Re: Re: ‘Dutch Billys’
Re 33 Thomas Street, gunter are you sure that that is the remains of a twin-gabled facade? There lots of pictures of old gabled houses in Dublin, but I’ve never seen a picture of a two-bay house with a twin gable.
Yea. 32, no. 33 is the early Georgian.
I think we can be sure (if that’s not a contradiction in terms) for several reasons.
2. Anywhere we’re calling up a ‘twin-Billy’, we’re already seeing ‘Billy’ in the other characteristics, so we’re just trying to put a roof on it.
3. A standard ‘Billy’ will either have the roof springing from the top floor joists, or from half way up the attic storey walls. the top storey was an ‘attic’ storey.
4. The ones we’re calling ‘twin’ Billys have no attic storey, the stairs stops at the last full floor.
5. We know from the photographs/drawings of 30 Jervis St and the two New Row South corner houses (pairs of houses) that ‘close-coupled’ twin Billys existed. The central section of a close-coupled twin-Billy would be identical in appearance and construction to the houses we’re calling twin-Billys.
6. The twin axial roof profiles required a serious beam running front to back, beams were never used in the Georgianification of other Billy types, but beams were a standard part of the Dutch Billy roof construction.
7. There wasn’t the same need to rebuild the roofs of twin-Billys to make them conform to Georgian taste, because the lower profiles of the roofs could be hidden effectively with simple hips to the front (32 Thomas St.), or a higher parapet, (25 James St.)
8. One of the possible rationals for the popularity of twin Billys may have been that they actually required fewer heavy beams (one) than single gabled roof construction (minimum two).
I’ll try and conjour up a few diagrams to support this when I get a chance.