Irishtown
- This topic has 60 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
Need gunter’s observations be even noted as echoed. What exactly does “which is not fulfilled by close examination” mean? Even taking them as a pair of Edwardian summer houses, they would have “an appearance of age”, never mind being of at least 19th century origin. How old does something have to be to be considered an OAP these days? All other quoted observations appear to be based on a comparison with the Provost’s House, as one encounters time and time again with vernacular houses about to be whacked.
Often what gives an indication of a building’s date, especially when difficult to decipher, is not the original fabric but the later additions. The very fact that there are alterations to a structure is indication in itself that an earlier building is likely to have been modified in some way, but being able to pinpoint the date of the alterations aids matter further, such as the commonplace early 19th century modification of c. 1700 buildings. Buildings tend to have a life of a century or so of cosmetic adjustment before major structural intervention is required/desired. In the case of Bath Street, I’d agree the grandiose double height structure to the rear is almost certainly an infill of an earlier pair of houses. The fact that this addition dates to the late 19th century, possibly c. 1870s, as with the roof structure, chimneystacks, shopfront, flat panel doors and two-over-two timber sashes, suggests these houses were first built in the mid-late 18th century and later significantly aggrandised. The ambitious number of windows to the upper storeys alone suggests modification, while the unifying render (which does not appear to be cement) pasted over old and new structures was a common post-alteration ploy.
As much as I’d like to bank on the corner chimneybreasts as being original, they do look like an awkward Victorian modification. I have come across such random stacks in Victorian buildings as late as the 1880s; they appear to have been handy solutions for small rooms. However it’s impossible to tell in this case – certainly they’re an alarm bell-ringer!
As for conservation reports and assessments on a wider level, generally speaking they mean nothing, save the historical anecdotes to lift a planner’s coffee break. All objectivity flies out the window when beholden to a client: in the big consortium cases there’s enormous money at stake, while for the small scale like this, repeat business is everything. It’s a crying shame – the client might as well write it themselves.
. . . and if they’re planning to knock the buildings anyway, what’s the big deal about knocking a bit of the render off?
There’d be clues aplenty if we could get a look at the brickwork!
They don’t want to find anything, that’s the problem!
given the day that’s in it, perhaps a slight alteration to the name of Bar(r)ack Lane – between Irishtown Road and Bath Avenue – may be necessary to get the desired level of protection for this old district….
@GrahamH wrote:
Often what gives an indication of a building’s date, especially when difficult to decipher, is not the original fabric but the later additions
That’s a very good point, and one that seems to have escaped our Grade One friend.
@GrahamH wrote:
. . . . In the case of Bath Street, I’d agree the grandiose double height structure to the rear is almost certainly an infill of an earlier pair of houses. The fact that this addition dates to the late 19th century, possibly c. 1870s, as with the roof structure, chimneystacks, shopfront, flat panel doors and two-over-two timber sashes, suggests these houses were first built in the mid-late 18th century and later significantly aggrandised.
It looks like the in-filling between the stairwell returns is earlier than that!
Nos. 11 & 13 are marked with a red X.I found this great map of Irishtown dated 1831 and it shows a flat rear profile to these houses, corresponding exactly to the current arrangement. The map looks pretty detailed and acurate in it’s representations of rear returns elsewhere in the village, so I think we’re entitled to conclude that the existing rear in-fill extensions had been built by 1831.
Given the considerable difference in scale and detail of the extensions from the original, anything less than a fifty year gap, would seem very unlikely. That gives us a construction date for the houses of 1780 at the lastest.
The detail on this copy of the map is a bit unclear, but I think the notation on the property reads ‘Alex. Worthington, Sundry Tenements’.
‘Tenement’, along with ‘Messauge’ was a common notation for houses at the time, but I think it would still indicate that the properties, unlike those with individual names attached, were rented premises, possibly in multiple occupancy.
Does anyone know what the plans are for george reynolds flats in ringsend. Just passed there and it looks like they are knocking them all down.
@gunter wrote:
I found this great map of Irishtown dated 1831 and it shows a flat rear profile to these houses, corresponding exactly to the current arrangement. The map looks pretty detailed and acurate in it’s representations of rear returns elsewhere in the village, so I think we’re entitled to conclude that the existing rear in-fill extensions had been built by 1831.
Aha most interesting. However, to throw a spanner in the works, it is entirely possible the infilled structure the map depicts is single-storey to the rear. Personally I think this more likely, as it was very common for such houses to be one room deep with a single-storey abutment at the back. This would also explain the semi-independent character of the stair projections, if they were once taller than an adjacent structure. It’s difficult to be sure going by the pictures alone, but it’s impossible to believe that the rear structure in all its gradiosity dates to pre-1830, unless it was an original part of the house. Either way, the windows and doors are all considerably later.
I’m going to suggest that a single-storey extension was built up to first floor level in the late 19th century. This would help explain its considerable and ‘well built’ character, and also the dense array of windows to the front of the buildings which also hint at a comprehensive reordering of first floor accommodation.
@GrahamH wrote:
. . . the dense array of windows to the front of the buildings . . . . also hint at a comprehensive reordering of first floor accommodation.
I’m not sure I buy that Graham, if they had ”comprehensively reordered” the first floor, surely they would have put a new simple roof on the extended and squared up houses at the same time, not roofed the extensions separately?
To my mind, it’s the number and spacing of the windows on the street facade that is one of the strongest indicators of an early (mid 18th century?) date! that and the low ground floor cill heights, the low floor to ceiling heights, the single room depth, the projecting returns and the suggested red brick over rubble stone plinth construction.
That brickwork that peeps out through the cracks in the render looks older than Victorian to me, and it’s not yellowish either, i.e. not from the local Sandymount brickworks of the 19th century!
By chance, a bit of render fell off the corner the other day and it appears that the rubble stone plint is a bit higher than I would have expected, but, then again, maybe we can explain this as a rough repair to a damaged corner given that the house is on the corner of a narrow lane (Alonso’s Barack Lane) where cart wheel damage wouldn’t be unusual.
Obviously, I could be completely wrong about all of this.
Well this is turning into a bit of a saga isn’t it?
@gunter wrote:
surely they would have put a new simple roof on the extended and squared up houses at the same time, not roofed the extensions separately?
I doubt it in this case. It would make more sense, from a cost perspective anyway, to simply retain what was there and insert an independent new-built in their midst. Unlike today with our twenty-year colour guarantee slate muck, and cheap, easily sourced materials, it was very common (need it even be said) for older structures to be simply worked around – especially true of returns such as these, where the modernising requirements of the new accommodation were not required to be applied to such ancillary spaces.
Fair point about the density of the windows. I suppose there’s two ways at looking at that: 1) they’re early because of their cumbersome clustering, or 2) they’re much later because of such an ambitious number of prized windows in such a modest building.
Do you think the houses were originally of exposed red brick, gunter? Or always rendered but built out of red brick? It’s also possible the whole buildings are of rubble stone with just the window surrounds of brick, as was the norm…
Taking into account the resources of the people who owned and lived in these buildings, it’s hard to believe that there was more than one wave of redevelopment over the course of the 19th century. Given the windows, doors and chimneys clearly date from the late 19th century, it can only be reasonably assumed that the upper part of the rear extension – if it even is an extension – dates from this time. This in turn would suggest the houses were built about 100 years beforehand. A supposition based on a supposition, but sure we have to start somewhere…
By chance, a bit of render fell off the corner the other day
Indeed.
@GrahamH wrote:
Do you think the houses were originally of exposed red brick, gunter? Or always rendered but built out of red brick?
I was thinking the brickwork was the probable finish throughout.
I was half hoping that we could pin these down to the early 1700s, that they were survivors of the Irishtown of Brookings view, the building period that saw the construction of the new church.
I’ve known these houses all my life, It’s just really frustating not to be able to unravel their story and knowing that they can now be demolished without ever doing them the courtesy of finding out how old they are.
Possibly a bit undignified to become emotional about a couple grubby old houses!
Ah well, at least through exposed foundations and loose rubble we’ll have a better idea of the significance of what stood on the site once it’s demolished.
@irishguy wrote:
Does anyone know what the plans are for george reynolds flats in ringsend. Just passed there and it looks like they are knocking them all down.
I hadn’t heard what the plans were, but this is a photograph of that stretch of Irishtown Road showing the original terrace of cottages on the site before the flats were constructed.
Lawless’s shop, previously Robinson’s, is unchanged on the left.
@gunter wrote:
On 11 – 13 Bath Street, (Reg. no. 3285/08) the Additional Information went back in on 17 Dec.
The proposal is to demolish these two houses and basically build two replacement houses in a broadly similar style.
This happens all the time in Irish towns and villages. Good vernacular buildings are replaced by sterile hollow-block versions of themselves. Example from Carlow Town:
🙁
the souped up Honda and the Velux windowed muck replacing an historic building – could there be a better picture of Irish Culture 2009?
gunter- I noticed this morning as I cycled past that the house to the left of your forlorn pair (No. 9 Bath Street?) had workmen buzzing around. Not sure if it’s related to the proposed works next door. Might try and get a snap in the morning.
Thanks for that ctesiphon.
I was kinda hoping the recession would take care of this.
I think I posted a copy of an 1830s map of Irishtown which was a bit inconclusive on nos. 11 & 13 in that it apeared to show the area between the rear returns filled in and we couldn’t be sure if this reflected an original ground floor extension (graham) or the present 19th century extension (gunter). In this regard, there could be some more clues to the date/original layout of these houses in that great Fitzwilliam Estate Map of 1760 which is reproduced in McCullough. The north-east extremity of the map seems to include Ringsend and Irishown, but unfortunately, as reproduced, the page margin cuts this off!.
Apparently the Architectural Archive on Merrion Square have a copy of this map and the National Archives in Bishop Street have the original, . . . . . bit of a toss-up there to decide which is likely to be the least helpful, publicly funded, national heritage repository, and the least fruitful source for a quick digital snap!
Well I had the camera in the bag this morning, but when I took it out for a photo there was a ‘Memory Card Error’, so the snap wasn’t possible. However, I did stop for a look. There’s a big skip outside Nos. 11-13 full of builders’ rubble, which seems to be coming from No.9 (or is it No. 15?), and a sign on that house giving details of the building company. I think the name was Buto? Anyway, I’ll keep an eye on it as it’s recently become part of my morning commute (except when it’s very windy and I take Park Avenue instead of the coast road).
Good luck with the map.
This is a very difficult time for architects and the Arts Council recognises the particularly acute, current need to support them in their work practices. We are delighted that Orla Murphy is the recipient of this year’s award. Orla will be researching the potential of architecture to enhance the experience of living, working and playing in the 21 century Irish town’.
Any Irish town or the Irish town?:D
What an enchanting place Irishtown is on a summer’s evening; Bath Street in particular. The relative absence of traffic and people serves to enhance its valley of the squinting windows quality: one of those rare breeds in Ireland, so commonplace in England, of eerie intimate village streets, packed to the rafters like a 1950s provisions store with a mixumgatherum of vernacular buildings, so small and relatively undisturbed as to make it feel like trespass, if not wholesale cultural vandalism, to enter into their closeted world.
Happily, this suspicion has its benefits when one wishes to find out about something, as it’s only a matter of time before a resident will come to their door if one proves sufficiently suspicious loitering about outside with a camera.
This incredible house which gunter referenced the doorcase of earlier is clearly of mid-18th century date, with a vicarage-style makeover on top conducted in the 19th century.
The owner tended to concur with this, though only after the weirdo outside suggested it, so not necessarily set in stone. They were however aware that the house was well over 200 years old. The similar pretty house facing the laneway to the side was formerly the mews of this house, so this alone tells us significant modification was carried out on an earlier house.
An interesting feature was the significant drop from pavement level into the house itself. One wonders if the ground floor had been excavated in the 19th century, as the ceiling heights were surprisingly high. What internal joinery I could make out was of similar date.
The couple also reported on significant drilling noise – described as ‘piling’ – coming from the unfortunate houses gunter has charted further up the street. They contended the houses were being refurbished rather than demolished, but weren’t sure.
The front room of the left-hand house with corner fireplace is beyond tiny, There is almost without doubt the remains of an earlier structure in this pair of buildings. Below alone suggests that the hallway of this house was a later insertion, consuming part of the once cube-like room.
It is obscene what has been permitted in respect of these houses – amongst the top five most significant houses in the village. As noted earlier, if the entire village was to be whacked by order of importance, these would be amongst the final buildings left standing.
A decision akin to this type of thinking.
The house next door in Bath Street is also undergoing ‘refurbishment’.
The barracks is a very handsome building. Clearly the grandest and most modern ever built in the town at that time, it must have had as much, if not more, impact as the new Garda Station today, with sophisticated hints of the Wide Streets Commission’s work.
Is there a chipper anywhere in Irishtown? I was not amused.
yeh there’s Iannelli’s and the Canton House not more than 80 yards from where you were standing
One of those fine vernacular houses on Bath Street had its appalling 1970s fake-stone cladding chipped off on Wednesday. Sadly the damage done to the original red brick by the guys who keyed in the wretched fake stone, forty odd years ago, was every bit as bad as I remembered it.
I understand that the façade is to be rendered.
In a civilized country, there would be local authority advice and grant assistance for the owners of valuable houses like this.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
