May 12, 2003 at 12:56 pm #706199paul_moloneyParticipant
I took a wander down Moore St. last week
to see the “1916 Surrender House” myself.
I’d presumed that it was near the Parnell St end of the street. However, I realised that I must have confused it with the house outside which the O’Rahilly died (which has already been demolished). The 1916 Surrender House is over _halfway_ down the street, nearer the Henry St end than the Parnell St end.
This implies that the proposed development involves demolishing at least half of one side of Moore St. If so, this is simply appalling. Is this true? The buildings aren’t in great condition, sure, but they’re part of the character of the street. Anyone think that modernity will add to Moore St only has to look at the pathetic and barren ILAC centre side of it to see that idea in practise.
May 12, 2003 at 1:39 pm #726702urbanistoParticipant
I also went down for a closer look and I couldnt help thinking what a state Moore Street is in. Ugly ILAC on one side, crappy country town type buildings on the other and the soom to be built modern box at the Parnell Street end. It was very forlorn looking.
I think city markets are a great thing. I would much rather see Moore Street developed into a much marger space along the lines of the Old Fruit Markets in Smithfield. I think the DCC plan is for an enclosed street.
May 13, 2003 at 8:59 am #726703notjimParticipant
It’s hard to see what to do here, but I will say that Moore Street is great at the moment and will be a real loss, justified or not. It’s like being on Canal Steet. Hopefully Mary Abbey Street will take over.
May 13, 2003 at 2:02 pm #726704AnonymousInactive
Council votes to preserve 1916 building
By Alison Healy and Kitty Holland
Dublin city councillors last night voted overwhelmingly to preserve 16 Moore Street – the last headquarters of the leaders of the 1916 Rising.
Labour councillor Mr Joe Costello TD had tabled a motion proposing that the building be retained and incorporated into the planned regeneration of the immediate area.
He also proposed that it be developed as an education and information centre. Just one councillor, Fine Gael’s Mr Chris Giblin, voted against the plan. He said he feared it would hold up rejuvenation of the area.
The building forms part of the Carlton development site, which is the subject of a compulsory purchase order by Dublin City Council. The site is also the subject of a High Court action by its owners, the Carlton Group, who want the order lifted.
Last night, the city manager, Mr John Fitzgerald, said he would examine all options of including the building in any future development.
“The whole issue of due recognition for, and commemoration of, the historic significance of 16 Moore Street will be considered in the context of proposals for the redevelopment of the site,” he said.
“Any attempt to deal with this issue in detail, prior to concrete development proposals for the Carlton site, would be premature,” said Mr Fitzgerald.
The building became a brief headquarters for the leaders of the 1916 Rising after they abandoned the GPO on Friday, April 28th, 1916.
PÃ¡draic Pearse, Thomas Clarke, Joseph Plunkett, SeÃ¡n MacDermott and William Pearse made the decision to surrender when they were gathered around the bed of the wounded James Connolly in the building on Easter Saturday.
The National Graves Association has described the building as “the Irish Alamo”.
Yesterday, it handed the Lord Mayor a petition of 1,916 signatures calling on the council to reverse the decision to demolish the building.
Also yesterday, about 100 people marched from 16 Moore Street to City Hall to urge councillors to vote to preserve the building.
May 13, 2003 at 2:03 pm #726705AnonymousInactive
I think its great that a decision to preserve such a historic building has been taken rather than the demolish it.
May 13, 2003 at 5:00 pm #726706d_d_dallasParticipant
Ughhh – why couldn’t all this have been cleared up ages ago?
Or is it a cynical case of selective memory when it comes to what constitues “historical” – as in the developer chooses to overlook history when it suits them, and quite similarly certain individuals over-hype the “historical” card equally when it suits them to stop ambitious projects.
How does this bode for the regeration of the area as a whole though? If it impedes this then I’d be in favour of losing this structure – you can’t make an omlette without breaking eggs. And let’s be honest – most of inner city Dublin has some bloody connection to 1916.
May 13, 2003 at 5:27 pm #726707paul_moloneyParticipant
Is there anyone who wants to stop these projects _merely_ for the sake of stopping them? You make it sound like there’s a conspiracy of Luddites out there who want to stop new building purely for that sake. I don’t think you’ve find any objection to any developments on Parnell St, but Moore St’s very character comes from partly from its age and the ambience of the buildings. There might be an argument for complete renovation if there was no life left in the street, but there patently is if you’ve been down there lately. God forbid it becomes’s Dublin’s equivalent of the souless “improvements” at Les Halles.
May 13, 2003 at 8:35 pm #726708GrahamHParticipant
The short and unified terrace stretching from Henry St about a 1/4 way down Moore St is very fine, with red brick & limestone dressings & should be preserved.
All of the rest on that side of the st as far as I can recall is utter trash, although there may be a few gems lurking in behind those ghastly plastic signs, and my opinion of the place is probably tainted by these.
May 14, 2003 at 9:19 am #726709AnonymousInactive
A bit too many ‘eggs’ have been broken for development purposes at this stage. e won’t have much left apart from the big neo-classical heavy-hitting buildings if we are not careful.
This house is historic – a stroll around Dublin can no longer, alas, take you to where the 1916 rising started – namely the original Liberty Hall. Thankfully though you can still see where this important historical event was headquartered, and where it ultimately finished and failed.
These historical pieces are very finite. If development is delayed by a bit to allow the preservation of our history, then so be it. Its not like this development will not encounter other delays in some shape or form! The important thing is to get it right, not just to get it built.
May 14, 2003 at 11:33 am #726710d_d_dallasParticipant
I agree, but sometimes it does seem like there are “luddites” out there who seem completely unaware of the reality of a location and knee jerk react to any proposals. Take a look at Cork City where for the past ten years many proposed developments get objected to almost out of spite. Some people would prefer dilapidated decay over something new – because everything new is “ugly”. And these areas are not historical at all with no architectural features. These people are simply closing their eyes to the ruined state the place is in and don’t seem to mind the fact that these spaces get built out in the suburbs in a lovely LA style suburban mess.
Obviously Moore St isn’t this case. I was just asking the question as part of the discussion.
May 14, 2003 at 7:36 pm #726711ed69Participant
correct me if i’m wrong but i heard recently on a radio show that the brick front(but not the rest of the building) on the 1916 building is not the one which was there in 1916 and was actually rebuilt in the 20s/30s.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.