on this thread. It is known that the city was largely gabled prior to the Georgian period and, yes, that it was culturally significant in that it didn't happen in London but instead took from northern mainland Europe. It is known that many of these houses remain in some form, and examples have been conserved - eg. 25 Eustace Street and 66 Capel Street (and the gabled tradition has worked its way into all sorts of awful 'tributes' around the city too). Others have been fought for in vain - eg. the epic battle to save the fully panelled 95 Capel Street in 1993. In the case of Eustace Street and Capel Street, interiors were extensively intact, with their funny little features like timber box cornicing and the 'window seat' (which have hardly been discussed at all on this thread), and that served as impetus for their consevation. But what do you do with anonymous shells on Mary Street?

Btw re your Fitzwilliam Street "one damned house" reference, I am not arguing against these houses, merely pointing out that a large number are just shells. I watched numerous dissappear in the early noughties on the Smithfield / Queen Street block for Smithfield Market and it's always sad. I am just being realistic.
Devin
Old Master
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 10:27 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby gunter » Thu Apr 01, 2010 10:51 am

Devin wrote:Well I don't understand the 'gunter against the world' line you push on this thread.


That's two-in-the-morning crap, Devin :mad:

We were getting somewhere on this thread. We were identifying examples [many of them with original features], many of them boarded-up and likely to vanish if building ever starts up again. We were even getting somewhere on classification:- the eight or ten different designs of 'Billys' were starting to come into focus . . . . . and then along you come with with your ''I'll die before I believe in twin-Billys'' and ''these are gone, get over it'' and your ''fantasy drawings'' accusation and now your ''worn out shells''.

As far as I know everyone else was happy to go exploring, see what we could turn up, chew it over.

I am not ''against the world'', Devin, I'm against Devin ;) . . . . you are the spanner in the works, . . . . [with the emphasis on spanner]

Devin wrote:It is known that the city was largely gabled prior to the Georgian period and, yes, that it was culturally significant in that it didn't happen in London but instead took from northern mainland Europe.


It is known, yes, but as a footnote. You can't tell me it's widely known and it certainly isn't celebrated the way our Georgian heritage is celebrated, and there is much more to it than just that 'it took from northern mainland Europe'.

I don't understand your problem with this, we must have - what - fifty? histories of 'Georgian Dublin', of one kind or another, can we not have one lousy thread on a discussion forum dedicated to exploring the heritage of Dutch Billys?

Devin wrote:Others have been fought for in vain - eg. the epic battle to save the fully panelled 95 Capel Street in 1993.


True, but I don't remember any talk at the time that 95 was a 'Billy', all the agitation at the time was about it's collapsing Georgian facade and the panelled interior. [I'm thinking of the one at the top beside O'Hagen Design, right?]

Devin wrote:But what do you do with anonymous shells on Mary Street?
. . . . I watched numerous dissappear in the early noughties on the Smithfield / Queen Street block for Smithfield Market


Why not get them surveyed, explore their origins, tell their story, and if that all adds up to a picture of significance, which it it probably will, get them 'protected'.

That's all I'm trying to do.
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby Devin » Thu Apr 01, 2010 6:34 pm

gunter wrote:We were getting somewhere on this thread. We were identifying examples [many of them with original features], many of them boarded-up and likely to vanish if building ever starts up again. We were even getting somewhere on classification:- the eight or ten different designs of 'Billys' were starting to come into focus . . . . . and then along you come with with your ''I'll die before I believe in twin-Billys'' and ''these are gone, get over it'' and your ''fantasy drawings'' accusation and now your ''worn out shells''.
H-hold on a minute. Who are you quoting there? I did not say three out of the four things you have quoted me as saying. Please, you only use quotation marks when you're directly quoting somebody.


gunter wrote:As far as I know everyone else was happy to go exploring, see what we could turn up, chew it over.

I am not ''against the world'', Devin, I'm against Devin ]spanner[/I]]
To remind you again, a discussion board is about debate. It is screwed if it achieves cosy smug consensus. Differing opinions are good for debate because they make everyone think harder about what they are saying and more aspects are teased out. I can't believe you would prefer to just cakewalk your views accross the thread and prefer to hear 'yeah, yeah fantastic gunter' than somebody actually disagree with you.

When I say 'gunter against the world, it's about when you come out with statements like "we've treated the Dutch Billy as the daft auntie of the Irish architectural record" and "we seem to want to brush [gabled heritage] under the carpet" That is utterly unfounded!! However badly done, is rebuilding a gabled or semi-gabled streetscape on Lamb Alley or Duke Street sweeping it the carpet?!

If you think it's not sufficiently celebrated, why don't you get Capital D to do a piece on Dublin's gabled heritage?
Devin
Old Master
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 10:27 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby gunter » Fri Apr 02, 2010 12:55 am

[INDENT]. . . . . and then along you come with with your ''I'll die before I believe in twin-Billys'' and ''these are gone, get over it'' and your ''fantasy drawings'' accusation and now your ''worn out shells''.[/INDENT]
Devin wrote:H-hold on a minute. Who are you quoting there? I did not say three out of the four things you have quoted me as saying. Please, you only use quotation marks when you're directly quoting somebody.


Devin, I'm quoting you.

''Worn out shells''
is this not how you just described the probable former Billys at 14 - 16 South Anne Street?

''fantasy drawings''
you don't remember using that phrase at all? . . . . . to decsribe some of my conjectural reconstructions of Billy streetscapes . . . . no? . . . . I think I do . . . . [I think I may even have a copy of it in my 'get even' file].

''these are gone, get over it''
I can't just locate that one at the moment, but if you still want to deny saying it, I'll go back and find it.

''I'll die before I believe in twin-Billys''
Ok, that's artistic licence, your actual phrase [from post no. 431] was: ‘’I know that those roofs have nothing to do with twin gable fronts. I would bet my life on it’’
I'd say that's pretty much the same damn thing :)

So which one of the four were you admitting to?

Anyway, pressing on . . . with the debate . . . we've talked over the likely origins of Billys a few times and I think it's fair to say that the matter is still wide open.

Devin mentions the northern European parallels, which are strong and a very likely contributing factor in the development of the tradition. Extensive trade links with Holland and the Baltic would go a long way to explaining the appearance of individual red brick curvilinear gabled houses in the main port cities and towns like Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Drogheda, Belfast and Wexford, but is it enough to explain the appearance of whole streetscapes and whole districts in these towns and cities?

If trade is the primary explanation, why is there scant evidence for trade have this impact on the street-architecture of the same towns and cities prior to the Billy period, or after it for that matter?

We've looked at the possibility that the curvilinear gabed tradition may have been under-reported in the British building record also, and certainly there is evidence to suggest that someting akin to our 'Billy' tradition was indeed in vogue in provincial England in the late 17th century before the twin forces of Palladianism and the ripple effect of the London Building Regulation snuffed it out in the first couple of decades of the 18th century.

Again, this is an explanation that only partially satisfies. The concept depends on there being a direct and immediate cultural transfer between the islands [which may be perfectly reasonable given the umbilical connection between the Irish establishment and Britain], but the explanation then depends on that cultural transfer [solely in the matter of street-architecture] mysteriously stopping for at least three decades.

The third possible origin of the Dutch Billy, as has been stated before, is the conscious and willful celebration of the triumph of William III at the Boyne.

With this explanation, the dates are working in our favour. Pre 1690, ornamental gables are very sparse in the building record here, certainly less common than they appear in comparable contexts in Britain. After 1690 curvilinear gables of recognisably 'Dutch' inspiration become numerous in Ireland just as the whole gabled type begins to vanish in Britain.

Consider the situation of Clonmel.

Prior to the dredging of the Suir and the opening of a navigable channel in the 1770s, Clonmel was notably unconnected to the outside world. Commerce in Clonmell was almost totally local, not the kind of place you expect to encounter Dutch Billys, if this was a house typology transfered by European trade links.

Image Image
two views of Main St.[O'Connell St.], Clonmel showing a number of probable 'Billys' on both sides of the street that appear to have been subsequently simplified as flat parapet facades in the characteristic fashion.

Clonmel was a medieval walled town, it's main brush with history came with the Cromwelian siege in 1650. Therefore It was a town where the balance between Catholic and Protestant was recently in doubt and in doubt again when James II passed through the town and was given a civic reception in 1689.

As we've said before, the Protestant victory at the Boyne changed everything in this country and Irish Loyalists 'took ownership' of the Boyne and William of Orange ['Dutch Billy'] in every conceivable way, along with everything else. The Rev. William Burke gives a detailed account in his 'History of Clonmel' [1907] of the trials and tribulations of the Catholic population in the aftermath of the Boyne and the jockeying for position in the municipal hierarchy that occupied the triumphant Protestant ascendancy in the town. Having 'been of service' to William of Orange was the ultimate badge of honour and no doubt a considerable factor in determining the municipal pecking order.

Although he skips over the building record a bit too quickly for my liking, the Rev. Burke does go on to recount a detailed 18th century description of the annual 'Boyne' celebrations in Clonmel:

''This day being the anniversary of the Battle of the Boyne fought by King William of ever glorious and immortal memory, the morning was ushered in with ringing of bells, the Ensigns or Standards of the different Companies of this Corporation were displayed from the Tholsel, and the Mayor, Bailiffs, Burgesses, Freemen and Gentlemen of the different Corporations with Orange Cockades, proceeded at six o'clock in the morning to preambulate the Liberties and Franchises according to ancient custom; the Evening concluded with Bonfires, Illuminations and other Publick Demonstrations of Joy''

This is the context in which it might not be unreasonable to conclude that the appearance of 'Dutch Billys' on Main Street, Clonmel may have had something to do with a building tradition fostered in conscious celebration of 'Dutch Billy' himself.

It isn't the total explanation, but I think there may be growing evidence that it could be a significant part of the total explanation
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby Devin » Fri Apr 02, 2010 6:32 pm

Look, it's a basic rule: only use quotation marks for direct quotes. Simple as that. There is no room for argument.

You misquoted me already higher up on this page (in post 452) as saying ''wondrous and manifold Georgian roof profiles'' but I let it go, though looking back it was quite an outrageouos misquote.

I'm not going to be subsequently misquoted three times. The only one of those four "quotes" which is a direct quote from me is "fantasy drawings". The others or partial quotes or paraphrases.

The problem with a misquote is not just that the "quoted" person did not say it but that it allows the quoter to put their skew on it. I could if necessary present a rigorous case showing that twin gables (minature gables) on standard-plot houses were not a stylistic part of the gabled building tradition here, whereas ''I'll die before I believe in twin-Billys'' reduces it to bar room converstion.


[align=center]---------------------[/align]


By the way I agree with you that there should be a citywide survey of the remaining early buildings. And in general it is great to have this thread to look at examples in some depth. But you're putting up a huge amount of material here, so don't expect everything to be lapped up. Don't expect nones's going to disagree with anything, or the picture you paint of it.

In relation to gabled heritage being so supposedly downtrodden compared to Georgian heritage, Dublin City Council have in recent months granted permission for demolition of two Georgian buildings - 88 Thomas Street and 83 North King Street (both now under appeal) - so that part of our heritage is in no way safe or sacrosanct.
Devin
Old Master
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 10:27 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby gunter » Fri Apr 02, 2010 9:56 pm

Devin wrote:
. . . I could if necessary present a rigorous case showing that twin gables (minature gables) on standard-plot houses were not a stylistic part of the gabled building tradition here . . . .




You have my full attention

See, I didn't go all tabloid on you there, all your words are just the way you left them.

I'm stepping away now
. . . almost gone
bye
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby Devin » Fri Apr 02, 2010 11:15 pm

I don't have time for writing detailed reports for internet boards at the moment, most of which would anyway just be reiterating material put forward in the last numerous pages of this thread and the Thomas Street thread about the absence of any real evidence for this building type, the lack of stylistic precedents anywhere, its unlikeliness as a style, the holes in the evidence for the claimed examples etc.

An associate of mine who might be described as 'a significant heritage figure' (beware of credentialism) agrees with me on the twin gable issue.

As a matter of interest, what does Peter Walsh - significant authority on Dutch gable architecture in Dublin that he is - think?
Devin
Old Master
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 10:27 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby gunter » Sat Apr 10, 2010 5:22 pm

Devin wrote:I don't have time for writing detailed reports for internet boards at the moment, most of which would anyway just be reiterating material put forward in the last numerous pages of this thread and the Thomas Street thread about the absence of any real evidence for this building type, the lack of stylistic precedents anywhere, its unlikeliness as a style, the holes in the evidence for the claimed examples etc.

An associate of mine who might be described as 'a significant heritage figure' (beware of credentialism) agrees with me on the twin gable issue.

As a matter of interest, what does Peter Walsh - significant authority on Dutch gable architecture in Dublin that he is - think?


So you have an 'associate' who is a 'significant heritage figure', that's nice:), I had the feeling that your obstinancy was being propped up by someone else's ignorance.

Devin, of course twin-Billys existed, everyone else knows this, Peter Walsh was the one who first brought the existence of close-coupled twin pedimented gables on larger houses and pairs of houses to public attention with his 'Dutch Billys' article in Elgy Gillespie's book; 'The Liberties' in 1973. These are the stylistic precedent for the twin gables on standard-width houses that you're ignoring.

The evidence for the original triple gabled design of 33 Molesworth Street [Lisle house] is pretty much beyond dispute, the house next door at no. 34 had twin roofs exactly matching the detail at Lisle, only in miniature. Are you seriously suggesting that whereas no. 33 was a certain triple-Billy, no. 34 was not a twin-Billy?

I'll look around for the copies of photographs of no. 34 before it was shamefully demolished and replaced by the present lame piece of pastiche, but in the meantime, just to enrage you further:), I'll post up a conjectural reconstruction of Molesworth Street in it's original form.

Image

The suggested reconstruction of no. 35 is slightly more tenuous, but I can set out the case for it if you like. The original large mansion of the Earl of Rosse, at nos 29 - 31, was demolished and replaced by the present three Georgian houses early in the 19th century and I don't know of any evidence for it's original appearance - - - - - so naturally I've given it three gables.;)
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby Devin » Sun Apr 11, 2010 9:12 pm

I'm not sayin anthing else cos row just going round in circles .. same thing

Nice drawing of Molesworth Street, BUT if I had choice between gabled streetscape and what we have, would choose what we have .............. gabled streetscape too busy for me, la.
Devin
Old Master
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 10:27 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby gunter » Sun Apr 11, 2010 11:26 pm

Devin wrote:I'm not sayin anthing else cos now just going round in circles .. same thing


That's ok, you're busy and you have other stuff to do, that's fine.

It's just that you said:

Devin wrote:
I could if necessary present a rigorous case showing that twin gables (minature gables) on standard-plot houses were not a stylistic part of the gabled building tradition here . . .


. . . . and then you said:

Devin wrote:I don't have time for writing detailed reports for internet boards at the moment . . . . . about the absence of any real evidence for this building type, the lack of stylistic precedents anywhere, its unlikeliness as a style, the holes in the evidence for the claimed examples etc.

An associate of mine who might be described as 'a significant heritage figure' (beware of credentialism) agrees with me on the twin gable issue.


I really don't think we should leave it hanging like that.

This is what we have on nos. 32, 33, 34 and 35 Molesworth Street:

ImageImage

The Dublin Penny Journal image of nos 32 - 34 Molesworth St. as discussed before, and an aerial view from the late '70s shortly after no. 33 had lost it's three front-to-back roof volumes which had originally supported the three pedimented gables in the Penny Journal image. The pair of front-to-back roofs at no. 34 are still there [the house was almost completely demolished in the early 80s] as are a pair of widely spaced top floor windows on this house and, interestingly, also on no. 35 next to it, a house which has an early 19th century re-modelled facade and a pretty clearly re-worked roof profile.

[We'll come back to no. 32 later.]

Image

Before it was replaced by the current pastiche version, the facade of no. 34 had a slightly unconvincing upper floor window arrangement and some pretty obvious 19th century interventions at ground floor level. The ridges of the twin roofs were just visible above the parapet.

Image Image

The rear of no. 34 presented a much more convincing fenestration arrangement [middle window on first floor has been blanked out] and I would suggest that this arrangement may have originally been mirrored on the front facade also. In the three-bay Georgian version of the facade, the corners of the outside windows on the top floor were literally cut off by the original roof profile, this cannot have been the original arrangement. As an aside, I've no doubt that the person who took these photographs [I think his name was Dixon] when the house was threatened with demolition in1981 fully realized the significance of the features he was capturing.

Devin wrote:Re; Molesworth Street, . . . . if I had choice between gabled streetscape and what we have, I would choose what we have .............. gabled streetscape too busy for me, la.


I don't think it's necessarily considered good building-assessment practice to allow personal preferences to influence what historical evidence we choose to believe.

. . . . said he, giving the pot another stir ;)
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby GrahamH » Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:24 am

Marvellous photographs, gunter. I suspect we're not going to be told any time this side of Armageddon as to where they derived from. Magnificent drawing also.

If I might be as bold as to suggest that the above window-cutting photograph is flipped. Going by the width of the exterior walls, it should be this way.

Image
(I want that lamp!)

It does beg the question as to why the windows aren't symmetrically placed though, given the amount of effort that seemingly went into rearranging the facade.

Image


That is a most interesting revelation to the rear of No. 35! For some reason I had written this house off as not having any early elements on account of previous rear views and the robustness of the front facade alterations. Upon closer investigation, it would appear the grandiose floor levels were retained, just the top storey was lopped off at the front and retained at the back. A most unusual state of affairs. The existing roof form would appear to be modern, so it's difficult to make out exactly why a Georgian attic wasn't included in the front elevation, not least as this house has always had a decidedly stunted appearance. The ambitions of the ground floor make this desirable omission odder still.

There's an interesting picture emerging here of when all of these houses were altered. The three houses replacing the Earl of Rosse's mansion appear around 1810-1820, while the fine 19th century houses with shops at Nos. 36-38 emerge c. 1830. No. 35 was substantially remodelled c. 1840, and going by the detail of the attic windows of our pal at No. 34 next door, it would appear its alteration in the 1840s was directly prompted by its upstaging neighbour. A date for the modification of Lisle House and No. 32 would be helpful.

Notably, none of these dates (assuming gables were whacked off at the same time as the evidential changes we have) correlate with the arrival of George IV to Dublin in the summer of 1821 - a visit which appears to have prompted hasty gable removals elsewhere - and who was lavishly hosted in the purpose-built Round Room of the Mansion House, located within spitting distance of the above houses.
GrahamH
Old Master
 
Posts: 4592
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 11:24 am
Location: Ireland

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby gunter » Tue Apr 13, 2010 12:25 am

Freddy O'Dwyer made the interesting observation in 'Lost Dublin', published in 1981, that;

''Only two gabled houses survive on this side [south side of Molesworth Street], albeit with their gables rebuilt. Traces of early windows in a formerly gabled attic may be seen at no 34, while no. 24, formerly Messrs Trueman's retaining its panelled interiors up to 1980''

We'll come back to no 24 [and no. 25 for that matter] later but Devin, and his expert associate, might take note that the knowledge that no. 34 was a gabled house, - - - and given it's roof layout, therefore a twin-gabled house - - - is not exactly breaking news.

Sticking with Molesworth St., No. 32 is fascinating for a number of reasons, not least the fact that it illustrates some of the processes by which Billys were often modernized.

In the Penny Journal depiction of 'Speaker Foster's House', no. 32 is the smaller, simpler three-bay standard 'Billy' on the left.

Today, no. 32 is of almost equal size to no 33 [Speaker Foster's / Lisle House] , but as it appears on Rocque's map [below] the house has a frontage corresponding to the width shown in the Penny Journal image, but here the footprint is shown L-shaped, with a wider back half.

Image Image

Survey plans of the basement level, plucked from a recent planning file, corroborate the Rocque representation with walls of external thickness isolating the odd little area [coloured blue] which Rocque shows vacant. The probable original extent of the house is outlined in yellow

Given that the little recess had nothing to do with the entrance, which was on the other side, what seems to have happened here is that no. 32 started out as a standard-width, three-bay 'Billy', but that quite early on after initial construction in the 1730s [certainly pre-1756] the house was enlarged to the rear leaving the front gabled elevation untouched. Interestingly the greatly enlarged back rooms were given large, modern, flat-wall chimney breasts and in fact the opportunity seems to have been taken at this time to remove the entire central corner chimney stack and to similarly modernize the otherwise unaltered front rooms with new flat-wall chimney breasts as well.

It's not immediately clear how the opportunity to enlarge no. 32, by a couple of metres, came about, but the fact that the property adjoined the property of the Earl of Rosse might be a clue. Any trawl through the registry of deeds relating to the early 18th century turns up dozens of references to the Earl of Rosse flogging property. Rosse, of Hell-Fire-Club fame, appears to have funded his own personal rake's progress by relentlessly disposing of a seemingly endless property inheritance. In this context, the disposal of a little strip of surplus land adjoining his Molesworth St. townhouse would certainly fit the pattern.

Another Molesworth Street 'Billy' that underwent the same kind of chimney breast modernization, in this case purely on stylistic grounds, is no. 20 [on the north side of the street]. That a home owner on a good street would go to the enormous trouble of taking out an entire corner chimney breast and construct instead two huge new Georgian flat-wall chimney breasts, illustrates just how important keeping up with prevailing style could be in 18th century Dublin. In the context, it's slightly surprising that the unusual, and un-Georgian, window arrangement on the street facade survived the alterations that decapitated the original gable.

Image Image Image

The facade of no. 20 Molesworth St. with it much commented on elegant, centrally located, door and it's sliced off roof slamming into the back of it's truncated flat parapet.

Image

Two views inside the roof space of no. 20 showing [above] the enormous beams that supported the roof structures
of 'Billys' and [below] the diagonal trimmers that outlined the cross roof that originally abutted the single central
chimney stack, now removed.

Image
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby gunter » Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:41 am

Just noticed that today is 'Handel Day' http://www.templebar.ie marking the first performance of the 'Messiah' which took place on this day in Dublin in 1742.

Walking tours of Handel's Dublin etc.

gunter may monitor these street tours to make sure there's no 'Georgian' misrepresentations :)
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: 'Dutch Billys'

Postby Devin » Tue May 04, 2010 1:40 pm

gunter wrote:That's ok, you're busy and you have other stuff to do, that's fine.

It's just that you said:



. . . . and then you said:



I really don't think we should leave it hanging like that.

This is what we have on nos. 32, 33, 34 and 35 Molesworth Street:
Groan, I think everyone is bored with it, but you really want me to come back in, SO :) :



gunter wrote:
Devin wrote:Re]I don't think it's necessarily considered good building-assessment practice to allow personal preferences to influence what historical evidence we choose to believe.

. . . . said he, giving the pot another stir ;)
Well ROFL of the year when I read that, given some of your, em, impartial assessments on these pages :D

Seriously though, you have an extraordinary facility for twisting and skewing quotes in an effort to score a diss. Was I referring a particular building or group of buildings when I said that? No, it's just a general comment. It might also be rerarranged as: "Not everybody likes gabled architecture as much as you do." :)


gunter wrote:So you have an 'associate' who is a 'significant heritage figure', that's nice:)
Again, the commas and bracketed comment afterwards indicates that the 'heritage figure' reference contains irony, yet you take as a straight quote and feign sarcasm :confused:

The Molesworth Street houses are certainly interesting - the five-bay triple-gabled Lisle House and No. 34, which it appears was a four-bay double-gabled house (facade altered to three bays later) - but they don't contribute anything to the disputed and very specific issue of twin front gables on narrow-plot two- or three-bay houses, and in particular a number of extant claimed former examples - 32 Thomas Street, 120 Cork Street, 7 Bachelors Walk. The pictures below show that the two two-bay houses to the west of No. 7 - Nos. 5 & 6 - also had the double roof laid perpendicular to the street. It was just a means of laying a roof in the 18th century, or an alternative to the more usual parallel double roof, nothing more.



Image

Image




I think these are a nice pair:
Attachments
992.jpg
992.jpg (25.55 KiB) Viewed 7310 times
gables - Copy.jpg
gables - Copy.jpg (32.19 KiB) Viewed 7310 times
Devin
Old Master
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 10:27 pm
Location: Dublin

PreviousNext

Return to Ireland