Re: Re: ‘Dutch Billys’
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 🙂 :
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 😀
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.” 🙂
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.
I think these are a nice pair: