New street idea sun only

Home Forums Ireland New street idea sun only

Viewing 73 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #709871
      missarchi
      Participant

      some people want demolition now!

    • #798169
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      I think it easier (and ever so slightly more worthy) a proposal to drive the cars out of the Lower Yard and lock the gates, than demolish an early 18th century enclosure 🙂

      The DCC Ship Street Plan envisages repaving along the line of the River Poddle, which runs under the road parallel with the State Apartments/Dubh Linn Garden and then swerving north under the Chapel Royal and along the proposed ‘street’ above, out the main gate. An exciting idea. However, how far the paving enters the Castle grounds from Little Ship Street I’m not sure. I think It’d be great to expose part of the brick tunnel and river with glass if possible too.

    • #798170
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Very puzzling thread: where does it come from? Those of us not on the scene need some background.

    • #798171
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      That makes over 7000 of us so.

    • #798172
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Missarchi, your posts are as ever obtuse to say the least.

      @GrahamH wrote:

      I think it easier (and ever so slightly more worthy) a proposal to drive the cars out of the Lower Yard and lock the gates, than demolish an early 18th century enclosure 🙂

      The DCC Ship Street Plan envisages repaving along the line of the River Poddle, which runs under the road parallel with the State Apartments/Dubh Linn Garden and then swerving north under the Chapel Royal and along the proposed ‘street’ above, out the main gate. An exciting idea. However, how far the paving enters the Castle grounds from Little Ship Street I’m not sure. I think It’d be great to expose part of the brick tunnel and river with glass if possible too.

      Perhaps – its a real shame that this city culverted so many of the watercourses, that otherwise should be a feature – Bradogue, Stein, Camac, Swan to name but a few. In particular the Poddle is a geat loss as it was so essential to Dublin as the primary source of drinking water and also as a source of energy, in terms of mills around the Dean St – Fumbally area. The observant smoocher will note the row of 4 large man holes on Dean St close to that well known pub, in which the Poddle flows 🙂

      However, reopening such watercourses could be problematic in that they became primarily used for drain and waste water and so were notorious for noxious odours – the late Deirdre Kelly’s “Four Roads to Dublin” is quite inciteful in this regard, (particularly with regard to the Swan – where owners begged local authorities to culvert it in). The Poddle can of course be seen entering the liffey just downstream from the Clarance Hotel, and I regret to say the water looks almost as bad as that out of Galway taps…

      The Poddle/ Liffey exit was of course used in the 80s by some enterprising sorts who wanted to gain nocturnal access to a bank in that area, though afaik they were not successful in their business transaction. Bloody bank charges :p

    • #798173
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @hutton wrote:

      Missarchi, your posts are as ever obtuse to say the least.
      ……… Swan to name but a few. ………..The Poddle/ Liffey exit was of course used in the 80s by some enterprising sorts who wanted to gain nocturnal access to a bank in that area, though afaik they were not successful in their business transaction.

      Du temps perdu. A cygne of the times?;)
      K.

    • #798174
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      do they mostly let shit drain into the liffey??? and storm water with all the diesel grime

      I worked on a site on the camac and have seen some flood plain drawings its kinda sad the way things have developed around these rivers… compared to other citys…

    • #798175
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @KerryBog2 wrote:

      Du temps perdu. A cygne of the times?;)
      K.

      Kerrybog, you´re a waste of space

    • #798176
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Do you just come in here to shit all over threads, shanekeane? A quick look at your posting history would suggest as much.

      If so, can’t you at least try to be funny or something? And swear a little less? It is most unbecoming.

      KB- I got it.

      ctesiphon
      (In a railroad in Red Hook.)

    • #798177
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      The Poddle and Camac I know; but the Swan, where is Swan’s way, an uneven paving stone on which street reminds us of where it flowed?

      (sk: you’re a goon)
      (ctesiphon: red hook new york?)

    • #798178
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @missarchi wrote:

      I worked on a site on the camac and have seen some flood plain drawings its kinda sad the way things have developed around these rivers… compared to other citys…

      I would agree with you in respect of the Camac anyway. The Planning Dept. see the river as an amenity, but the drainage division just see it as a surface water drain. Consequently planning permissions are often loaded with contradictory conditions about enhancing the amenity, and on the other hand, widening the river channel.

      There are numerous recent apartment development boardering onto the Camac, with loads more in the pipeline, and the thing that sticks out most is that there is absolutely no consistency of treatment to the river.

      All new developments have some kind of riverbank walkway, but some are narrow cantilevered concrete shelves out over the river and others are just part of the tarmac car park. None of the walkways seem to join up, or would be capable of being joined up in the future.

      The same happens with the river wall treatment. Some developments were conditioned to have new river walls stone faced, to broadly match the predominant original treatment, but others were just left concrete with maybe a bit of brick trim for class.

      Surely it wouldn’t have been that difficult for DCC, when it decided that the Camac was a heritage and natural amenity, to set out clearly what the flood issues were, and to set out clearly what standards they expected each developer to achieve in addressing this valuable asset.

      Some of the widened stretches function so poorly, because the water volume is insufficient to scour the widened channel, that the slow side is silting up nicely creating handy deposits that I’m sure the next good flood with use to bring down the last couple of original bridges.

      I attach a couple of pictures of the Camac near Bow Bridge from a few years ago. Nothing in either of these two shots, except the back of a few houses on Kilmainham Lane, survives todfay

    • #798179
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @notjim wrote:

      (ctesiphon: red hook new york?)

      Yup- but by railroad, I don’t mean the kind with parallel lines. We Europeans would call them apartments with rooms en enfilade. 😀

      Don’t worry, I’ll be back on the ould sod very shortly, all guns blazing! 😉

      c
      (Who for the past few days has been going to bed neither early nor late.)

    • #798180
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      I dread to think what went into the Liffey when the papermills in Kilmainham/Mount Browne were in operation a couple of centuries ago.

      @ctesiphon wrote:

      Yup- but by railroad, I don’t mean the kind with parallel lines. We Europeans would call them apartments with rooms en enfilade. 😀

      Had me a bit perplexed also. At first I thought it was a reference to the Redhook streetcar project; your rooms certainly would be en enfillade there!

      @ctesiphon wrote:

      (Who for the past few days has been going to bed neither early nor late.)

      Glad to hear that you are behaving yourself. Bon retour!
      K.

    • #798181
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Yes, for many years, until I moved to NYc, I was mystified by the TMBG lyric:

      “Confidentially
      I never told you of her charms
      Confidentally
      We never had a home
      But this railroad apartment was the perfect place
      When she’d sit and hold me in her arms”

    • #798182
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @KerryBog2 wrote:

      I dread to think what went into the Liffey when the papermills in Kilmainham/Mount Browne were in operation a couple of centuries ago.

      Had me a bit perplexed also. At first I thought it was a reference to the Redhook streetcar project; your rooms certainly would be en enfillade there!

      Glad to hear that you are behaving yourself. Bon retour!
      K.

      K.B: Was it REALLY the Clondalkin Paper Mills that were responsible for the “ odeur abject” that used to float above the Liffey in the 70’s…..never knew that!!
      The blokes who used to do the Liffey swim in that era must have been immune to every exotic bacteria known to man !!:eek:

    • #798183
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      No, I was referring to times long before Clondalkin Paper – AFAIK there were paper factories in Kilmainham/ Mount Browne for centuries, the water being used for soaking, rinsing, etc. In the mid-late 1900s there was one I called Faulkiners, which it was just an importer distributor by that time. They occupied an old building, grey limestone.
      As for the the “ odeur abject” , do you possibly mean “ordeur abject?? 😉
      K.

    • #798184
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @KerryBog2 wrote:

      No, I was referring to times long before Clondalkin Paper – AFAIK there were paper factories in Kilmainham/ Mount Browne for centuries, the water being used for soaking, rinsing, etc. In the mid-late 1900s there was one I called Faulkiners, which it was just an importer distributor by that time. They occupied an old building, grey limestone.
      As for the the “ odeur abject” , do you possibly mean “ordeur abject?? 😉
      K.

      Probablement les deux KB….après tout, il s’agit de la Liffey……sans commentaire !:o

    • #798185
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @constat wrote:

      Probablement les deux KB….après tout, il s’agit de la Liffey……sans commentaire !:o

      That’s crazy talk.

      On the issue of Faulkner’s Mills on the Camac, I have some pictures from 1994 when the complex was demolished.

      Faulkner’s was demolished to make way for an apartment scheme in that year and some of the planning objections at the time centred on the potential to reuse the existing buildings, which were mostly 19th century and in reasonable condition. The low two storey house at the entrance to the site, may have been 17th century, but it wasn’t possible to convince the Planning Dept. that it merited closer examination. It was certainly stone built as can be seen from a demolition photograph.

      I don’t know what happened to the delivery bike.

    • #798186
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Hi. Can anyone enlighten me as to the purpose and direction of the above thread? Is it about Dublin Castle or rivers or the use of the French language in architecture and planning? Or even the polluting effects of 20th Century paper production? I can’t find anything to either agree with or disagree with. The latter particularly irks me good!

      I’m off to watch the football. That always makes sense. And there’s not as much French in it,

      Ah shit. Lyon are on.

    • #798187
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Seen better football than that in the courtyard of a nursing home!

      You could probably have a decent game of football in that courtyard there at the lower castle yard, although I heard some fecker had a plan to drive a new road through it.

    • #798188
      Paul Clerkin
      Keymaster

      @notjim wrote:

      The Poddle and Camac I know; but the Swan, where is Swan’s way, an uneven paving stone on which street reminds us of where it flowed?

      The Swan was in Rathmines – hence the Swan Centre – not sure where it ran to or from

    • #798189
      admin
      Keymaster

      @alonso wrote:

      Hi. Can anyone enlighten me as to the purpose and direction of the above thread?

      from thread title to post, i’ve no fucking idea !

    • #798190
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @Paul Clerkin wrote:

      The Swan was in Rathmines – hence the Swan Centre – not sure where it ran to or from

      PW Joyce (yer man Mr. Placenames) wrote the buke. From http://www.chaptersofdublin.com/books/Neighbourhood/chapter17.html
      Rathmines village commenced opposite Rathgar Road, and in addition there was the portion known as “The Chains,” which occupied the site where the Belfast Bank and surrounding buildings now stand. “The Chains” were so called, because a number of dilapidated shanties at this point were enclosed by chains hung from stone pillars such as now surround Stephen’s Green. These old rookeries were really an unsightly and insanitary slum, and were swept away some twenty-five years ago, much to the advantage of the neighbourhood. The Swan Water, now almost entirely a subterraneous river, flows past this point, and has given name to the avenue known as “Swanville Place.

      The Heritage Impact Assessment for Lansdowne Stadium mentions the Swan as running “along the northern boundary of the present site.”
      See page 2 on http://www.erm.com/ERM/website.nsf/GFN/Annex%20I%202.pdf/$file/Annex%20I%202.pdf

      For Alonso :pThe Swan’s Hollow in Glenageary and the Pigeon House in Dublin are both named after men.

      Gunter – thanks for the pics and info. I was not lining in Ireland during that decade. Still catching up.
      K.

    • #798191
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @alonso wrote:

      Hi. Can anyone enlighten me as to the purpose and direction of the above thread? I.

      we had a person in college who opened every crit with a 30 second burst of utter nonsense – basically whatever was in her head and usually in keeping with the shite up on the wall. The tutor used to say “take a deep breath, think, count to 5, think, take a dep breath, think…..then talk” Perhaps if Missarchi tried this we might get an inkling of some of what “she’s” gobbing on about

    • #798192
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      New street idea sun over yesterday’s walkway through various aspects of pedestrians only is perfectly clear to me. I don’t see what the problem is.

      rookeries

      What a great word. Always liked it – something very gothick about it. Such a shame there’s nothing actually left to apply it to.

      The above mentioned Belfast Bank is this building on the corner, almost opposite Tesco in the centre of Rathmines.

      The undulating topography of this part of the suburb would certainly suggest the presence of a river. I know it comes down the Rathgar Road (behind the camera) before arriving at this point, but where it goes after that…

    • #798193
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      take the high road

    • #798194
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Is that the back of the office building near the Dame St./South Great George’s St. corner? It looks straight out of Get Carter.

    • #798195
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      I guess Dublin Corporation didn’t compromise on your off-street car parking requirments back then. If you couldn’t get enough spaces in the basement, you had to stick some up of the second floor!

      I think I heard that the OPW had a plan to ‘make over’ and ‘bulk up’ this building a couple of years ago.

    • #798196
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Was that this plan?

      MINI URBAN PLAN WILL OPEN CASTLE TO THE CITY

      A route once called Informer’s Lane is to be opened linking South Great George’s Street to a new civic courtyard in the grounds of Dublin Castle. It’s part of an ambitious plan that also involves renovating several office blocks Frank McDonald, Environment Editor, reports

      Anyone attending the Flood Tribunal in Dublin should know what the Office of Public Works means when it refers to the “unsavoury mess” that exists in the “no man’s land” between the Stamping Building in Dublin Castle and the rear ends of Wicklow House and Castle House, on South Great George’s Street. But now, in a fine example of public-private partnership, the OPW is collaborating with the owners of these two awful office blocks of early 1970s vintage on what it calls a “mini urban plan” for this quarter of the city. And the declared aim is to integrate the Castle with the surrounding urban fabric by creating an exciting new pedestrian route.

      The idea of opening up Informer’s Lane, as it used to be called, to provide a new entrance to the Castle on the axis of Exchequer Street was first mooted some years ago by Dick Gleeson, now Dublin Corporation’s deputy chief planning officer. All it needed to be realised was a willingness by the OPW and the office block owners to get together.

      Within the next few weeks, the corporation is expected to grant planning permission for a complete overhaul of the two aggressively horizontal office blocks, including much more sympathetic elevations to South Great George’s Street and a two-storey arcade on Informer’s Lane, leading to a new “civic courtyard” in the grounds of Dublin Castle.

      Surprisingly, however, the opportunity is not being taken to redevelop the Stamping Branch building itself. Designed by Frank du Berry, then a senior OPW architect, and completed in 1973, its running balconies led Plan magazine to liken it to hotels on the Spanish costas. “Where is that Mediterranean sun and the bathing towels,” an article asked.

      The building’s skewed angle to the established grid of the castle might suggest a forward extension to bring it into line. But David Byers, OPW assistant principal architect and one-time manager of the Castle, said it was so intensively used by the Revenue that the disruption to those working there would have been too great for a relatively small gain.

      Some years ago, consideration was given to recladding it in brick more sympathetic to its setting, but nothing happened. Now there is a view that it is “quite an interesting example of its period, as Byers says, and one of the best-built buildings I’ve ever seen, with the plant-draped balconies providing sun screening in the absence of air conditioning.

      Not a shred of merit can be attached to the two office blocks on George’s Street. Designed by English architects Arthur Swift and Partners for Guardian Properties, they were plonked on the site of Pimms department store with no concession whatever in terms of colour, materials or proportions to the Victorian character of the area.

      The advantage to their current owners of doing something to rectify this ghastly mistake is that they will get double the depth of the two buildings, gaining an extra 110,837 sq ft of office space separated by atriums from the existing streetfront blocks, while the city gains immeasurably from a remodelling of their facades.

      And because this scheme, designed by John O’Keeffe and Associates, has been effectively amalgamated with the OPW’s civic courtyard, the net effect is to reduce the developers plot ratio from 5.5:1 to 2.4:1. This seems to be quite a reasonable trade-off for the planning gain of a new east-west pedestrian route where one is sorely needed.

      When it is completed, not only will the terrible pair of buildings have smart new fronts sympathetic to their surroundings, but the public will have access via a two-storey arcade to a sunlit circular courtyard to the rear, within the precincts of the castle, and onwards to the award-winning Chester Beatty Library and Little Ship Street gate.

      The courtyard, with a diameter of 90 feet, will incorporate a circular ramp for disabled access to compensate for a three-metre drop in levels between George’s Street and the Castle. It is to be clad in Penryn-type green slate and enclosed by a cylindrical curtain of stainless steel grillework, which will include a sliding security gate.

      The circular form of the courtyard echoes the design of the Castle’s Dubhlinn Garden, which doubles as a helicopter landing pad (the lighting is cleverly concealed in its spiral pathways). Though inspired by Stirling’s Staatsgalerie in Stuttgart, it will be less heavy, according to David Byers, and softened by trees and park benches for relaxation.

      The Printworks building, with its curious undulating roof, which has housed the Flood Tribunal’s public hearings for so long, is to get a new foyer overlooking the courtyard. And in deference to the idea of creating a new civic space, the rear elevations of the extended office blocks on George’s Street are designed as if they were fronts.

      The opening up of a two-storey arcaded entrance to Dublin Castle should offer a glimpse of the Bermingham Tower from Exchequer Street. But more than that – it will open up the Devil’s half-acre, as Michael Collins once called it, to the rest of the city centre by puncturing the existing hard edge on George’s Street to the southside retail zone.

      The raggle-taggle of buildings that currently occupy the proposed courtyard will be swept away – but not, it should be emphasised, the rather more impressive group still occupied by the Garda. A new building is being planned for the southern side of the courtyard to re-house some of the facilities in those earmarked for demolition.

      The pay-off for the Revenue is a new penthouse floor on the Stamping Branch, providing an additional 5,920 sq ft. This will be a lightweight steel structure, prefabricated and metal-clad, with terraces and a light overhanging roof. Of course, no attempt is being made to eliminate the clutter of cars in the Lower Castle Yard.

      The new pedestrian route, which will be open to the public during all reasonable hours, is seen as one element of an integrated architectural sequence linking Dublin Castle with Leinster House. All that’s missing is a name for the circular courtyard; the informal working title, incidentally, is Flood Court, in honour of Mr Justice Fergus Flood.

      © The Irish Times, February 15, 2001

    • #798197
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Aye that’s the one – can’t believe it was 2001 when the IT reported that, I now feel old

    • #798198
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Originally posted by alonso:
      Can anyone enlighten me as to the purpose and direction of the above thread?

      This thread can be anything you want it to be!

      Heres some very important stuff I want you to see

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0YgrUKfTcA

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dueling

      Unusual duels
      In 1808, two Frenchmen are said to have fought in balloons over Paris, each attempting to shoot and puncture the other’s balloon; one duelist is said to have been shot down and killed with his second.[1]

      Thirty-five years later (1843), two men are said to have fought a duel by means of throwing billiard balls at each other.[1]

      It is said (though not confirmed) that Otto von Bismarck challenged Rudolf Virchow to a duel. Virchow, as the challenged party had the choice of weapons; he chose two sausages, one of which had been inoculated with cholera. Bismarck is said to have called off the duel at once.[2]

      Some participants in a duel, given the choice of weapons, are said to have deliberately chosen ridiculous weapons such as howitzers, sledgehammer, or forkfuls of pig dung, in order to show their disdain for duelling.[1]

      Personally I’d love to talk about the influence of seventeenth century Italinanate landscape painting on the work of Julian Staneweski.

      [ATTACH]6966[/ATTACH]

    • #798199
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @PTB wrote:

      This thread can be anything you want it to be!

      Heres some very important stuff I want you to see

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0YgrUKfTcA

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dueling

      Personally I’d love to talk about the influence of seventeenth century Italinanate landscape painting on the work of Julian Staneweski.

      ]

      Absolutely disgraceful. A whole bloody article in Wikipedia on th eduel and no mention of Ireland, the Galway Rules, Barrington, Fireball McNamara, to mention but a few. Shows what it is made of. As for the C cup on youtube, there is an old guy in Sneem on fair days that is just as good, and even better when he’s had a few. (‘cept he takes your money!)
      Kb.

    • #798200
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Ah that’s an old one now PTB ;). Never fails to impress though.

      The enormous model of the George’s Street/Dublin Castle plan is still languishing in the delightful EU 1980’s timewarp that is the West Range of the Castle’s Upper Yard. It proposed a tall po-mo style red brick terrace elevation with advanced feature bays and a stone-clad ground floor. Lots of then-fashionable copper cladding about the place too. Presumably the plan has since been ditched and/or will be substantially different when/if it ever re-emerges. I’ll try and get a pic some day.

      Nothing less than a masterplan is required for the entire Dublin Castle complex. It doesn’t know what it is, and hasn’t done since 1922. Until this is resolved, this incredibly multi-faceted place is going to remain in its respective fields the half-hearted conference centre, tourist attraction, office complex and ceremonial location that it continues to be.

      With the development of the National Conference Centre one wonders even to its use as seat of European Presidencies anymore. Given the State interest in the NCC and the now inadequate Castle conference centre for an enormously expanded EU, I suspect the Castle will only be used for State Apartments receptions from here on in.

      In spite of impressive investment and adaptation by the OPW over the years, the time has now come to reassess the entire site.

    • #798201
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Agreed re Dublin Castle. A shame that it’s so impenetrable to the rest of the city also. The plan above would have improved access at least.

    • #798202
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      An entrance from the south side of the gardens would be good too. Not that I’d be expecting much if this plan is 7 years old.. does the OPW decide on projects like those South Park manatees? Swimming in a big tank with loads of idea balls?

    • #798203
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Well of a sort…

      A proposal for the Dubh Linn Garden from 1990.

      This was drawn up by consultants though, not the OPW. Note the absence of the Coach House folly…

      Another of those projects that (thankfully) disappeared into the mists of time. Far too pretentious for the domestically-scaled provincial classicism of the Castle.

    • #798204
      admin
      Keymaster

      Wow, if ever a proposal was to ignore its context & setting, this has to be it.

    • #798205
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      And it would make a terrible helipad.

    • #798206
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Well I suppose this might go some way towards answering Paul’s question about Paris in Dublin:
      @Paul Clerkin wrote:

      Now the DDDA is going to give us “venice”, when can we expect their version of ‘paris”

      Just not in the DDDA.

      Yet.

    • #798207
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Indeed 😀

      I think we should be grateful for the OPW’s considered and subtly elegant Dubh Linn lawn.

      Which surprisingly is capable of accommodating two military helicopters – the sole brief of the project back in 1996. The corner gardens have matured beautifully, if not quite the wider environs…

    • #798208
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Fortress Dunnes.

    • #798209
      admin
      Keymaster

      @fergair wrote:

      Fortress Dunnes.

      yep its fairly catastrophic alright.

    • #798210
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @Peter FitzPatrick wrote:

      yep its fairly catastrophic alright.

      I have to say I dont think its that bad – its not as if it replaced formally planned elevations related to the gardens; instead it was simply a hodge-podge that was there. That said, I was dissapointed to note the detail of that development where it integrates with the paving along by the Long Hall – its a detail but it bugs me – I’ll see if I can get photos one of these days…

    • #798211
      admin
      Keymaster

      @hutton wrote:

      I have to say I dont think its that bad

      i tend to think that way too, then i see it again … granted its not like it was replacing much, but this is a pretty sensite site & overall i think its way too much.

    • #798212
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      The modern building in the background is awful but I’m not mad on the lego castle either.
      Overall I can ignore both. It’s still a pleasant oasis in the city to evade traffic noise and read a paper or eat a sandwich.

    • #798213
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Isn’t it just. Particularly in spring and autumn when there’s still a bit of warmth in the sun and the place isn’t swamped by Spanish students.

      The garden in more reticent times, in the 1890s.

      Note the bizarre chimneys have vanished, the tennis court laid out on the lawn, and what appears to be a member of ‘service’ attending to the children of the Viceregal household 🙂

      It’s fair to say the Coach House has lost its original setting and sense of presence since the redevelopment of the garden, but agreed jimg, it’s a cumbersome, ungainly affair. It was designed by Jacob Owen, Architect to the Board of Works in the late 1830s, to improve the vista from the State Bedrooms in anticipation of a future visit of the new Queen Victoria, as well as to afford greater privacy from overlooking of the gardens themselves, and of course to modernise stabling. Lets just say Owen was more accustomed to concocting frothy Victorian interiors than he was designing gothic follies.

      I don’t find the intrusion of a modern building, nor indeed the scale of it, unsuited to the site on George’s Street. This was a always a dingy ‘leftover’ vista, one that would have been rectified in the 19th century if the money and political stability were there – so it’s perfectly acceptable to do it sensitively today. But the materials that were chosen in the built scheme are simply appalling. For the past thousand years this site has been sourcing materials locally; the pasting of hideous Spanish composite tiles or whatever the heck that muck is about the facade, is a harsh slap in the face to the historic complex it faces. Again a typical case of architect and planner showing utter disregard for context. The undulating nature of the facade also clashes and clutters the view of the Coach House from the garden.

      I suppose we ought to be thankful for it in place of Raymond McGrath’s 1946 Development Plan, which never came to fruition – intended to be built over 20 years and house at least 4000 civil servants. Talk about centralisation!

      I say ‘thankfully’ not so much in a derogatory way but because of the little known fact from documentation I’ve seen, as time progressed government officials were pushing for an economised scheme with all ‘unnecessary expenditure’ curtailed. One can only imagine the outcome.

      There was a certain grace to McGrath’s scheme, if bombastic in parts. Minus the Stalinist centrepiece it had merit. Suffice to say conservation wasn’t exactly top priority at the time, and we have to remember that many of the charming service buildings to be affected weren’t even a century old and some in decay. Thankfully it didn’t go ahead though, as all of the small structures of this backland space today give an insight into the ancillary and administrative world of the 18th and 19th century Castle. This picture from 1922 shows the type of building present in the Lower Yard demolished to make way for the only phase of the scheme given the green light, the Stamping Branch, by Frank Du Berry, then Assistant Principal Architect to the OPW.

      The arched building appears to be of Jacob Owen stock, like his modern-day Carriage Office that still stands nearby.

      Incidentally the McGrath 1946 plan proposed many interventions relating to the Upper and Lower Yards themselves, too detailed to go into here. But do note above that he proposed opening up the Fortitude gate and demolishing everything behind some four decades before it was actually done as part of the Conference Centre development in the late 1980s. Thankfully his proposed elevation to the Bedford Tower is not evident here – that’s a shocker for another day 😉

    • #798214
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      I love going back in time 🙂

    • #798215
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      That last shot is a nice snap missarchi – not a view I was aware of. I must take a look at this space again now that the building works are complete 🙂

    • #798216
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      here is a better one…

      This park has a lot of funny characters mainly a baby black cat that appears at very odd/surreal moments…
      but i have not seen it for a while I also saw a line of baby ducks and there mum and dad in the pond it was amazing they where playing follow the leader in a line with all the tourists watching

    • #798217
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      massing quick thoughts the green north south line is ground level…

      Georges st is now brick above ground

    • #798218
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Arrgh…the Castle would have been the perfect parliamentary complex. City Hall, nicked from the city, would’v ehad considerably more point as the main entrance of the Irish Parliament than as the empty space it is today – with the council decamped up the road.
      And it leads straight onto the eastern range of the courtyard… 🙁

    • #798219
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      “Fortress Dunnes.”

      “yep its fairly catastrophic alright.”

      “I have to say I dont think its that bad”

      Whatever ye think of it, two things are worth bearing in mind:

      1. It could have been higher. Around the time construction began, they applied for another storey on top, but DCC refused it – <a href="http://195.218.114.214/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=2720/04&theTabNo=2&backURL=Search%20Criteria%20>%20Ref. 2720/04. They were fairly adamant they should get this extra storey and took a lengthy first-party appeal to ABP but didn’t get any joy there either – PL 29S.208575

      2. The original scheme was much worse:

    • #798220
      admin
      Keymaster

      @Devin wrote:

      The original scheme was much worse:

      True.

      Graham H wrote:
      But the materials that were chosen in the built scheme are simply appalling. For the past thousand years this site has been sourcing materials locally]

      Agreed, i think its the garish cladding that causes offence here, pissing all over everything it overlooks with contempt. I could live with the glazing.

    • #798221
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      They were on the right track with the cladding – a warm tone to complement the historic surrounds – but it’s a little bit bright. Maybe it will soften with age, as GH referred to earlier.

      We also have to remember that, while it’s easy for us archiseek aesthetes to sneer, they’re always up against budgets in these things.

    • #798222
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @Peter FitzPatrick wrote:

      True.

      Agreed, i think its the garish cladding that causes offence here, pissing all over everything it overlooks with contempt. I could live with the glazing.

      given that it’s 90% glass you should be ok then

    • #798223
      admin
      Keymaster

      @Devin wrote:

      They were on the right track with the cladding – a warm tone to complement the historic surrounds – but it’s a little bit bright. Maybe it will soften with age, as GH referred to earlier.

      Warm tones ok, but this is loud & the contrast with the coach house stark. The vertical emphasis of the cladded sections, which account for substantially more than 10% of the facade i’d suggest, overwhelm the minature towers & battlements of the coach house. Anyway its done now & there’s no gain in labouring the point which i suspect i have done already 😉

      In general i’m tired of the liberal application of portuguese molianos and the like across many new builds & shop fronts. Some subtlety here would have been nice.

    • #798224
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Agree that that cladding is overused.

      I suppose I feel well disposed towards the Dunnes scheme because it worked out so well in the end all things considered. The George’s Street building (with Dunnes homewares in the ground floor) is a lesson in modern infill in a historic street and would stand up well anywhere in Europe. The integrity of the older buildings on George’s Street was retained in their refurbishment – no silly glass storeys on top and whole structures retained as against just facades. The whole scheme maintains a sense of the scale of the area.

      When you compare it to, say, the Arnotts scheme which is trying to bump up the average scale of the area by another 4 storeys or so, the Dunnes scheme is admirable.

    • #798225
      admin
      Keymaster

      @Devin wrote:

      I suppose I feel well disposed towards the Dunnes scheme because it worked out so well in the end all things considered. The George’s Street building (with Dunnes homewares in the ground floor) is a lesson in modern infill in a historic street and would stand up well anywhere in Europe. The integrity of the older buildings on George’s Street was retained in their refurbishment – no silly glass storeys on top and whole structures retained as against just facades. The whole scheme maintains a sense of the scale of the area.

      I should have said from the outset that i think the Georges St. elevation & its integration with the existing building stock is excellent, it is solely its rear end i have an issue with.

    • #798226
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @Devin wrote:

      Agree that that cladding is overused.

      The George’s Street building (with Dunnes homewares in the ground floor) is a lesson in modern infill in a historic street and would stand up well anywhere in Europe. The integrity of the older buildings on George’s Street was retained in their refurbishment – no silly glass storeys on top and whole structures retained as against just facades. The whole scheme maintains a sense of the scale of the area.

      Would it be your opinion, Devin, that the credit for the Dunnes scheme belongs, to a substantial degree, with DCC, or at least as much as it is due to the applicants? If so, that’s something you don’t get a chance to say very often.

      While I agree with you that the Georges Street frontage is a good example of respectful, ordinary decent infill, I am not crazy about the corner with Stephen Street. The glass on glass curved creation here replaced one of the few articulate ‘Georgian’ corners in Dublin

    • #798227
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Image of said corner here: https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=4362

      My feelings on the Dunne’s building have been posted there before, specifically regarding the upscaling of the city centre.

    • #798228
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @Devin wrote:


      2. The original scheme was much worse:[/INDENT]

      Has echoes of Portcullis House.

      If that’s a deliberate reference/pun (‘Portcullis’- oh please no), then it’s time we all packed our bags.

    • #798229
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      I know the Dunnes scheme involved some demolition, but all things considered it was a good result.

      @gunter wrote:

      Would it be your opinion, Devin, that the credit for the Dunnes scheme belongs, to a substantial degree, with DCC, or at least as much as it is due to the applicants? If so, that’s something you don’t get a chance to say very often.

      Well their decision to refuse the extra storey on the Stephen Street side certainly dates from the period before Dublin City Council started waving all development straight through!!!!!!

    • #798230
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Thanks ctesiphon for the corner picture. Is there anything you don’t have a picture of? You’re cutting down the scope for bullshit!

    • #798231
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      What a hideous proposal! Talk about stealing the limelight. You want a quiet foil here – not an arrogant complex shouldering its way into the Castle grounds.

      Slight correction to the earlier post regarding the pool – it was in fact by OPW, designed by Geoffrey Johnson in 1990.

      His line of throught was: “It is appropriate that [the pool’s] design should follow the Renaissance percepts of symmetry and proportion observed in the neo-classical style of the State Apartments, of which the garden front forms a visual extension”.

      All of the ‘carved’ features were to be of pre-cast reconstituted stone, including the pavilions, urns and central temple. The walls and paving were to be of cut stone, with 80’s heritage-style rubble facings to the pool. All at a cost of £1,025,000.

      Provision was made in the estimate for the demolition of the Coach House at £23,000, and its re-erection elsewhere at a cost of £67,000.

    • #798232
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      ctesiphon: Ihaven’t seen the new Dunne’s corner in the flesh (as it were), but it generally seems to have been welcomed and it certainly makes a bold statement, However, the ‘articulate Georgian corner’ that preceded it was in a terrible state and was in any case pretty much understated. I have a complete aversion to losing the historic built heritage of any city, but I remember Sth Gt Georges St as a gloomy and uninviting corner of Dublin. It has been revived and reworked in the idiom of our time (eclectic as that is) and future generations will judge its worth. ‘Georgian’, like ‘contemporary’ covers a multitude of sins and it is not all of equal worth.

    • #798233
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      So who was responsible for the Lutyens Swimming Pool?

      EDIT – I now see it was already posted by Graham. Cannot delete entire post – d’oh!

    • #798234
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @GrahamH wrote:

      Provision was made in the estimate for the demolition of the Coach House at £23,000, and its re-erection elsewhere at a cost of £67,000.

      😀

    • #798235
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @johnglas wrote:

      ctesiphon: Ihaven’t seen the new Dunne’s corner in the flesh (as it were), but it generally seems to have been welcomed and it certainly makes a bold statement, However, the ‘articulate Georgian corner’ that preceded it was in a terrible state and was in any case pretty much understated. I have a complete aversion to losing the historic built heritage of any city, but I remember Sth Gt Georges St as a gloomy and uninviting corner of Dublin. It has been revived and reworked in the idiom of our time (eclectic as that is) and future generations will judge its worth. ‘Georgian’, like ‘contemporary’ covers a multitude of sins and it is not all of equal worth.

      Well, to be fair, it was gunter who described it as ‘one of the few articulate “Georgian” corners in Dublin’, but if you suspected that I have issues with the replacement, you’d be right.

      You’re also right that ‘Sth Gt Georges St [was] a gloomy and uninviting corner of Dublin’, but I’d argue that this was a direct result of the site assembly carried out by Dunne’s Stores itself over a 20 (or so?) year period, so they were authors of the dereliction as well as saviours of the street (reminds me of Machiavelli’s Prince killing 10,000 at the start of his reign, then abruptly stopping, thereby appearing saintly). In addition, the pair of two-bay houses due east of the gable-fronted redbrick on Stephen Street were damaged in a very suspect fire- a fire which prompted the above photo a few years ago.

      I do quite like the Dunne’s infill, but I think it’s a case of matching the street by happy accident rather than by design, as it seems to be the Dunne’s house style regardless of context. Remember Henry Street?

      Rather than re-hashing old opinion here, I’d suggest a quick look at that old thread on SG George’s Street- if I remember rightly, I’d stand over what I said there on the subject of this infill, and my from-memory assessment of the buildings removed.

      *** *** ***

      gunter- you’re safe enough. That’s one of the few times when I’ve managed to follow up on the intention to photograph a patch of the city before the demolition men got there. But I’ve been digital for the last while, so who knows what might prove valuable in another five years!

      EDIT: Also, I do like the life that Dunne’s has brought to the western side of the street, but it appears not to be enough as the George’s Street Pharmacy recently moved from the west side to the east side, presumably the better to compete with the other chemist on the Central Hotel (George’s / Exchequer) corner. Prior to the opening of Dunne’s, the centre line of SG George’s Street seemed to be the notional western boundary of the south city retail core- less so nowadays.

    • #798236
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      cstephion, you’re right. Until the retail is occupied it’s hard to see the footfall increasing. Starbucks has committed but it’s just taking too long to get tenants. I suspect the rents are a bit much as well as the fact that the shops themselves are tiny which will make it even more difficult to secure tenants.

    • #798237
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      What shops are these jdivision?

      (perhaps these posts could be moved to the George’s Street thread where this development was discussed).

    • #798238
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      ctesiphon: thanks for the reply. I agree entirely about the ‘suspicious’ fires – either the ‘insurance’ or the ‘developer’s’ fire, do. the ‘accidental’ demolition or the local authority equivalent, the ‘dangerous building’. They are all methods of getting rid of unwanted or inconvenient structures. Instead of fruitlessly punting the ‘Living Over the Shop’ initiative, why doesn’t DCC impose a tax on empty or underused upper floors or grant business-rate relief for occupied or redeveloped premises?

    • #798239
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      the ‘living over the shop’ scheme wasn’t a total failure. I know of a couple of projects that went ahead under this scheme and which would definitely not have happened without the tax incentive. I don’t think DCC publicised it as fully as they could have. For one thing, there was a little known clause, buried in the explanatory text, that allowed an owner to build additional floors, or completely rebuild the premises taller, if this could be justified on urban design grounds. I only cop’d that one very late in the day, or I might have got a couple more small schemes through myself.

      Sorry about what I said earlier on the other thread, johnglas, but don’t go blanking gunter or he’ll get out his pictures of lovely concrete Cumbernauld!

    • #798240
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Bitch!

    • #798241
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @gunter wrote:

      the ‘living over the shop’ scheme wasn’t a total failure

      In reality it was. Introducing legislation for something that such a small pickup is just not worth the time and finance involved. It wasn’t DCC’s fault, sure they even went and redeveloped the site on Capel St themselves in order to show what could be done. Most of the building owners just weren’t arsed.

Viewing 73 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Latest News