Thomas Street & James Street, Dublin!

[gunter]

johnglas: you Scotch types are always going on about the cost of things, you don't hear gunter going on about the last €200 he wasted on a third party appeal. I think if we stripped down your critique of the Scottish Parliament building to it's roots, we might find some Glasgow v Edinburgh thing going on there!

Ciaran: Re the Fountain Bar. I have some shots of that corner, I just can't quite locate them at the moment. We are talking about the pub right on the corner, not the one, now called 'The Tram' on the Protestant church side. Coming from Thomas Street there were two properties facing the 'fountain', a pub on the left and a bookies on the right (the Bow Lane corner). In recent times the corner pub was called 'The Barn Owl', or 'The Aul Barn', or something like that. They're just finishing a curvy building on that corner now which I think is some kind of homeless hostel. It is a pity that a more active street frontage couldn't have been conjoured up here.

I take your point, notjim, about the way that a number of Guinness buildings already 'loom' over the streetscape, and there's not a whole lot wrong with that. Is this some kind of a vindication of the planning process? That would be asking for two positive comments in one post!



The old post office, now closed (except for the parcel service at the rear) is a particular gem. You Dart types might grumble about Starbucks in your post offices, but I'd linger outside and smell a Starbucks any day, it'd beat the pong off Guinness.

[johnglas]

Gunter: I'm not letting go, and less of the racial stereotypes; of course, it's a Glasgow/Edinburgh thing (I jest; Embra is the capital, much as that sticks in my craw). £460m is a bit more than Eu200 (note, no symbol on my keyboard!), though your dedication does you proud. I just don't like it and I'll argue the toss with anyone.

PS 'Embra' is the approximate keelie* pronunciation of the nation's capital.

* = an inhabitant of Glasgow, also 'weegie' (as in 'Glaswegian')

[gunter]

PS 'Embra' is the approximate keelie* pronunciation of the nation's capital.

* = an inhabitant of Glasgow, also 'weegie' (as in 'Glaswegian')

Am I right in saying that a 'gurrier' / 'scanger', in Glasgow is a 'ned'?

If so, the growing campaign to save 'Ned's' pub on Townsend Street must be raising a smile!

[johnglas]

Indeed they are (regarded as non-PC but in universal use nevertheless); Ned's must make up in atmosphere what it lacks in street presence. The posting of the Guinness photo above - a superb collection of industrial buildings which should 'loom' over their surroundings. Is the church just off-picture St James's (just for me to get my bearings)?
Talking of the black stuff (gives me indigestion; I much prefer Beamish) - has anything ever been mooted about restoring the area around Basin St and re-opening the canal link? What a townscape that could be.

[alonso]

Talking of the black stuff (gives me indigestion; I much prefer Beamish) - .

feckin Langer!!!

[johnglas]

Translation needed; does it imply one-handed exercise (thought the ref to Beamish would get someone going!)?

[ctesiphon]

It's a Cork term of endearment/abuse (presumably because of the Beamish reference?).

[johnglas]

Thanks for that - derivation?

[alonso]

pfffft God knows. I'd be hard pushed to justify the existence of Cork or from whence the place was derived, let alone the silly words that they inflict on the rest of us....

(I jest of course)

[Paul Clerkin]

James St PO is a great little building - designed by the same guy who designed Fusiliers Arch in the Green - J. Howard Pentland

http://www.archiseek.com/search/search.php?template_demo=&site=&path=&result_page=search.php&query_string=pentland

[gunter]

A little bit of good news re these on the corner of Crane Lane - I am informed by reliable sources that these are currently being preped for restoration, with one of the city's better known and respected practises attached to the project. Apparently these passed thru the hands of DCC in recent years, who it is said were largely to blame for their current condition. However I am now happy to report that those currently involved are doing their work very diligently, having already researched other builings of similar stock. So here's hoping to a happy-ending on this one

The planning application for this bit of restoration was lodged on 7th March (Reg. no. 1840/08), only noticed it today.

The restoration of 7 & 8 Thomas St. / corner of Crane Lane, is attached, in the planning application, to this:

This looks like a cross between the Stephen's Green 'Mississippi River Boat' and 'The Crystal Palace'!

Incredibly, Vat House no. 7, (apparently what this former Guinness building is called) is not a 'protected structure', so the proposal is to take off the roof (Point Depot style) and drop a four storey glass office block on top. In some circumstances this could be a 'bold' statement, but, on Crane Street? which can't be more than 7m wide, that's got to be pushing it! The Crane Street elevation projects slightly further out as the new floor rises ending in a roof garden above the eight floor, but the profile behind no. 7 Thomas Street, does the opposite by stepping substantially back in, as each new floor rises!

What's happening to deBlacam and Meagher on the Digital Hub site?

I used to think they had a pact with the devil, their buildings were so perfect!

[gunter]

More distressing dereliction going on up at the 'Fountain' end of James Street

This attractive small Georgian was in reasonably good habitable condition last year, but has been going down hill rapidly in the last nine months. I spotted a heavy weight team of DCC hard hats accessing part of this terrace about four months ago (couldn't see which house), but any City Council attention hasn't resulted in even the slightest attempt to provide temporary repairs to the roof, or close up the broken windows. This looks a lot like old fashioned pre-development degradation to me.

Front and back views.



Two doors up, is this elegant little former 'Dutch Billy' twin, and it's pink (former simple 'Dutch Billy') neighbour. The three bay, double roofed house is too valuable to risk losing, but it also has had no slates on it's roof for about six months. At least this one has a felt covering, for now.

Front and back views.



Given what happened recently to one of the last 18th century houses on the opposite side of James Street, facing the entrance to the hospital, you would hope that some warning lights are flickering somewhere in the bowels of Dublin City Council, or is that being hopelessly optimistic?

[KerryBog2]

feckin Langer!!!

Translation needed; does it imply one-handed exercise (thought the ref to Beamish would get someone going!)?

It's a great word! Brought back to Cork from India probably by the Munster Fusiliers . Langur, a class of small monkey with a decidedly long tail. Therefore word is applied to another appendage, hence “he’s a right langer.” Also, “he was langers” as in very drunk, and tottering/cavorting around like said monkey.
K.

[johnglas]

So, now I know! I was half-right, anyway. Good etymology KB - isn't (local) language wonderful? Save us all from received pronunciation (and vocabulary); an approximate equivalent in Glaswegian for the latter use is 'stoating' or 'stocious' ('he was stocious') - hence, 'ya stoater!', which is actually a compliment. 'To stoat' is to bounce.

[GrahamH]

One would have thought johnglas to excel in all matters RP. How illusive the internet can be!

Yes they're gems up at James Street, gunter. I was looking at them again only recently - they really have deteriorated shockingly.

[johnglas]

God, do I seem as tight-arsed as that!? Take it from me, GH, I am NOT an exponent of RP, much as I might be old-fashioned about writing good standard English.

[gunter]

johnglas:

You sound refreshed, I hope you haven't been away enjoying yourself for two weeks!

[johnglas]

Si! And in Palma de Mallorca as well - indigenous architecture, sense of place, active conservation, contemporary style and panache? Don't get me started! Glad to be back.

[Devin]

Two doors up, is this elegant little former 'Dutch Billy' twin, and it's pink (former simple 'Dutch Billy') neighbour. The three bay, double roofed house is too valuable to risk losing, but it also has had no slates on it's roof for about six months. At least this one has a felt covering, for now.

Front and back views.

I was passing by these one day and the front door of the 3-bay house (red door) was open and it has an original fully-panelled early 18th cen. hallway. Thankfully, it's a PS.

~~~~~~~~

Proposal for demolition of remaining structures at Nos. 61/62 Thomas Street and construction of new 7-storey glazed building - Ref. 2067/08. As can be seen in the proposed section, the top 3 floors would be set well back. Still, it somehow doesn't have the ring of model infill for Thomas Street about it, does it?

[johnglas]

What gets me with these buildings is that they have (or had) perfectly decent facades which have (deliberately) been allowed to rot. This thread on DBs has been fascinating, but these Victorian (?)/Edwardian (?) (sorry for the Hanoverian/Saxe-Coburg language) facades have their own quiet merit. The replacement building is so inappropriate and boring that it should be refused pp on stylistic grounds (that would make the basis of an interesting appeal!). Where is the DCC design guide for this area? The ramshackle shopfronts and the lurid colours, alongside crumbling (and crumbled) upper stories would make you think that developers were deliberately trying to make these areas as run-down as possible so they could justify building any old rubbish in their place.
Developers wouldn't do that, would they?

[GrahamH]

Oh this is a real shame. I had hoped these would be fully restored to their most recent intact state (gunter don't go there ). I was under the impression that a student was engaged in a study to reinstate these buildings - even if informally, it's clearly not having any influence.

So what is this building? All of the drawings online are equally evasive. How is any member of the public (or a planner for that matter) supposed to make an informed decision on an application based on a few sketched lines? This is a common occurance with medium-sized applications - vague CAD drawings posted online and nothing in the way of photomontages, streetscape views or artist's impressions.

[gunter]

One of the problems could be that they don't really teach 'in-fill' as a skill in the architecture schools, or they didn't use to anyway. I remember we were given a in-fill project in Bolton Street in 2nd year, and it was a total shambles. Nobody could do it. The crits were one shocking scheme after another, including gunter's, I have to say.

In-fill is a very difficult thing to do, unless you get into the mindset. In Bolton Street, we just moved on to the next project, a riding school, or whatever. We never went back to try it again, and a couple of years later, after a nice opera house thesis, we were out on the streets practicing!

Devin: That 3 bay in James's Street with the red door might be a PS, but it doesn't have any slates on it's roof.

[gunter]

These two proposals have both been given the green light by Dublin City Council in the last few days.

The top one(Reg. no. 1840/08): deBlackam & Meagher's office block on top of Vathouse no. 7 on Crane Street gets off particularly lightly IMO.

The planner's report doesn't mention the narrowness of Crane Street, except to note that the proposed widening of the footpaths might be a bit tricky. The report states that 'The stepping back of the profile from Thomas Street would protect the visual amenities of the streetscape and those of the adjoining protected structures.' I have to say I disagree with that. It was quite correctly pointed out by notjim, earlier in this thread, that several of the existing Guinness buildings already 'loom' out quite successfully over the streetscape of Thomas St. The proposed redevelopment of Vathouse no. 7 clearly looms out above Crane Street and Rainsford Street, and if this bold design approach has validity on these narrow streets, (which it possibly does) then to abandon this approach for the narrow frontage that addresses the main thoroughfare of Thomas Street, is a denial of that architectural strategy and seriously compromises the integrity of the design.

The planner's report also states that 'The design treatment of the additional floors is contemporary in form, detailed in glass and aluminium and iroko panelling, bounded by continuous balconies at each level'. It would be pedantic to disagree with that assessment, but it is a sobering thought that a structure that so closely resembles Paxton's Crystal Palace of 1856?, could come to be regarded as 'contemporary' in 2008.

The case is notable in a couple of other ways:

1. [INDENT]The decision to grant permission for this development was made despite the fact that an earlier planning application (Reg. no. 5666/07) to develop the the overall Digital Hub site, including a different treatment of the Vathouse structure, remains live (additional information having been requested in December and not yet supplied)! [/INDENT]


2. [INDENT]The application involves 'Protected Structures' and is centred on the redevelopment of a Guinness warehouse that, though not a PS, has clear architectural & heritage value, and yet no photo-montages showing the visual impact were deemed necessary![/INDENT]

The phrase rush to judgement comes to mind.

The other development pictured above, for the 'Windmill site', (Reg. no. 1712/08) got a pretty favourable review on this thread, from what I recall. This application (by HKR) was handled by a different planning officer and the planner's report appears, to me, to be a bit more insightful. The only blind spot in the report is the absense of any mention of the high profile blank wall that will appear over the rooftops of IAWS, when looking west on Thomas Street. Notice how a phantom tree appears in the render to soften this particular junction!

The report praises the 'unashamedly modern' design approach, the 'minimalist and uncluttered elevational treatment', and the 'vertical rather than horizontal emphasis'. In respect of the relationship with IAWS, the report concludes that '. . . despite being higher . . (the proposed block A) . . presents a lightweight appearance which is not unduly overbearing.'

Both planning decisions repeatedly quote the densification strategy in the draft [B][B][B]'Maximising the City's Potential'[/B][/B][/B] with the implication that the guideline of 'heights of up to eight storeys in the city centre' may have already become the new benchmark. Most people would probably go along with this, but there is a danger that we will just end up replacing our present 'gap toothed' streetscapes of derelict sites interspersed among four storey structures with a new 'gap toothed' streetscape of occassional retained four storey structures interspersed amongst an otherwise uniform eight storey ensemble.

[ctesiphon]

Both planning decisions repeatedly quote the densification strategy in the draft 'Maximising the City's Potential'

Not only has this not yet been adopted, it is now being referred to as a 'discussion document' by DCC itself, downgraded from the original status as a 'draft strategy'. But as I suspected, none of this matters a whit- the Council is just ploughing on with this worthless piece of crap 'strategy' regardless of the rubbishing it has received almost across the board.

[gunter]

Not only has this not yet been adopted, it is now being referred to as a 'discussion document' by DCC itself, downgraded from the original status as a 'draft strategy'. But as I suspected, none of this matters a whit- the Council is just ploughing on with this worthless piece of crap 'strategy' regardless of the rubbishing it has received almost across the board.

The Windmill site report (Reg. no. 1712/08) refers to the said 'worthless piece of crap' as: 'the current (draft) strategy on building heights in Dublin City, 'Maximising the City's Potential', and goes on to state that this document 'allows for heights of up to eight storeys in the city centre', and that the proposed heights are in keeping with this. In case that's not enough, it adds: 'The site is also close to the Heuston area, which is identifed as a cluster for higher buildings'.

The Crane Street Report (Reg. no. 1840/08) refers to your 'wpc' as 'A discussion document 'Maximising the City's Potential: A strategy for Intensification and Change'. It notes that this document was published in Dec. '07 and is 'an elaboration of the thinking already articulated in the DEGW Report of 2000, 'Managing Intensification and Change: A Strategy for Dublin Building Height'. The report goes on to acknowledge that while '. . this is a discussion document at present, it provides a coherent context in which to consider the current proposal'.

A person would be tempted to suggest that the current Dublin City Development Plan 2005 - 2011 might offer a more 'coherent context' in which the planning authority might conduct it's business, but then that would imply that everyone has to sing from the same hymn sheet and there wouldn't be much scope for guitar solos then!