Re: Re: ‘Dutch Billys’

Home Forums Ireland ‘Dutch Billys’ Re: Re: ‘Dutch Billys’


@GrahamH wrote:

It’s a shame the rear portion of Buswells has been so drastically altered. All we know is that it was different to the front.
Its three-bay upper elevation is certainly more plausible as original that the lower levels, and we can pretty much make out where the rainwater outlets used to be.
. . . . we almost categorically know the facade of Buswells has been altered, and yet aside from the new parapet, it is impossible to tell through the brickwork.

Except that there is a brick soldier course between the three cills to the top storey windows and that wouldn’t be original . . . . but it would be consistent with the notion that originally there may have been just a pair of windows on the top storey, and – if this house was a twin-Billy – this pair of windows would have been lined up with the twin roof ridges, like appears to have been the case with no. 5 down the street on the other side [shown here during demolition in the ’80s]

Being a hotel, with public access, a person could probably find out for sure if Buswells was originally a twn-Billy by simply booking in to one of those top floor rooms and packing a masonry hammer in an over-night bag 😉
. . . . . unfortunately, gunter’s credit card is maxed out at the moment.

@GrahamH wrote:

It suggests what No. 7 Bachelor’s Walk could be if of three bays originally to the upper elevation.

I think Graham is spot on there.

No. 7 Bachelor’s Walk doesn’t work as a two-bay twin-Billy, the windows don’t line up with the roof ridges, but it would work as a twin-Billy if the original design incorporated the familiar Billy pattern of mixing a larger scale, two-bay, composition at first floor level with a smaller scale, three-bay, composition at second floor level, thus allowing the pair of top floor windows to slide out to positions that lined up with the roof ridges and, by extension, the gable pediments.

No. 7 Bachelor’s walk as it appears today with the fenestration and moulded parapet that appears to date to the 1770s, or thereabouts . . . and below, a conjectural reconstruction of it’s possible appearance when originally constructed in the late 1720s or early 1730s.

@GrahamH wrote:

In the case of the odd house at No. 27 Bachelor’s Walk . . . . it is surely unfathomable in such constrainned circumstances that one would build such a convoluted, expensive roof structure unless it had architectural intent?

That’s exactly the point, and also the shallowness of the pitch of the twin roofs strongly suggests [as it does with no. 120 Cork Street and no. 32 Thomas Street] that the roofs of these houses were subsequently completely re-built [above the retained original main beam and in a way that unconsciously maintaining the basic original form], which would be consistent with the notion that these houses were deliberately modernized at some point and that their current appearance is not their original appearance.

Latest News