O’ Connell Street, Dublin
- This topic has 3,789 replies, 212 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 1 month ago by
urbanisto.
-
AuthorPosts
-
-
June 19, 2003 at 8:20 pm #727828
GrahamH
ParticipantTo be frank, you can change the buildings and paving but you can’t change the people.
I know it’s terrible to stereotype, but its so true, its on the tip of every CC offical’s tongue but they just can’t say it.
Its a genuine concern that the upgraded elements of the st are just going to be trashed with chewing gum, late night brawls, urine, urine, urine etc
-
June 19, 2003 at 10:59 pm #727829
sw101
Participanti’ve always had pride in my country, travelling far and wide and stressing my southern accent when it suits to make new friends. i’ve lived in dublin for four years, always north of the river, and the only occassion i have to feel shame for my heritage is when i walks the streets of my capital. its disgusting. the ppl are dispicable, the authorities are out of all order, and improvements are blocked by anal members of a defunct state. bring on the next recession so i have an excuse to take my filthy degree and leave in a blaze of wake-induced vomit.
and just so i’m not accused of leaving the topic of the thread: O’CONNELL STREET IS A BIG SMELLY KIP
-
June 19, 2003 at 11:43 pm #727830
Anonymous
Inactiveits disgusting. the ppl are dispicable
what a rubbish generalisation, you’re referring to a million plus people, re read your post, some reason wouldn’t go astray.
-
June 20, 2003 at 12:59 am #727831
sw101
Participantyou’re a rubbish generalisation 🙂
walk down o’connell street and through temple bar at 3am tomorrow nite then tell me i’m wrong.
obviously i dont think every one of the million dublinians are dispicable. i cant even spell the word properly for gods sake. it is an impression one sometimes get and thats it, an opinion. one i share with many, including unlucky or observant tourists. i’d defend dublin as well as anyone when it is called for, but dublin is not improving as the capital of a strong capitalist state. its more a sign of buracracy than the mindset of this country, and thats what makes my blood boil.
e.g spains building and repairing 10 stadia for the price of our one. the spike shambles. the issues with the new bridge. the woefully inadequate efforts to restore o’connell street. the failed living over the shop scheme that could, with proper management, have brought some dignity back to areas like capel street.
think what you like of o’connell street, and i’d like to hear your and everyones opinions, but i find it difficult to see good points about the city centre.
incidentally, no offence intended to anyone from dublin,obviously i wasnt referring to you. anyone who attended a school of architecture or has enough interest in it to look at this site is no doubt above all the peons who roam those fetid footpaths
-
June 20, 2003 at 9:12 am #727832
Andrew Duffy
ParticipantPortugal, not Spain. Thanks for bringing up the living above the shop scheme – that really pissed me off! It was a great idea, but the price of the initial government sponsored offering was far too high. What are those three buildings doing now, anyway? They still look derelict, jut painted.
-
June 20, 2003 at 10:02 am #727833
Anonymous
Inactive“it is an impression one sometimes get and thats itâ€!
yeah exactley sw101, an impression one sometimes gets! the whole city centre is not a kip, and the vast majority are decent people going about their business …
I go out every Friday or Saturday, and am often one of those people “roaming†the streets at 3am looking for a taxi home, sure there are scum bags out there, but you make it sound like bloody beiruit. Most people at 3am, while a lot of them are fairly hammered, are just out having a laugh and looking for a taxi. I have seen two fights in town over the last two years or so ( like I said I’m in town every weekend ) one of which was the one that took place in front of the Central Bank which RTE got on camera and have shown again and again and again and again and …
You’re right, O’Connell Street is a mess, but I’m prepared to wait until the IAP is finished and judge it then, its crap that its going to take till 2005+, but the north city in particular needs a lot of work and its not going to change over night …
You’re calling the city a kip now, do you not remember the 80’s ??? think about how much its changed since then when Dublin was nothing but the centre of a depressed economy and it really showed.
I’m as pissed off as you are with the delays, objections, crap infrastructure blah blah blah but most of these problems are problems of success, and I’d take them any day over being forced to hop on a boat to england.
cheers !
-
June 20, 2003 at 11:17 am #727834
Rita Ochoa
Participantsw101, “e.g spains building and repairing 10 stadia for the price of our one.” ?
Sure you don’t mean Portugal ?
Again, Portugal is not Spain or part of it. They are 2 VERY different countries, being Portugal about 300 years older… -
June 20, 2003 at 12:11 pm #727835
GregF
Participant……the gas thing about all these problems that have been mentioned that exist regarding Dublin City et all…… is that they are all rectifiable.
If people just used their common sense at the end of the day.
The way to a cleaner, better, efficient and attractive city starts with oneself really and one’s environment; in your home and immediate surroundings.
(that begging bowl culture is a millstone for us Irish too). -
June 20, 2003 at 2:19 pm #727836
sw101
Participantsorry rita. i imagine i’d virtually slap you aswell if you had said this was britain.
and no peter i dont remember the 80’s, i was only born the second year in. however you do seem to remember, but please dont use that to excuse any of the crap you have to put up with these days. its a very governmental angle to take, look how shitty it used to be? count yourselves lucky. and what on earth is a “problem of success”?
the 3 buildings on capel street have been extensively refurbished, while maintaing the same arrangement and floor plan. i think their reinstatement is a lot better than the typical approach in the last 10 years which was to gut the whole lot, facade and all, and stick in a monstrosity like no.1 jervis street or jervis place apartments around the corner
-
June 20, 2003 at 3:01 pm #727837
-Donnacha-
ParticipantI don’t think it’s a ‘governmental angle’ to remind ouserlves how bad things were not too long ago. It’s important to get a bit of perspective on this – the city has been transformed in 10 years. Totally. Unrecognisably.
Anyone remember the quays looking like Dresden after the blitz for more than a decade?
Every public building permanently covered in black soot? No cool restauarnts/ bars/ clubs/ markets. Now that was a kip.
Most of the new stuff is good, some of it is very good.
It’s frustrating that major projects like O’Connell Street still take longer than they should to get finished, but look at how much has been done since the start of the 90s and lets wait and see before beating ourselves up.
We may be still behind other Eurpoean countries in learning how to make our capital city work, but we’ve had a lot further to come since we got a bit of cash in our pockets. Sorry if this is before your time! -
June 20, 2003 at 3:12 pm #727838
d_d_dallas
ParticipantLads – generalisations are always going to piss alot of people off. But generally speaking North of the Liffey is not a nice place, and saying this having lived north for quite a while. The people being despicable remark is obviously a generalisation – but not being a Dublin native – I can say in MY experience that a higher proportion of people in that area compared to others may not stray too far from that description.
I think too many people are being self congratulatory… poor Ireland is rich now etc… Look how far Dublin has come etc… But check out cities in countries that by the “rich” definition are most definitely not rich. Dublin doesn’t compare that favourably. And if we are to measure our city by O’Connell St – well… we do indeed have a long way to go. -
June 20, 2003 at 3:13 pm #727839
Anonymous
Inactiveand what on earth is a “problem of success”?
problems associated with a successful economy – i.e traffic, pressure on infrastructure, resulting from huge numbers travelling in and out of the city centre to work /shop every day, transportation of goods blah blah blah
better than mass emigration, mass unemployment, a depressed economy, a disillusioned & falling population … problems associated with economic failure.
I’m not saying accept shite government, I’m just saying don’t be oblivious to how far we’ve come & the pace of change … you might not remember the 80’s but does 20% unemployment & a currency crisis in 93 ring any bells? its not long ago
we have a lot of catching up to do, believe me I’m not defending the government, i doub’t they’re capable of organising a piss up in a brewery … well brennan seems to be showing some promise, so you never know we might have a few decent infrastructural projects on the go in a few years time, we’ll just have to wait and see.
-
June 20, 2003 at 3:19 pm #727840
d_d_dallas
ParticipantIn terms of government – there seems to be a lack of leadership. There always seems to be some minister squabbling over the plans of another cabinet member. The government needs to stand up and say what they believe in and FOCUS! Remember College Fees? Bertie couldn’t even say what he actually thought… and he’s supposed the be the leader of this country!!! If we can’t sort something like that out then obviously city centre regeneration isn’t going to have the prpose and vision we’d all like (so long as Fagan’s gets a lick of paint!)
-
June 20, 2003 at 4:39 pm #727841
-Donnacha-
Participantd_d_dallas, you’ve got one thing right – generalisations ARE going to piss people off, particularly sweeping ones based on some dubious alleged first-hand knowledge.
“Generally speaking, north of the Liffey is not a nice place”… give me break. If you can dismiss half of Dublin that easily, you can’t know much about the place…
-
June 20, 2003 at 4:45 pm #727842
urbanisto
ParticipantHere, here… I am a Northsider and proud of it. And there are plenty of fantastic features on the Northside. There are also plenty of very nice areas as well. And surprise surprise just like our wealthier brethern down south there are plenty of crumby areas and lots of room for improvement.
-
June 20, 2003 at 4:46 pm #727843
d_d_dallas
Participant“Alleged” – not at all.
OK – I did generalise, but in MY experience the generalisations about North Inner City Dublin made earlier in the thread had some truth in them.
Hmmm – tensions are running high on all threads today!!!
-
June 20, 2003 at 4:59 pm #727844
-Donnacha-
ParticipantWell it is very warm today…
One point – the north inner city is not the same as north of the Liffey! You can’t talk about inner-city slums and places like Howth or Malahide in the same breath.Just noticed I’ve become a “Senior Member”!
Well, there goes the neighbourhood! I’m off for the evening now to rob all yizzer gaffs. -
June 20, 2003 at 5:38 pm #727845
d_d_dallas
ParticipantOk – my bad for not being more specific – but North Dublin in this case wasn’t meant to be North Dublin County…
Ah the sunshine…
-
June 20, 2003 at 6:01 pm #727846
doozer
ParticipantAndrewP how come your a senior menber now ………………..oh the injustice.
-
June 20, 2003 at 6:03 pm #727847
doozer
Participantoh wait it must be a 100 posts thing…..
dammit there’s only so much pretensious wittering I can do. -
June 20, 2003 at 6:04 pm #727848
doozer
Participantalthough….. I could just keep posting these ‘talking to myself mails
-
June 20, 2003 at 8:10 pm #727849
GrahamH
ParticipantNow that everyones let of steam, back to O’ Cll St.
I used not to be remotely concerned about being on the st, but now I am always nervous on it, and during the day.
And everyone I know says the same, ‘just don’t make eye contact with anyone’ ‘steer well clear of any scangers or shady people etc’.
Is’nt it just terrible, so sad, that you feel concerned for your safety during the day & that you avoid eye contact with people.
I never walk down the st without seeing anti-social behavior, people yelling across the st at each other, girls with buggys ramming them into the backs of pedestrians infront, people sitting on the ground outside of Mc Donalds with piles of crap beside them, people littering, people coming up to you asking for food, money, the coat on your back etc.
Its really not worth going onto the st at all.
This must change, but how?
Any change that occurs only happens as part of ‘national strategies’ rather than plans tailored to suit excusively the needs of O’ Cll St, eg are more Gaurds to be deployed as part of the IAP? No, indeed any mention of guards on the st at all is non-existant, and so we have to wait 4 years for the ‘extra 2000 guards’ Bertie keeps promising.A FULLY integrated plan of the st is necessary, and indeed for the city centre as a whole.
There is never ANY radical thinking in this country, a Grand Master Plan for all of Dublin City Centre should be drawn up, dealing with every concievable aspect of the place.
Whereas the IAP is very comprehensive, it is very vague in some of the most important areas such as security.
-
June 23, 2003 at 12:03 pm #727850
doozer
ParticipantIt was my understanding that there is a masterplan in existance that is being phased in gradually. For example the regeneration of Henry Street, the spike etc. Granted, this may not be extreme enough to transform O’Connell Street into the country’s first avenue but its not quite the chaos that it appears and it is in the middle of development.
A gradual upgrading must be preferable to an over night clean sweep that may not be so well considered. I was living just off O’Connell Street last year and we all got a copy of the plan in our post boxes. It seemed fairly reasonable, nothing earth-shattering, but then I suppose the Spike is the coup-de-grace.As for policing, Graham I think your right, that’s more of a city wide issue. Singling out O’Connell Street for tougher measures may cause more problems than it solves
-
June 23, 2003 at 12:18 pm #727851
urbanisto
ParticipantA masterplan does exist….two actually. One is called the Dublin Development Plan, which is DCC driven and focuses mainly on planning and development. The other is the City of Possibilities, a DCC plan launched last year focusing on the social aspects of the city.
-
June 23, 2003 at 12:46 pm #727852
-Donnacha-
ParticipantI don’t know if the plans address the mix of uses of the street (ie burger bars, sex shops, discount tat stores, off-licences, bookies, gaming arcades etc.)
This seems to be the main problem with the street, and it just seems to get worse and worse.
Does the council have any powers on the kind of business that sets up in a given area?
Also, no matter what you do with the street itself, you’re still a stone’s throw away from some of the dodgiest residential areas in the city. I lived off O’Connell Street until recently and without a doubt things deteriorated in the last year. -
June 23, 2003 at 12:51 pm #727853
doozer
ParticipantYou can’t out right ban certain buisnesses but you can use the carrot and stick approach. Introduce facade guidlines and building upkeep that would make the area less attractive to the lower end of the market.
Get a couple of flagship high-end shops into the area through grants and subsidies and it will begin to regenerate itself. That’s the tactic being used in alot inner city area’s on the continent. -
June 23, 2003 at 1:24 pm #727854
urbanisto
ParticipantThere were comments about the fact that while the DCC is committed to attracting a higher class of business to the street, the strength of their commitment is in question. The former Bank of Ireland building was the case in point. While the IAP specified a high profile use, what we got (or are getting) is a bookies!
I think you should be able to ban certain types of business from areas. For example a limit on the number of Centra/ Spars would be welcome. There is a glut of these tacky shops on the street. Ditto the fastfood emporiums. -
June 23, 2003 at 1:55 pm #727855
notjim
Participantwell nothing could be done about paddy powers: changing a bank into a bookies doesn’t count as a change of use. actually, i am quite pro having a bookies on o’connell street but that’s a different story.
-
June 23, 2003 at 3:23 pm #727856
doozer
ParticipantYeah perhaps a quota system could work for the fast food dives but I reckon that once a couple of sought after buisnesses are there and a reasonable framework for upkeep , regeneration will happen organically.
-
June 24, 2003 at 8:23 pm #727857
GrahamH
ParticipantThe unit sizes on O’ Connell St are generally too small to accomodate large stores, which could of course be adressed by the amalgamation of properties, which take time to aquire.
Have you ever been inside the new schuh store, it’s the smallest shop in the world!
Burger King has a wonderful premises for a quality store with that fantastic picture window upstairs providing wonderful views of the Street. -
June 25, 2003 at 4:24 pm #727858
J. Seerski
Participant.
-
June 26, 2003 at 11:27 am #727859
redeoin
ParticipantIt will take time for the City Centre to clinmb through the Divisions. It is Division three at the moment, but is bidding for a place in Division Two. The DDDA in their Draft Strategy for the Docklands talk about ‘raising the level of disposable income’ which is a euphemism for wealthy people spending lots of money. Until that demand is on O’Connell St that type of wealthy bourgeois glow won’t happen.
It is also not the fault of the inner city communities that they have suffered from being rundown and poor in the past, though it is much improved now. If the City Council can put in decent infrastructure and services, at least we can start saying that O’Connell St is clean and tidy, and has ‘character’ (notwithstanding all the dodgy euro shops on Talbot St). It is also up to the Council to make sure crime damage is repaired, and that civic pride is encouraged.
The Ramblas in Barcelona is lauded as one of the great streets in the world, but it is not that impressive really. Some of the buildings are very fine, but once you go below Carrer Portaferrisa it becomes really seedy, and the look of some of the tramps and heroin addicts there would really depress you. The Plaza Reial there is a gorgeous square but has to be one of Europe’s worst and most self congratulatory tourist traps.
But back to the main point: once we reach Division Two, we can gather fresh resources together in five year times, and have a crack at climbing towards the First Division.
-
June 26, 2003 at 11:47 am #727860
GregF
Participant….after that, the Premiereship and the Champions League ……..which are a long way off at the mo.
-
June 26, 2003 at 3:07 pm #727861
redeoin
ParticipantTo be honest I was thinking the first Division will be the extent of our achievement in my lifetime! To even dream of the Premiership is to move Ireland South as far as Jersey, to get some regular sunshine, and French haute cuisine…
-
June 26, 2003 at 8:04 pm #727862
GrahamH
ParticipantWhats happening with the Carlton at the moment, did the CC compulsorily purchase it a few months ago?
I can’t keep up with all the feckin around on this site with Treasury Holdings & everyone else.
Assuming it has been aquired, which plan is going ahead? The one which eats up Dr Quirkeys & the derilict site and replacing them with Art Deco facades, or the other by A&D Wejchert with the inclusion of Fingal & the derilict site?
The Art Deco was so much better.
And the Moore Mall which was to begin before last Christmas ‘at the latest’? -
June 30, 2003 at 9:22 pm #727863
GrahamH
ParticipantWe know pretty much nothing about whats going on on O’ Cll St.
Yet its explicity stated in the IAP that the highest level of public consultation will be mantained throughout the project to ‘capture our imaginations’ & to offer updates etc
Even all here on this site with a general interest in built surroudings, let alone architecture, hav’nt the faintest idea for the most part whats going on, the type of paving, types of trees, the stalls proposed for the central median, lighting etc etc.
I had to give a presentation to about 100 Dublin people (adults) the other day about the Street, and the proposed changes.
NOBODY knew ANYTHING, even about the plaza outside the GPO, let alone about the tree layouts, tax incentives or the Carlton or Luas etcIndeed the only reason people know about the idea of new trees on the st is because of the ‘actions’ of the Greens and all of the media hype surrounding it.
Ironically, of the 2 boards on the st providing exceptionally vague info of its redevelopment, 1 has been removed to build the plaza!
Why arn’t there comprehensive information boards on the st, providing info as to the proposed physical elements of the st, and the timeframes & phases of development.
People love to read these things, not least if they are dealing with as grand a project as this.
We deserve them, not least as an explanation for why the street looks like a bomb site at the moment.We see new hoardings and cranes coming in & going up every week now, but with absolutely no details given to the public.
No wonder people have little faith in in the St, esp added to by the Spire fiasco – in which also no information was offered, even with people standing around peering into the site the whole time around its construction, & the public asking the site contractors questions. -
July 1, 2003 at 12:51 pm #727864
redeoin
ParticipantIt is appalling behaviour – absolutely appalling. How much effort would it take to have a new onstreet noticeboard. No effort whatsoever.
If this much pride is taken in developing the street, I don’t expect much. And if any of the PR people are called into RTE to explain their vision, I will be the first to barrack them.
How dare they treat the citizens of this city with such arrogance.
-
July 2, 2003 at 7:21 pm #727865
GrahamH
ParticipantNot that I don’t support what the CC are doing.
The way they stuck steadfastly to their plans for removing the trees in favour of the new was great, as is the actual layout of the proposed trees.
The plaza for public celebration is wonderful, as it also addresses/emphasises the importance of the GPO on the Street.
The only thing I hate about the plans , (I don’t even know if its going ahead at this stage) is the ludicrous proposal to mirror the columns of the GPO by erecting six sculptural lighting yokes, the same height as the columns, on the opposite side of the st outside Ann Summers.
Otherwise, Let The Building Commence!
(even though its already underway!) -
July 3, 2003 at 10:22 am #727866
urbanisto
ParticipantI think the CC are failing miserably to galvanise public support for a better street but that has always been the way DCC have operated. You only have to look at the city motto to know why. The CC manage the city as they see fit for the citizens of the city and we should be thankful for that…. they know best.
As for the sculptural lighting on the plaza… what will they look like. What will any of the street furniture look like. Its very hard to make a considered judgement without knowing what the end result will be. Have you seen them Graham?
I think flag poles would be better myself…stainless steel of course.
-
July 3, 2003 at 10:27 am #727867
redeoin
ParticipantI still find the lack of information tiresome. They don’t seem to realise that people are curious about what is happening.
Mind you they may well be keeping quiet deliberately to avoid the attentions of the two-bit environmentalists that want to save a handful of trees etc, never mind the fact that 200 new ones scheduled are for planting. Anyone who has seen north king st will know how surprisingly mature these nursery trees can look.
-
July 3, 2003 at 11:10 am #727868
urbanisto
ParticipantI think they are keeping mum because they’re plans are on hold due to funding difficulties…
-
July 3, 2003 at 3:37 pm #727869
d_d_dallas
ParticipantMoney is a big issue – Cork CC went looking for govt funding for Patrick St rejeuvenation, and got a miserly €1m… hence the slow progress on that projetct. So there’ll be war if DCC got carte blanche to do what they like for as much as they like.
-
July 3, 2003 at 5:58 pm #727870
kefu
ParticipantThere was a story in the Independent around a month and a half ago saying the O’Connell Street regeneration funding was in jeopardy. It wasn’t. At the last city council meeting, the city manager was at pains to say that the money for O’C Street has been ringfenced. He said that at times it was difficult to spend the money, because everything requires lengthy consultation and so on. The money is there – I don’t think there are any questions about that.
-
July 4, 2003 at 1:09 am #727871
GrahamH
ParticipantThe images I have seen for the 6 yokes on the plaza are about 6 years old at this stage, and appear to be made of some material that glows from within after dark, (some thing along the lines of the perspex columns on the set of Graham Norton – to draw a bizarre comparison! – although somewhat more refined)
I’ve seen rough ideas for the stalls, benchsetc, but nothing set in stone.
As far as I’m aware, there is to be a light placed beneath each of the 250 or so trees on the st, to illuminate from below after dark, and LEDs are being considered for longevity.
The paving for the plaza is to be set in alternate strips of stone and/or colouring, whilst the standard pavements at each side of the street may have a cobble edging of a foot or so in width, finished off with wide granite kerbstones.
There is to be lighting at the edge of the side pavements lighting the 2 lane roadways on both sides of the st, lighting of a more intimate pedesrian level to light the central median, and the same again I think to light the side pavements.
The side pavements are to be widened, eating up part of the existing third lane on both sides of the st, the other parts to be consumed with the widening of the central median.
Stalls to sell newspapers coffee (at 3.50 a cup) are planned for the central median, as well as various sculptures etc.
The central median should definitly be reserved in my opinion for statues commemorating people, including modern of course, to be added in the future, rather than having abstract art, the idea of a ‘hall of fame’ as it were,down the St I find appealing, a great feature for the throughfare.
-
July 7, 2003 at 10:21 am #727872
urbanisto
ParticipantAaah they (the light yokes as you so eloquently call them Graham!) are probably along the lines of those on Temple Bar Square. You know the ones that have been well maintained by TBP and are in perfect working order and don’t look an absolute state!
I have seen an artists impression of the proposed stalls on O’CSt. They look quite good. There are even pictures of them up in the street for passers-by to view… well done the Corpo.
-
July 7, 2003 at 7:20 pm #727873
GrahamH
ParticipantAt last!
-
July 7, 2003 at 7:50 pm #727874
GrahamH
ParticipantWas anyone there this morning or has all of the novelty factor of the Spire worn off at this stage?
Anne Graham, the Streets manager says the section from Abbey St to Henry will take a year, roughly from today, with the remaining section(s) another year.
Also it is increasingly likely that the trees at the top end are going to be retained as part of the plans, this is crazy.
One of the best part of the plans is that the new trees, planted at regular intervals down the thoughfare will unify the whole st, north middle & south, this scheme will be utterly lost with the retention of the mighty specimens dominating the place at the moment.These must be removed, whereas I don’t want to appear flippant about these wonderful trees, God knows they’ve seved us well as the grand old ladys of the st blocking the Gresham’s view of the derilict site & Fingal Offices across the road, they have to go to enable the full effect of the new trees to be appriciated, ie continuity.
They were planted I think in 1903, with most of the others on/left on the st in the 60s, 70s & 80s.
-
July 8, 2003 at 9:27 am #727875
Rory W
ParticipantThe words “an Irish solution” leap to mind…
-
July 8, 2003 at 9:34 am #727876
GregF
ParticipantWe are getting a half arsed plan as always …..thanks to the Green Party, Ciaran Cuffe & Co for inanely stirring all this trouble up. I really don’t care about all this any more…..The optimism and hope is gone.
Maybe we ge what we deserve. -
July 8, 2003 at 11:08 am #727877
redeoin
ParticipantJust to clarify, is the entire street effectively to be narrowed to two lanes? Not just the plaza section…
-
July 8, 2003 at 11:24 am #727878
urbanisto
ParticipantYes. The median will stay and the footpaths on either side will be widened.
-
July 9, 2003 at 9:12 am #727879
Rory W
ParticipantI don’t know wheter this is a coincidence or not, but two large infformation boards have gone up on the hordings in the middle of the street…
-
July 9, 2003 at 10:02 am #727880
redeoin
ParticipantIn that case I hereby officially apologise to the city council for accusing them of arrogance and not keeping us informed!
-
July 9, 2003 at 11:20 am #727881
urbanisto
ParticipantIf the Metro is to stop at O’Connell St and D’Olier St does this mean that all that lovely (and expensive) granite will have to be torn up to faciltate construction of the stations… and horror of horrors a cut and cover tunnel! There’ll be the newly planted trees to consider as well. I wonder if anyone has considered this…
Also, I notices a story in yesterdays Indo which seems to suggest that the upper end of the street’s redevelopment (and this was in the contect of paving etc) was dependent on the Carlton site. No action there, no action on the street. Can this be true?
-
July 9, 2003 at 1:52 pm #727882
JJ
ParticipantGood point Stephen,
Seems to me that if the timescale which MR Brennan has proposed to the RPA is to be achieved then the whole street will be dug up again just about when the new scheme has settled in. Thats the problem with the approach here, make it up as you go along !Also what about the effects on the city of building cut and cover stations at D’olier Street, O’Connell Street and Stephens Green all at the same time !!!
JJ
-
July 10, 2003 at 12:43 am #727883
GrahamH
ParticipantDear oh dear, do we know where the proposed station is going on the st?
Suppose it would make sense to have it beside the Luas line crossing the Abbey St axis, but in what format so as to be unobtrusive?What was the wording of the Indo report Stephen – does the entire area’s dev rely on Carlton?
Anne Graham appeared pretty sure the dev in this part of the st would take place in 1 years time as planned.
Does anyone know if the Carlton has been compulsorily purchased by the CC? If so there should be no delay. Something major happened with regard to this site a couple of months ago but I can’t remember what.I was always under the impression that the Georgian townhouse at the top end beside the RDHotel was the only 18th century building on the st, not so.
I was looking closely at Joseph Tudor’s engraving of Sackville st from 1750, and there, on the corner of Henry St are exactly the same buildings that are there today, all be they now clad in Victorian frippery and nasty pink paint and a ghastly 80s shopfront.
This building must be fully refurbished, painted and the sashes restored. It would be wonderful to have a dignified wooden shopfront wrapping itself around the corner of the two streets, rather than the partially blank wall that currently greets visitors to Henry St. -
July 10, 2003 at 9:43 am #727884
GregF
ParticipantI agree regarding the refurbishment of those buildings on the corner of Henry St. and O’Connell St. They look in shite condition and would compliment the GPO if they were done up.
-
July 10, 2003 at 2:30 pm #727885
GrahamH
ParticipantIn a 1950s picture I have of them, one has a splendid wooden oriel window projecting from its facade, now in its place is a nasty vast expanse of 70s picture window crap.
I can’t remember if the ‘Come in and Visit’ is still plastered across the same building -hopefully not. -
July 10, 2003 at 3:07 pm #727886
urbanisto
ParticipantHere is the Indo article from 8 Jul:
THE erection of the Spire marks the beginning of the rejuvenation of O’Connell Street.
Work is already underway on the paving to provide a new civic space in front of the GPO.
The square tree-bordered plaza is to include grey, white and pink granite stones, imported from Spain and China.
The plaza is part of a radical initiative to attract more people, business and tourists to the city centre.
The reduction of traffic lanes on O’Connell Street, designed to give pedestrians priority over traffic, is also underway.
The timetable for rejuvenation is as follows:
* June 2004: All works south of the Spire as far as Prince’s Street are expected to be completed by this time next year.
The plaza will include new lighting, the lime trees, which controversially replaced the older London Plane trees, and a number of retail kiosks.
* December 2004: The area from Prince’s Street to O’Connell Bridge, including the Luas tram lines, will be completed during the second half of next year.
Again, the newly paved and wider central area will feature new street lighting, lines of trees and more retail outlets.
This phase sees the completion of the rejuvenation of O’Connell Street south of the Spire.
* 2005: The development of the area north of the Spire is scheduled for 2005 but is largely dependent on plans for the Carlton site, now under control of Dublin City Council. Detailed targets will not be set until after the future of that area is decided, a spokesperson said.
-
July 10, 2003 at 5:59 pm #727887
Anonymous
InactiveI wouldn’t be surprised in the least if they have to tear up what they are putting down now due to the Metro – but that is of course if they ever build it (I wouldn’t hold my breadth).
I don’t like to be so negative but when you see the Spike fiasco, you couldn’t realistically trust these people (piss-up and brewery spring to mind).
I remember clearly the extended pavement placed in front of the portico of the GPO last year only to be ripped up at most 2 months later for the initial work on the Spike.
-
July 10, 2003 at 6:21 pm #727888
Anonymous
InactiveOn an upside though I must have a look at that building on the corner of Henry and O’Connell St.s – unfortately the ‘Come And Visit Us’ sign is alive and well but will probably go when they remove the other tacky neon signs from the street.
Any chance you can scan the old picture of this building.
I always find it regretable looking at the photos of the buildings on the street in the 1950’s and comparing with now – you’ve got to ask yourself – was it progress?
-
July 11, 2003 at 10:04 am #727889
urbanisto
ParticipantIt mostbdefinately was NOT progress and I guess that is what the IAP has admitted. O’Connell St in the 40s and 50s was a beautiful street and the centre of the city – day and night. You can see uniform shop fronts, canopys on most buildings, less traffic and a transport hub at the Pillar. The IAP is simply trying t recreate that.
On another front: last night saw the premiere of Veronica Guerin and I must say (at least from the BBC coverage) the stars looked far from celestial against their backdrop of hoardings, broken pavements and a rather shabby looking Savoy.
-
July 11, 2003 at 10:30 am #727890
GregF
ParticipantI saw that too ……the premiere looked cheap alright because of the state of the street…….no red carpet, a tawdry Savoy etc…and a few people waiting at a crooked bus stop looking on.
Very bad image for the city.That’s true too about shop front canopies which can be a lovely decorative addition as well as being practical …..pity we don’t see them any more.
-
July 11, 2003 at 11:55 am #727891
-
July 11, 2003 at 12:23 pm #727892
GregF
Participantwas just saying what I saw – aka fact.
-
July 11, 2003 at 12:35 pm #727893
urbanisto
ParticipantI wasn’t talking about the film.. just the premiere. And it looked crap. Noisy, dirty rundown O’Connell St.
Am I a drama queen…. 🙂
-
July 11, 2003 at 2:28 pm #727894
-Donnacha-
ParticipantHey, the BBC journo hardly dreamed up the ‘glitz’ and ‘red carpet’.
Unless he was drafted in from the new York Times…. -
July 11, 2003 at 2:49 pm #727895
Jack
Participantwas actually directed more toward GregF….you’ll be glad to hear….response was….typical…..but if you want more evidence…i can show you pics of red carpet…and a report sayin there were hundreds of people there… 🙂
-
July 11, 2003 at 3:08 pm #727896
GregF
ParticipantAh I was only kidding. Actually O’Connell Street looked great with all the glitteratti, papparazzi and thousands of fanatical onlooking members of the public. The shining Spire in the backgound soaring into the clear blue sky. It was equal to a night at the Oscars or the Cannes film festival as Bono, Colin Farrell, Cate Blanchett and other major stars strolled down the red carpet from their stretch limosines into the luxurious foyer of the Savoy cinema. Definitely a night for the beautiful people. Champagne anyone!
-
July 11, 2003 at 3:36 pm #727897
Jack
Participantthe bbc doesn’t lie;)
-
July 11, 2003 at 7:23 pm #727898
GrahamH
ParticipantTee hee, very topical.
I saw the premiere as well, all I could see was Fingal looming in the background, a wonderful open space – no hang on – the derilict site beside it, 200,000 tacky CFL bulbs adorning the flat 60s canopy of the Savoy, and a manky upper facade that badly needs a scrubbing.
(And I hope whoever rolled up the red carpet at the end was wearing rubber gloves, one can only imagine the joys of its underside after an evening sprawled across an O’ Cll St pavement)
Ah yes, sarcasm the lowest form of wit, take the easy option & be cynical etc
I know, I know, I just can’t resist it.I’ll try get the picture of Sackville Zap, (courtesy of the Sunday Times last week)
It is, to say the least, an highly idealised picture of the St, all of the parapets are as straight as an arrow, not a pitched roof in sight, and even though every house had 60 million fieplaces, each property in the picture has a single tiny Leinster House chimney perched atop.
Still, all of the buildings appear to be accurate, including the one on the Henry St corner. -
July 12, 2003 at 5:19 pm #727899
GrahamH
ParticipantI thought rather than just slapping up an image of Sackville Mall, I’d make up a little picture compilation of how the buildings have ‘developed through the centuries’ – as an estate agent would say.
So there are 5 pictures (don’t worry, they’re small)
1. The corner buildings in 1750, note how the first building is 5 windows wide before a jump in parapet level with the next building.2. Same buildings in 1818, this time a more accurate image, where we can see the pitched roof.
3. In the 1950s, note the Victorian oriel window added.
4 & 5. 2003 and oh dear, Joe Walsh tours, pink window dressings & ‘Come in & Visit’ alive & well.
Still – note the same parapet levels as evident 250 years ago, and the same amount of windows.Note how fantastic a decent carved wood shopfront would look here wrapping around the corner, & the building repainted etc.
-
July 17, 2003 at 12:13 pm #727900
Anonymous
InactiveThe row certainly looked well in the 1950’s – cheers for that Graham.
-
August 4, 2003 at 8:11 pm #727901
GrahamH
ParticipantI was listening on the radio to a repeat of the fiasco surrounding the trees on O’ Connell St, and various City Council officials were defending the decision etc – which is fair enough.
What really annoyed me though was the language used by the same officals about the upgrading of the street – saying things like “It was thought that O’ Cll St had fallen into a delapidated condition” “It was widely accepted that the street was unacceptable as the city’s primary thoroughfare” “We at the City Council decided to to something about it” and blah de blah blah blahNow hang on just a second here, it was virtually exclusively, soley and entirely the fault of the Corporation that the street fell into this condition in the first place!
And whereas it would be entirely unfair to accuse officals today of the mess made, they have nothing short of a hell of a cheek to skirt around the issue of how the place fell into the woeful state it is today, ie Corporation Complacency.It was they who allowed its paving fall into the barely concievable disgusting state it is today.
It was they who stipped the street of the dignity of lamposts by ripping out every single one in favour of floodlights as a more practical solution.
It was they who allowed road traffic to utterly dominate the street for the past 30 years, reaching intolerable levels by the late 90s.
It was they who granted full planning permission in 1982 for the demolition of the last Georgian townhouse on the street, despite it containing some of the finest plasterwork in Ireland, despite it being the last tangible landmark of how the street originally looked, and despite its accociations with Daniel O’ Connell.
It was they who granted full permission for the Eircom office block, one of the ugliest buildings in the city.
It was they who allowed the demolition of Gilbeys, the demolition of the Metropole, and the gross intrusion of CIE and Burgerland buildings.
It was they who sliced the railings off O’ Connell Monument, which would inevitably lead to it being soiled with every type of matter concievable.
It was they who did nothing to impove the vast expanses of dull asphalt and tarmac on it’s carriageways.
It was they who allowed the prevelance of the most disgusting and offensive street furniture including 3rd World standard traffic lights and posts.
It was they who watched without so muchas a twitch as the street was devoured by fast-food joints and takeaways.
And as to whether they had resonsibilty for enacting the Derelict Sites Act upon the owners of the site beside the Carlton, admittedly I don’t know, or resonsibility for whole trees who’s lights were’nt working at Christmas, or whether they granted permission for so many other inappropriate schemes on the street.
It was they – above all however – that breached their policy of O’ Connell Street being a conservation area, a place of ‘major civic design importance’
They threw the street a bit of paving in 1988 as a consession from the scrapheap and left it at that.
As far as they were concerned it was on the Northside, Dublin 1, and the street was too large and too delapidated, and any investor who was willing to ‘put some money into the area’ was given pretty much a free hand to do as they wished.Today, Dublin City Council should not be congratulated for commissioning an IAP, or ‘having the vision’ to execute major refurbishment works – it is, as would be described in the UK as merely ‘the bleedin obvious’
The work they are carrying out is only part of wider objectives to rectify the mess made by the same public body in the past.
Never should present officals be allowed to gloat and boast about the virtues of their current project until they publicly acknowledge that it is largely their own mess they’re cleaning up. -
August 5, 2003 at 2:16 am #727902
Anonymous
Inactiveshould definitely send that to the times / indo Graham …
-
August 5, 2003 at 10:15 am #727903
redeoin
ParticipantGreat posting – the only thing I will say is that a lot of the new corpo generation genuinely seem to care, and know what they are at, and I would hate to tar them with the brush of the last two generations…
It will be a real turning point for the northside once O’Connell St is complete. Most Dubliners are only vaguely aware of what is going on as far as I can see, and a really well designed O’Connell St will really make them sit up and take notice – and perhaps notice all the other Northside developments going on too – Smithfield, The Markets (hopefully), The Ilac Centre/Parnell St/Moore St, Talbot/Foley St, Spencer Dock…
-
August 5, 2003 at 11:39 am #727904
urbanisto
ParticipantAn excellent critique Graham and I agree you should forward it on to the papers…
But I think its a fair point to say that there is a new mentality in the DCC which is gradually undoing a lot of the mistakes of the 70s and 80s. There is also a lot more money about. For example, I couldnt imagine the old Feeley regime having the idea of the Boardwalk or Smithfield. Still the tendancy to drag their heels and ignore simple and obvious solutions to problems remains….
-
August 5, 2003 at 9:06 pm #727905
GrahamH
ParticipantI agree whole-heartedly, there is now a geninue interest and dedication in the City Council to the betterment of Dublin City, indeed they almost thrive on rectifying the mistakes of the past.
At last there is a vision in the City Council, with utterly committed staff & planners, although the delays & hitches trail on as always.They could have won and deserved approval for the O’ Connell St plans however – had they enacted them straight away.
And so the only area where they could have earned credit and applause – in initiating the street’s upgrading immediatly – was the very area they utterly failed, work began on the plaza some 5 years and 4 months after the publication of the IAP – in which – rather amusingly the then Lord Mayor stated he hoped to see much of the proposed work ‘carried out by the Millenium’. -
August 5, 2003 at 9:09 pm #727906
GrahamH
ParticipantPerhaps the Indo will publish it if I say that Desmond Guinness was the developer behind the proposed demolition of the Georgian townhouse…
-
August 6, 2003 at 7:09 pm #727907
GrahamH
ParticipantWell after all your encouragement, the posting should be on Geraldine Kennedy’s desk right now, or rather on her sub-editor’s secretary’s secretary’s desk…
-
September 26, 2003 at 12:03 am #727908
GrahamH
ParticipantThursday 25th 2003
I saw the first of the new paving on the street today – and wow it looks stunning – so good you want to keep it caged off from the public with barriers and concrete boulders – keep it safe from dirty feet and the plague of chewing gum.
I see it is being laid a significant 1 foot or so below the existing road level, hopefully this is in order to reduce the level of the pavement under the portico of the GPO which is too high and eats up parts of the plinths of it’s columns and the steps of the entrances.
The base of the Spire is being surrounded with straight edged square granite cobbles (which must have cost the earth) – with the areas either side on the median being laid in alternate stripes of granite slabs and (I think) limestone, which has a bluey tinge to it and is very attractive.
There is no question that litter wardens must be dedicated to the street after completion, if there is a strong awarness amongst the public that if you throw/spit chewing gum on the ground, that you will be nabbed, the process will soon stop.
This paving which must be prohibitively expensive
must be protected.And as much as one would like to say otherwise – GOOD GOD O’ CONNELL ST NEEDS TREES!!!
I’d like to think it’s architecture could hold the street up – but it can’t – largely due to the appalling state of repair of most of the stock above st level.I had’nt seen the st without the Clery’s trees until today – the place looks like London after the Blitz.
-
September 26, 2003 at 12:27 am #727909
Anonymous
Inactivea row of limes running the full length of the street on the right and left will be fine … All of the london planes should be removed, has anyone heard any more on the rumour that the ones outside the gresham were going to be kept ?
I think this would ruin the symetry of the plan …
-
September 26, 2003 at 2:40 am #727910
James
ParticipantI was amused to read Graham’s ‘rant’ on the previous page about the city council’s poor record on O’Connell St. Even more amused to note them yet again claiming credit for the whole idea of the ‘Civic Thoroughfare’ in the first place.
My practise actually produced the initial draft masterplan in 1996. It was’nt a City Council proposal in fact the body pressing for it’s implementation was the City Centre Business Association.
Among other things our proposal was for the thoroughfare to extend through from O’Connel St all the way up Dame St, for the inclusion of a new footbridge east of O’Connell Bridge, and the establishment of a series of boardwalks along the Liffey.
We were credited with this precisely once, on an old ‘Questions and Answers’ when the then minister referred rather disparagingly to the ‘Kelly Plan’.
Out of interest we were paid the princely sum of £600.00 for the plan as our client was basically trying to press this proposal forward on a shoestring. I remember quite well the chief exec of the Business Association telling me at the time that none of us would get anything in the way of credit for the implementation of the plan if it ever came to pass as the ‘Big Boys in Civic Offices’ would grab the limelight.
That said, City Architects Division really worked their socks off trying to make the thing work (even if I don’t agree with the removal of the trees which came in sometime later or with the decision not to re-instate Gardiners mall).
Anyway, I thought you might find this of interest.
-
September 26, 2003 at 10:47 am #727911
urbanisto
ParticipantThats an interesting story… but I guess its to be expected that DCC will take all the glory for this redevelopment. It is worth noting that there are other people involved, although to be fare the IAP did note this.
The paving looks so bright and clean and I think the use of such bright granite is going to dramatically alter the atmosphere of the street, together with all that stainless steel street furniture. But that cobbling is bound to take ages to complete. Perhaps extra large slabs would have been better.
I have to agree Peter: Its sad to say because the trees have been there for such a long time and deserve better than to be cut down but keeping the mature trees at the North end will completely ruin the symetry of the street, which is one of its strongest elements.
-
September 27, 2003 at 12:46 am #727912
GrahamH
ParticipantI never knew An Taisce proposed this either James – although I was aware of the CCBA’s actions on the issue.
Why do you not like the idea of the trees going – I am equally sad etc to see them going, esp with the history attached to a minority of them, but I see the current lime tree plan to be in the overwhelming interest of the street – above the existing ones – most of which were planted in the 60s.
They became far too large, obscuring completly the buildings on the other side of the street – and more importantly, massively diminished the boulevard aspect to it – it became almost a parkland, just with acres of asphalt underneath.
The current plan reinforces the length of the throughfare with the symmetrical layout acknowledging it’s importance.
I never heard of the plans to re-instate Gardiner’s Mall either – and as much as I’d love to see it done for historical reasons, I’m not sure of it’s relevance for today.
Whatever about building ‘old’ in the rebuilding of the modern infill on the st to unify the character of the st – which was argued about at length on the Royal Dublin thread – rebuilding the Mall surely would be nostalgic in the extreme.
The wealthy of today promenade in their Victorian piles in leafy suburbia – not in the middle of O’ Connell St (indeed the exact opposite of what prevails today!) -
September 27, 2003 at 6:29 am #727913
notjim
Participantgardiner’s mall was area along the middle of the street surrounded by a low wall and for walking around in finery, is that right? did you have to pay to get in? i would have to agree with Graham and wonder if there is a need for it.
-
September 27, 2003 at 8:36 pm #727914
James
ParticipantRe: Graham’s comments.
An Taisce may have had theri own views on O’Connell St at the time – I was’nt aware of them though – I’m a private consultant Architect, who is a member, not an employee – that said I must find out what their position was at the time.
As to the Mall – well its ‘horses for courses’ really – it always seemed to me like the best way of retrieving the character of the street as a public space which is pretty much what it was planned as rather than primarily as a thoroughfare – I happen to like parks, amenity space and ‘resting’ and promenade places within cities – I don’t particularly think its an archaic concept either – My own feeling was that it might ‘expose’ a hitherto hidden aspect ofteh street which might have allowed for continuation across the bridge (which is extremely wide) and solved the ‘problem’ of the still messy junction at D’Olier St and Westmorland St.
The trees?? – well its a personal thing – I find the idea of destroying something that took 40 to 10 years (depending on their location) to grow – perverse in the extreme.
I agree they wer’nt particularly well placed however they’re attractive in their own right, characterful, and with a different approach to the detail of the central strip and some judicious pruning and shaping could have formed the ‘bones’ of something quite unique along the central reservation or mall.
-
September 28, 2003 at 10:45 am #727915
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterActually, I quite like the idea of the mall being reinstated… just bear with me on this….
imagine a long linear park bordered by small box hedges, and gravelled in the parisian manner with trees and seats (now forget that dubliners are a dirty breed, so imagine it clean and cared for)…. imagine this like james suggests continuing right across the bridge to end at the neo-gothic pile at the junction of d’olier and westmoreland…. could be nice… worth rendering up to see anyway….
-
September 29, 2003 at 12:12 pm #727916
GrahamH
ParticipantAbsolutely, indeed bookstalls, coffee-sellers etc could all have their place in this scheme.
But rebuilding the mall from Parnell down to Henry St, in its original position, would break the length of the street, ruining its continuity – and have litttle relevance today, as none of the original streetscape remains with the exception of one house.
Building a mall the whole way down, over the bridge and in a modern manner is a different idea entirely – and a better different idea at that!
Integrating O’ Connell Bridge into the street has always been a problem, with the Eden Quay/Bachelors Walk axis breaking the link.
This median park could join them up nicely.Sorry James, I though you were representing An Taisce from a previous thread – nice to know the CCBA at least cared for its environs long before it became fashionable to be involved in ‘regeneration’.
-
September 29, 2003 at 12:48 pm #727917
GrahamH
ParticipantThe Royal Dublin have submitted what is now at least their 3rd application for their refurbishment.
The latest includes plans for a closed off cafe terrace onto the street – which must be welcomed – and rather bizzarely, small balconies fronting some, if not all of the bedrooms facing the street.The facade is to be ‘contemporary’ with ‘natural stone and glass’. there is also to be a new glass canopy built over the cafe at ground floor level, as well as something like ‘intergrated structural floodlighting’ of the facade.
I only read it after passing the Civic Offfices earlier – could have gone in to see it on paper – unless someone else would like to venture in instead hint hint… -
September 29, 2003 at 12:52 pm #727918
GregF
ParticipantThe new paving around the GPO and Spire looks great….pity it wil be soiled with chewing gum and vomit by the riff raff when finished
-
September 29, 2003 at 7:29 pm #727919
GrahamH
ParticipantJust passed it this evening, some of the granite being laid is that pinky, large crystalled type (which I despise with avengence) alongside the limestone.
I’ll reserve judgement until completion – I think it has just always reminded me of flooring in 70s supermarkets. -
September 29, 2003 at 8:02 pm #727920
garethace
ParticipantOut of interest we were paid the princely sum of £600.00 for the plan as our client was basically trying to press this proposal forward on a shoestring.
Geeze, I didn’t think that would even qualify as a shoestring! I would say many wood work teachers were doing better designing bungalows! Vomit, sorry. . . Read about what the real Princes of Paper Architecture are doing at 58-years of age. Never too old James!
Brian O’ Hanlon.
-
September 30, 2003 at 2:38 pm #727921
d_d_dallas
Participantgraham – dontcha think a bit of colour will help the street? 70’s supermarkets aside, I think a purely grey granite surface on that scale would be very drab especially in the poor quality light of an Irish winter. There are patches of pinkish colour and grey on the “nearly there” Patrick St project in Cork – and I have to say good choice! It really brightens up the place.
Also pink goes so much better with blackened chewing gum!
-
October 1, 2003 at 11:52 am #727922
urbanisto
ParticipantThere are pink coloured granite slabs being laid on O’Connell St…you can see some already
-
October 1, 2003 at 8:44 pm #727923
GrahamH
ParticipantThats what I was trying to figure – colour will brighten the area no end, not least outside the GPO which frankly is horribly drab – but colour dates so quickly – suppose you can’t account for everything.
About the GPO – it needs cleaning – it was sandblasted in 1984 I think,but a simple pressure washing is all thats required now – not least the base of the columns which are disgusting – they’ve never been touched and are disgraceful for a building of this status.
And if the windows were originally white they should be painted as such to lighten it up – although I’ve a feeling they were originally brown as part of that craze in the early 19th century.
-
October 2, 2003 at 4:55 pm #727924
redeoin
ParticipantWhen o’connell st is unveiled as a boulevard in two years time, there will be a lot of regeneration of basic things like the cleanlinesss of shop fronts etc.
There will hopefully also be a further wave of apartments in the unused upper floors of buildings, as people are suddenly attracted by the location.
What would do very well would be tourist style apartments that are rented on short-term leases for people who want to take extended holidays and breaks…
The upper building line on the street, apart from a handful of buildings, looks rather well now that the trees have come down; that can only improve.
-
October 2, 2003 at 5:13 pm #727925
GregF
ParticipantWould’nt it be nice to see some shop fronts here with canopies/awnings too, for they can be an attractive feature on a shop front. Thomas Reads on Dame Street/Parliament Street springs to mind
-
October 3, 2003 at 12:21 pm #727926
Rory W
ParticipantI would be superb if a uniform set of awnings was introduced for the entire street (And D’Olier/Westmoreland too – v. impressive
-
October 3, 2003 at 1:39 pm #727927
emf
ParticipantThe old Eircom building, called Findlater House, has a planning notice on it for re-development as separate units to include a foodcourt. Would have preferred to see it demolished and rebuilt myself but at least its better than a Bookies!!
-
October 3, 2003 at 7:26 pm #727928
GrahamH
ParticipantAt last!
I suppose this building is really to large to sweep away – it’s massive to the rear.
Walked down the street today at lunchtime to Connolly – there were no less than 5 pools of vomit on the ground on the stretch between Bachelors Walk and Henry St.
Two were on the pavements edge, one was at the base of a rubbish bin (which of course was missed, hence it ran all down the side to the ground) and one, more sophisticated puker decided to adorn the base of a pilaster of the GPO – on both sides – creating a striking symmetrical composition.The place was coated rubbish – moreso than usual – my feet stuck to the ground the whole way – and the place stank to high heaven of vomit, urine and the joys of lunchtime at Supermacs.
I was on the verge of throwing up myself.
The paving on this stretch is the worst paving I have ever seen in any town or city in the world.
The slabs are cracked and subsiding, are cheap concrete, unbeliveably incredibly dirty – some are literally black in colour – the kerbstones are subsiding, every slab is coated in chewing gum in a variety of shades, hundreds of gaps are filled with tarmac, ‘juice’ is leaking out of every bin staining the surrounding area, and of course litter litter litter.
What really annoys me is that people think this is all part of the works for Luas or the repaving, hence letting the CC off the hook – this place has been like this for the past 10 years!
There is nothing in this city that the CC can be blamed more for than the state of the paving on this street – so simple to resolve – so cheap to resolve.
And this is the main street – it is just unbeliveable the state of this paving, imagine Trafalgar Square or Oxford St like this, it should have been fixed years ago.I was mortified passing all of the German and French couples on their Autumn weekend breaks.
-
October 3, 2003 at 10:15 pm #727929
merriman mick
ParticipantIt’s not just O’Connell street that’s dirty but the whole town. But sadly you know as well as the rest of us that this will never change,
it’s just the way things are, it’s hopeless.Cleaning, washing, repairing , replacing are all
maintenance tasks that the city deserves.Oddly enough, you will not often hear visitors
commenting on/complaining about the filth and
disrepair. -
October 4, 2003 at 3:46 pm #727930
Murpho
ParticipantHold a minute here….do you bunch of pessimists think that Dublin is the only city in the world where people throw chewing gum on the streets or puke?
I think you guys should stop criticising Dublini so much and thinking that the grass is so much greener in the rest of Europe.
Do you really think that tourists go around inspecting the state of our paving? Not that I believe its as bad as written above.
I live in Holland and Amsterdam is one of the filthiest cities I’ve ever been in, but I’m sure Irish tourists who have been there will write back saying how clean it is.
I wish people on this site would stop complaining all the time about how bad things are in Ireland. Of course the country has its faults but its still way better than it was 10 years ago and for me has something special that no other city can offer, so please give Dublin a break!
-
October 4, 2003 at 5:02 pm #727931
merriman mick
ParticipantNot complaining about Dublin, Dublin’s great,
always has been, even 10 years ago. The city can learn from a little critique, there’s too much
litter, we can see that.Amsterdam is different, it’s like a theme-park,
it’s not just about large numbers of tourists though you’re right, it is comparable in it’s litter with Dublin.I live not far from you in Antwerp and it’s clean, this city is actually clean, it can happen.
This has got nothing to do with the state of the nation or the city, I’ve not complained about that, it’s just the litter.
-
October 5, 2003 at 7:30 am #727932
asdasd
ParticipantRome, is a very dirty city, with so much graffiti and filth on the ground. Still my favourite city , though. Stockholm – which is cleaner – is not.
Dirt really means nothing.
-
October 6, 2003 at 7:25 pm #727933
GrahamH
ParticipantO’ Connell St is disgusting.
It dosn’t matter what other cities are like, it is inexcusable and pathetic.
We have a small city centre and should lead by example.
This is’nt about scoring cheap points at the CC’s expense – its about an inexcusable lack of maintainance and an apathetic public. -
October 7, 2003 at 1:01 am #727934
sw101
ParticipantMost of them are unaware that streets can be better. Few people i know take note of the stone finish on streets or standard of rubbish bins while away on holidays. Not to say you’re not right, just that its not really apathy if the whole situation is just under the radar (or over)
-
October 7, 2003 at 1:03 am #727935
sw101
Participantand it’s “isn’t”, not “is’nt”. I dunno graham. I like scoring cheap points 🙂
-
October 7, 2003 at 3:37 pm #727936
GrahamH
ParticipantYeah I know, I keep typing that.
I didn’t mean you were scoring points, rather my listing of the problems may be interpreted by anyone as such.
Most people I know certainly would notice the condition/cleaniness of paving abroad. -
October 7, 2003 at 5:31 pm #727937
-Donnacha-
ParticipantGraham, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but once again, you are wrong.
I’ve had been living in Dublin for 2 1/2 years, and find O’Connell St. most appealling. You are wrong about looking people in the eye, in my experience the majority are warm and welcoming – you must spend your time staring at the pavement.
I am now in Dundalk, and it is remeniscent of a slurry pit. The paths are filthy, littered and soiled, and you certainly wouldn’t look someone in the eye up here.
I you lived in or around Dundalk, you’d soon realize what a luxury it is to live in Dublin. -
October 7, 2003 at 5:55 pm #727938
d_d_dallas
ParticipantDundalk man – I’m sure Dundalk isn’t glistening sparkly eat ur dinner off the pavement type of place as you describe – but seriously… O’Connell St is “appealing”. I have difficulty sharing ur viewpoint on that one.
As big as London is, the main areas seem to be alot cleaner than the main areas here – and that’s with the LACK of rubbish bins in public areas/stations (thank the ‘ra for that one). Now don’t get me wrong – London is dirty – but with no bins on their streets they seem to do better than us – the chippie wrapper never seems to make it to the bin – rather the pavement next to it. -
October 8, 2003 at 3:25 pm #727939
blue
ParticipantThe centre of Dundalk has just been totally repaved so I’m not sure what you are talking about DundalkMan. Dundalk has cleaned up its act in recent years and while I can’t vouch for the people the streets are generally clean. Certainly cleaner than O’Connell St and its surrounding streets. 🙂
-
October 8, 2003 at 7:41 pm #727940
GrahamH
ParticipantWhat a coincidence – I have lived in Dundalk for the past 15 years!
I know every inch of the town – it has indeed been completely repaved – and the town is absolutely sparkling – its 18th century core flaunted and appreciated by the council and business people alike.But certainly I agree the place was like a slurry pit, and many people today there are far from approachable – not least after the clock strikes 12.
Unfortunately the town is somewhat infamous in that regard.I have the pleasure of walking up O’ Cll St most days going to Connolly – pleasure in enjoying the fantastic buzz from the place and it’s many fine buildings – but also the displeasure of the disgusting paving – I was on it again today, and after seeing the place there is no way I can backtrack on anything I’ve said, it is a disgrace.
Although – Mc Donalds have washed the paving outside it’s premises and the difference is obvious – although this doesn’t take away from it’s poor condition.O’ Connell Monument’s base has been cleaned over the summer – where credit is due and all that – although some scribblers have already had a go at it.
-
October 9, 2003 at 11:06 am #727941
urbanisto
ParticipantI hope they have factored in claning and floodlighting of the various monuments as part of the renovations.
The new paving is coming along very well… I think it will all look fantastic when completed. You can see how the plaza and the malls will meet as regards paving as well… a graduated slope rather than steps. Theres lots of variety and colour in the stones used as well.
-
October 9, 2003 at 11:24 am #727942
GregF
ParticipantShould all be done for Christmas….It will look brilliant
-
October 9, 2003 at 8:22 pm #727943
GrahamH
ParticipantThe plans are exceptional and very exciting.
The idea of the street in the future at Christmas, packed with shoppers and ramblers, all of the trees down the street covered in lights, Christmassy stalls with hot drinks…..doesn’t sound like Dublin!
-
October 10, 2003 at 10:53 am #727944
urbanisto
ParticipantHmm I wouldn’t egt my hopes up just yet about this Christmas. I can imagine the central median being fully paved but not the rest of the plaza. That going to be a huge job considering the need to control and reroute traffic. Also I can’t see any tree planting or street furniture being installed. A nicer Patricks Day parade might be a more realistic expectation.
-
October 10, 2003 at 7:31 pm #727945
GrahamH
ParticipantOf course – Christmas in the future referring to a couple of years down the line – but really this street is going to transform the face of Dublin, esp at Christmas
Its one of very few cities in Europe that doesn’t have a hard landscaped area or piazza.
An Post should also invest in some decent garlands etc to dress up the GPO as part of creating a festive mood, and all of the trees surrounding the plaza could be covered in lights.
And of course, at last, the street’s Christmas tree will have an official home – in the centre of the plaza, centred on the portico of the GPO. -
October 23, 2003 at 12:12 am #727946
urbanisto
ParticipantI know you must all be so bored of the Spire by now but now that the paving around it is in place and you can see the fully finished product I have to say I am decidedly underwhelmed. That grating at the base is such a cop out. There is no uplighting which I am suprised by. And after the dirty self cleaning Spire….. the really expensive-state of the art-wont need to be replaced for ages lights in the tip have gone out. I hope those lowflying planes that are frequently seen over OC St will be okay!!
-
October 23, 2003 at 2:11 pm #727947
GrahamH
ParticipantI walked over the new paving for the first time too yesterday – the quality is impressive but thats about it.
All round the base of the Spire is littered with access man-holes for traffic signals and earth rods, and the big clumsy galvanised steel cover for access to services of the Spire is far from attractive, plonked but a couple of feet away from the base.
I don’t know if ‘normal’ people would notice these things, but it defies my logic that so much money and effort and disruption go into this repaving and for it to be tainted in this way.
One of the details in the plans for the street was to remove all of the ugly silver traffic signal boxes from street level and put them underground – but surely not scattered around the base of the focal point of the street!And the bronze base is far from interesting – although yesterday all of the ridges filled with water creating an attractive circular pool around the sculpture.
The bollards look well now in the context of the new paving – but should be arranged in a circle.
The whole area at last provides an attractive and accommodating pedestrian crossing for this major junction. Some snazzy ‘chromed’ traffic/pedestrian signals of the type at the James Joyce Bridge are now required.And the new dark paving as part of the plaza looks fantastic, it must be basalt or something – it turns jet black in the rain with the slabs of white stone or quartzite in between contrasting brilliantly. The monochrome colour scheme should make it timeless as it were, immune to Grafton Street Syndrome…
-
October 23, 2003 at 6:21 pm #727948
emf
ParticipantI wonder had the placement of the bollards anything to do with protecting the Spire from a collision as they protrude further along towards the direction of oncoming traffic.
-
October 27, 2003 at 3:28 pm #727949
feather
ParticipantAny of you guys heading out to Ian Ritchie’s lecture on the Spike Saturday week, then?
It’s on 11am in Pearse Street Library, and costs €20 to get in…
-
October 27, 2003 at 9:02 pm #727950
notjim
Participanthalf the lights on the spike aren’t working, it has been like that since before the storm. please, someone fix them.
-
October 28, 2003 at 9:00 am #727951
emf
ParticipantIt said on the paper the other day that they have to ship in engineers from across the water to find out whats wrong with them!!
-
October 28, 2003 at 9:35 am #727952
Morlan
ParticipantWhat a disaster! I cant believe the lights have gone out already. This will probably be an ongoing problem from now on.
-
October 28, 2003 at 1:03 pm #727953
JackHack
ParticipantThe lights look a lot more impressive when there’s a decent wind to sway the top, the sparkling affect makes up for the relative dimness of the it.
Perhaps they could modify it so the internal lights would sway even on a still evening.Or perhaps just tape a few fairy lights to it, they usually last for a few weeks aswell.
-
October 28, 2003 at 1:16 pm #727954
Morlan
ParticipantThis may have been asked before but why dont they light up the whole Spire with flood lights?!!?!?
-
October 28, 2003 at 1:33 pm #727955
GrahamH
ParticipantThis is due to happen, presumably when the ‘dressing’ of the st gets underway ie, lighting, trees, benches etc.
-
October 29, 2003 at 11:51 am #727956
Anonymous
Inactivei like the way it dissapears into the nights sky. i dont think it should be floodlit at nighttime. its an absouloutely magnificent project, its just a pity that the finish and light at the top were a done with such poor quality
spike for the stirling prize!!!
-
October 29, 2003 at 4:23 pm #727957
Cadman
Participantwhy dont they stick an angel on top and decorate it like a christmas tree…come on people not a very exciting project if u ask me… im in town nearly every day and i look more at the ann summers shop across the street than i do at the spike.
-
October 29, 2003 at 5:00 pm #727958
Anonymous
Inactivewhy dont they they strap some air horns to the side of it and employ people to scream in your face if you dont look at it.
the scheme executes a very difficult feat in being both modern and timeless. it is extremely simple, layered with meaning and has many subtleties which give it a quiet richness. i see it a few times every day from mary street (one of the best views of it) and still marvel at its elegance and changing appearence depending on the light conditions.
i will agree that close up on o connell street it is let down by staining and that rubbish pattern at the base, but i think the spike is a monument we should all be proud of. -
October 30, 2003 at 2:20 pm #727959
GrahamH
ParticipantSpot on
The Mary St view is my favourite too.
-
October 31, 2003 at 1:21 pm #727960
emf
ParticipantI’m afraid to say that the new paving which was only unveiled lately around the Spire has already been destroyed by chewing gum!!
-
October 31, 2003 at 6:14 pm #727961
Anonymous
InactiveI’m afraid I find the finished result of this long coming Sprike a mere dirty pole topped with faint and certainly unspectacular (in spite of all the promises and what was talked about on this noticeboard) lights.
I pass by it every single day as I work on Abbey St. and just wonder could they not have come up with something better (they certainly had the time to).
I’m not impressed and apart from those opinions expressed on this noticeboard, know very few who are.
As for those who say it is layer in meaning – I’m afraid I find such a statement laughable.
Where I get the bus on Parnell Sq. has to be the worst view – even worse than the actual view from O’Connell St.
-
October 31, 2003 at 7:55 pm #727962
GrahamH
ParticipantIt is an incredibly beautiful structure and its design has been hugely successful – although I always thought it was a bit too stout, should be taller, hence slenderer.
It’s problems lie with the finish and the lighting.
I saw the lit tip for the first time in ‘real life’ yesterday – oh dear, now I know what you’re all talking about.I see what Jack means about the lights (what ones are working) glittering as it sways – very effective.
It was lashing rain yesterday evening and there was 3 rivers of water plummeting down the 120 metres of its profile, and I’m such a child – had to go over and put my hand underneath one of them, it filled with water in about half a second! (and then overflowed over my feet)
Incredible, esp as the torrents then disappear down the tiny gap between it and the base, on top of the LEDs beneath. -
November 3, 2003 at 12:29 am #727963
sw101
ParticipantCan’t agree with you graham. Its a lost oppurtunity as far as i’m concerned
-
November 3, 2003 at 1:28 pm #727964
Anonymous
Inactivewhat oportunitis do you think were lost with the spire?
-
November 18, 2003 at 2:45 pm #727965
GrahamH
ParticipantThe plaza and lots of trees.
Limes down the centre, I think poplars down the sides. -
November 18, 2003 at 3:28 pm #727966
Anonymous
InactiveThose five or so random pillars in the image are’nt going ahead are they? The ones which are facing opposite to the GPO!
-
November 18, 2003 at 3:48 pm #727967
GrahamH
ParticipantI’ve hated these yokes since the beginning – talk about stealing the GPO’s thunder!
-
November 18, 2003 at 5:19 pm #727968
Anonymous
InactiveSorry Graham, don’t get me wrong, I was wondering if they are to be built or not? Does anyone know what the story with them is?
I think they would look a bit odd and a bit of a poor attempt to reflect the GPO. -
November 19, 2003 at 10:43 am #727969
GrahamH
ParticipantVery odd indeed – I don’t know if they’re going ahead, heard no mention of them at all.
Suppose it must be remembered that althought the tree plans etc are still correct, these images to date from 1998. -
November 19, 2003 at 11:20 am #727970
GrahamH
ParticipantPassed down the st last night and another big hole being dug outside the Sony Centre (beside Clerys) has revealed what would appear to be the original Wide Streets Commision paving from around 1800.
There’s a line of wide kerbstones at the bottom of the pit about a metre from the surface – interestingly though no paving slabs.
Admittedly for all I know these could have been laid here by the contractors, but they appear to be very old, and the slabs are quite small, smaller than many of the later Victorian ‘antique paving’ kerbstones seen elsewhere in the city.
It looks like they’ve just been excavated, the workers were all standing around looking at them and on phones etc – then again they’re always doing that… -
November 20, 2003 at 10:56 am #727971
urbanisto
ParticipantStainless steel traffic light poles have been erected as requested Graham! Now we shall see how the plaza will fare under pressure fo traffic. The newly laid areas will soon for the carriage was along this strech as the side pavements are repaved.
Also isnt its the dumbest thing ever. OC St is left all year without any major work taking place anbd then come Xmas shopping time the whole place gets dug up. The latest is the relaying of granite paving at the entrance to Henry St and at N Earl St.!! Why now! Why not last March!
-
November 20, 2003 at 1:56 pm #727972
GrahamH
ParticipantHad to laugh at this, there’s been tarmac on the Henry St area for months if not years, and they dig it up in the weeks running to Christmas – you’d wonder, really.
Saw the poles – very snazzy.
Also impressed at how undamaged the base of the Spike is – people are literally to afraid to touch it for fear of attack from the public (or more likely the Guards outside the GPO)
The Clery’s christmas trees are fantastic as always – the best christmas sight in Dublin for many years.
-
November 20, 2003 at 2:13 pm #727973
GrahamH
ParticipantTheres a load of black bricks being churned up by the big hole mentioned previously – maybe some rubble from 1916?
-
November 20, 2003 at 2:17 pm #727974
Anonymous
InactivePeople afraid to touch it? How undamaged? Are you talking about the same thing as the rest of us Graham?
I saw the familiar scrawlings of graffitti – people’s names in black marker – on it a couple of weeks ago (and not just on one day) either.
-
November 20, 2003 at 5:52 pm #727975
d_d_dallas
ParticipantYup – was walking past the base of the spike the other day… there are literally scrawl marks on it already – some dumb c%$t’s initials with a compass or something similar. Classy.
People were also quite UNafraid to touch it – faces up against the metal.Spire of Dublin – RIP.
-
November 21, 2003 at 10:51 am #727976
GrahamH
ParticipantReally?
Obviously I need glasses – then again I do pass only one side of it – not that it has sides of course.
Think its fair to say though that it hasn’t sufferered the horror stories predicted like spray graffiti etc – although the sneaky damage as you mention is arguably more offensive. -
November 21, 2003 at 11:45 am #727977
d_d_dallas
ParticipantTotally offensive. There was some perma marker initials in black on it too – but I assume DCC took care of that one.
-
November 21, 2003 at 11:50 am #727978
Anonymous
Inactiveany news on the lights ? maybe LED’s just don’t do that well 120m up …
-
November 21, 2003 at 2:49 pm #727979
Anonymous
InactiveJust went and had a look at the spire up close. There is peice of graffiti on the side simply saying “TOTEM”!!
-
November 24, 2003 at 11:30 am #727980
GrahamH
ParticipantThe LEDs are to be mended today (Monday)
Has to be done before dark because an unlit Spike constitutes an aviation hazard apparently.
So to save time they’re not taking the original lighting down (which would take 3 hours) but instead, putting up ‘spare’ lighting to be used instead of the originals which are to be left in situ.What an unholy mess.
At least they workers showed up on time – saw them working on it this morning at 9.15.
They’re dealing with the problem exclusively from the base – going up wasn’t an option. -
November 24, 2003 at 12:05 pm #727981
GregF
ParticipantPity the GPO plaza was’nt paved in time for this Christmas ….the Christmas tree and crib is rather lost up near the Father Matthew statue side of the street. (What a shite end of the street too …..nothing here bar Father Matthew and the Sacred Heart statues up to Parnell. We need more statues and sculptures here….to make the street interesting. How about a statue to Wolfe Tone, etc….in a fanciful neo baroque style)
Let’s hope that next year all will be working fine and they get a celebrity gimp to turn on the Christmas lights as they do in all other major cities.
That Spire is a disappointment too …a great concept and landmark for the city etc…but very poorly executed as has been seen. -
November 24, 2003 at 5:14 pm #727982
GrahamH
ParticipantThe tree lights went on this afternoon – the usual silly looking vertical strings stretched from top to bottom like they’re trying to strangle the tree. Grafton St has the same treatment.
I see Gladstone’s been unwrapped from his binliner wrappings – looking decidedly refreshed after his long break encased in sheets of chipboard whilst the excavations were underway. He needs a good clean now.
Poor old Fr Matthew has had the tops of all his fingers chopped off – prob been like this for some time.
-
December 15, 2003 at 11:18 am #727983
GregF
ParticipantSee the Spire is alight again with a festive orange glow….aka sodium street lamp……Seems a bit dull too compared to it’s previous white light.
-
December 15, 2003 at 1:04 pm #727984
Andrew Duffy
ParticipantYeah, what is going on there? The new lights look crap. Are they permanent?
-
December 15, 2003 at 4:50 pm #727985
Rory W
ParticipantWho put in the 40 watt bulb?
-
December 17, 2003 at 1:04 pm #727986
GrahamH
ParticipantNEWS FLASH!
The first of the new lime trees are being planted on the street this morning!
It’s so weird to see them in ‘real life’ at last.There’s just the four going in at the moment, at either side of the plaza, framing the GPO. They’re being craned in, as they must weigh a ton not least because of their massive rootballs.
They are also quite mature – probably 6/7 years old. The canopies are already clipped into box shapes but they still need a lot of filling out.One of the bizarre aspects of them is their lack of leaves, because they look great without them! They’re very architectural and striking, and will change the street completely from summer to winter. And perfect for Christmas lights!
They instantly add character and definition to the street, and make the place feel more confident and civic etc.
They’ll look fantastic when all are planted, sweeping the whole way down the street.Here’s hoping their planting will convince the CC to finally put the old ladies at the northern end to rest.
Or without the sugar – hack em down with a chainsaw. -
December 17, 2003 at 1:26 pm #727987
GregF
ParticipantI saw them early this morning, ….looked good despite being leafless. The whole stretch of plaza in front of the GPO is nearly finished as well….looks great too.
O’Connell street will look brilliant when finished! -
December 17, 2003 at 11:30 pm #727988
Devin
ParticipantSpeaking of the shite Father Mathew statue end of the street, what about the ‘Taxi Driver’s Shrine’ restored (in 2001 says the plaque) with a PVC window!!
-
December 18, 2003 at 10:21 am #727989
Morlan
ParticipantWhat’s the story with the Spire? I’ve been away for 6 months and it looked shite last time, but then it had it’s new lights? Are the newer lights even shiter?
-
December 18, 2003 at 10:49 am #727990
Anonymous
Inactivethe new cube trees are a wonderful symbol of mans contemt for nature.
-
December 18, 2003 at 11:02 am #727991
GregF
ParticipantOriginally posted by what?
the new cube trees are a wonderful symbol of mans contemt for nature.No way man…..The new cubed trees are a symbol of man’s control of nature within a civic environment as what it was from the dawn of civilization. Parterres, topiaries, manicured lawns, bedding containers etc……
If ye want natural go out into the countryside!(Get those weeds outta yer garden too!)
-
December 18, 2003 at 11:23 am #727992
Anonymous
Inactivei wasnt being sarcastic, i think they are great. i think its a nice aknowledgement of the fact that these trees have just been placed in the plaza because we wanted them to be there. architectural morals and all that. i hate the countryside wheres the rigor?
-
December 18, 2003 at 11:27 am #727993
GregF
Participant😉
-
December 18, 2003 at 11:16 pm #727994
urbanisto
ParticipantThe trees will look great won’t they… a really dramatic change to the street. You can alos get an idea of just how far the new paving will extend out on the sides down at Abbey St. one other thing is floodlighting and pavement recessed lighting…. I havent seen any indication that this is being allowed for. Thats a pity. I think the statues on the street would benefit from some nightime ilumination.
-
December 19, 2003 at 8:10 pm #727995
GrahamH
ParticipantNoticed this today too – one would have thought lighting would be sunken into the regular pattern of the plaza.
Hopefully the statues can still be lit – such lighting is naerly always placed on the back of street lighting – like the light illuminating the top of Parnell’s monument.There’s a new pedestrian crossing going in at Penneys which will link to Clerys at the other side, which is welcome.
And those chromed traffic signals look great – these should have been installed years ago.
The little mini signals on the same posts are fun. -
December 29, 2003 at 1:18 pm #727996
Morlan
ParticipantJust came back to Dublin for Christmas and can I just say that the street looks absolutely shite.. And the lights on the top of the spire are so dull compared to before. Is there any hope left?
-
December 29, 2003 at 1:49 pm #727997
Anonymous
Inactivethe street is a construction site, you can hardly judge from that ?
-
December 29, 2003 at 2:53 pm #727998
Anonymous
InactiveI agree, a little more patience is required. In comparison to five years ago O’Connell St is coming on great.
-
December 29, 2003 at 6:53 pm #727999
GrahamH
ParticipantAgreed – although yes, the Spire lighting looks woeful.
Have they shoved a sodium streetlight up there or something? -
January 1, 2004 at 7:20 pm #728000
GrahamH
Participant1st January 2004
Well its finally made it, O’ Connell Street’s derelict site is 25 years old this year, a gaping wound in the capital’s main thoroughfare for a quarter of a century.
Congratulations to all involved – the old Corpo, the new City Council, the site owners – you must all be chuffed to bits.We should hold some sort of celebration in September to mark the occasion – any suggestions welcome.
We can send them to the CC, see if they’re interested in joining in – might even provide some funding for crisps and nibbles.Whatever about the previous 20 years and not enacting the Derelict Sites Act, for the CC to renege on the develpment of this site after the IAP, with all the messing around with Treasury Holdings and others is just disgraceful.
Next month the IAP will have been published for 6 years, and still there hasn’t been a sod turned on either the Carlton or the derelict site.
At least they had the cop-on to clean the Carlton’s facade and to erect scaffolding over the site – something at least.Forget this country’s inability to handle major infrastructure projects – it can’t even handle this!
-
January 1, 2004 at 7:23 pm #728001
Anonymous
InactiveWhat was the name of the bar on Moore St?
The scruffy looking one at the Parnell st end that was used to hold up the Carlton development for about three years.A party with Pavorotti would be good!!!
You could also contact the heritage council for a grant I am sure it would be an event of ‘gombeen cultural significance’
If all else fails you could always hijack a critical mass gathering
-
January 5, 2004 at 10:40 am #728002
GregF
ParticipantTrader John’s is the pub on Moore Street……booking available now.
Bertie and Co (ie His glam daughter and hubby) all invited!
Westlifers to profide the entertainment as well as ”salt o de earth” Brendan O’ Carroll! -
January 7, 2004 at 6:31 pm #728003
Anonymous
InactiveInteresting discussion.
When in Dublin over Christmas (I generally get there once a year to look remaining friends up), I was pleasantly surprised by not having to queue to get into pubs or clubs and to be able to drink alcohol until whatver time of the early morning I liked. Is that progress?
But anyway, the real point of this post: I discussed the obvious shortcomings of the infrastructure with a friend practising in Dublin.
The Germans have great infrastructure, and they expect it to be clean, efficient and reliable and get very annoyed if trains are late. There are individual bus timetables at every bus stop and you can normally set your watch by the buses. In Berlin there are even public clocks on poles at most major intersections, at least in the West part.
So, my friend agreed, as he’d spent some years here too, the Germans do do infrastructure, it’s one of the things they do well.
We discussed the shortcomings in Dublin, the interminable LUAS saga, the lack of any urbanity in the new build sprawls etc.
His way of not dying young of apoplexy and blood-pressure related ailments is to lean back, buy a car for himself, his wife and, as they get older probably each kid (to ensure mobility and freedom from the less-than-perfect transport system), and just accept the fact “WE DON’T DO INFRASTRUCTURE” Full stop. Period. -
January 7, 2004 at 7:08 pm #728004
niall murphy
ParticipantYour statement that we dont do infrastructure is a bit vague. Who is “WE”? If the correct legislation existed and not so much corruption and arsing around in the initial stages then we would very much “do infrastructure”. The engineers and construction workers are excellent here. Give them the money and let them away at it instead of spending the same money talking about things and see what happens. The Port tunnel has given problems to residents etc but look at the scale of it. Look at how the builders, engineers etc will have the whole thing built in about half the time people spent talking about it. If they’d been given the money wasted on so much bolloxing about at the start plus the money spent on the tunnel, they’d have it finished by now along with the airport metro.
Before anyone starts, I’ve been all over europe and know what the infrastructure is like. I’m pointing out that we are capable of doing it too if the initial planning/objections/consultancy etc stages were sorted out
-
January 8, 2004 at 9:25 am #728005
Anonymous
InactiveBy “we” I meant the Irish. An saying “we” don’t do infrastructure does not mean a critcism of the consultant services available but is a criticism of politics and also of society to a certain extent. “We” obviously do not really feel it is that important to have good infrastructure or otherwise “we” would have elected the politicians to get it done. There is no point in getting het up about the crap infrastructure, accept it, we don’t do infrastructure 😉
-
January 8, 2004 at 10:52 am #728006
Anonymous
Inactivethe state has only had the finances required to build decent infrastructure since 1995 on, most of which was given back to the public in the form of much needed tax cuts … you can’t expect the infrastructure fairy to come along one night and sort everything. Most of the delays are down to objections from the moaning public themselves.
-
January 8, 2004 at 7:08 pm #728007
J. Seerski
ParticipantWell I can’t believe it – I am amazed – the IAP seems to be well… getting implemented!!
The footpaths between Clerys and Abbey St. are being finally widened and I have to say the sheer width is impressive! I thought the whole project would be never implemented but substantial changes are, at last, bearing fruit….
-
January 9, 2004 at 2:14 pm #728008
urbanisto
ParticipantIts great isnt it and I would expect to see the whole section completed by the summer. It will look fab!
What is happening to all those old granite kerbs they are taking away though…. not into the builders waste skip I hope.
-
January 9, 2004 at 2:15 pm #728009
urbanisto
ParticipantAnd ban telephone kiosks on the new O’Connell St
-
January 12, 2004 at 9:59 am #728010
Niall
ParticipantTook the words right out of my mouth………
O’Connell St revamp is a farce, says Brady
Irish IndependentDUBLIN’S first citizen Lord Mayor Royston Brady has labelled as “farcical” the lack of progress in the rejuvenation of O’Connell Street.
According to the Lord Mayor, seven years after the plans were first put together citizens and visitors to the capital are still waiting to see the finished product, which aims to be a Champs Elysees-style boulevard.
Mr Brady told the Irish Independent he would be seeking answers at a meeting of Dublin City Council tonight.
The Lord Mayor said O’Connell Street was an “absolute disgrace”, particularly in a year when Ireland was hosting the EU Presidency.
A major street party was planned in the Capital on May 1, he said, the day when the 10 new accession states become fully fledged EU members.
“Only half the street will be ready by May. The pyramids in Egypt were built quicker. How long does it take?” asked Mr Brady.
“My ultimatum is that it better be ready by April. They have four months to get it right – it’s not that big a street,” he said.
A spokeswoman for the City Council said the plaza at the GPO was due to be finished in April, while works up to O’Connell Bridge would be complete by December.
-
January 12, 2004 at 12:27 pm #728011
notjim
Participantits kind of amazing, they finally get going on this in a serious way and the lord mayor starts giving out. has he anything to say about the carlton site, or is he going to keep quite until the cranes are there.
-
January 12, 2004 at 12:35 pm #728012
GregF
ParticipantI heard two old codgers on the bus one day saying that ”O’Connell Street is disgraceful ”and ”why did’nt they leave it as it was”.
Ye can’t win with such people….You’re damned if ye do and damned if ye don’t. -
January 12, 2004 at 12:35 pm #728013
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterAhhhhh Royston is electioneering….
-
January 12, 2004 at 12:35 pm #728014
Anonymous
InactiveI agree,
A lot of this can be put down to silly season stuff namely that it is a local election year.
The IAP team deserve a lot of credit for their plan and it is Dublin’s inability to work effectively on a multi-agency basis that is at the heart of this problem. Not to mention a lot of off the ball stuff regarding the Carlton site of which the developer could do little to prevent.
Up to when the artistic scaffolding went onto the gaping hole that was on the Carlton site it was then an open wound for 20 years. At least the hoarding mitigates the appearance slightly. Fair play to Nissan for the sponsorship
O’Connell St is still not perfect but it is light years from where it was thanks to the IAP. To hear that it will be more or less finished by December is something we could only have dreamed of for far to long .:)
-
January 12, 2004 at 1:49 pm #728015
Anonymous
InactiveI agree as well, I think the street is starting to come on. You can nearly imagine what it will eventually look like. I think, however, that not allowing telephone kiosks on the street is being a little excessive.
-
January 12, 2004 at 1:56 pm #728016
emf
ParticipantThe telephone kiosks need planning permission now don’t they??, Remember a few years ago the Telecoms companies were throwing them up wherever they fancied!!
-
January 12, 2004 at 2:02 pm #728017
Anonymous
InactiveNot too sure, but I agree that they should be regulated in some way. I remember that as well, I think it was just after other companies were allowed to install kiosks. There was alot of hole digging (followed by really bad repair of footpaths) by telephone companies at that time as well.
-
January 13, 2004 at 2:50 pm #728018
urbanisto
ParticipantDiaspora – only the Henry St to Bridge stretch will be completed by December. It will take to Dec 2005 to complete the whole street. Dont ask me how it cold take so long to complete an average size street! Why cant it all be completed by years end.
Royston may have been electioneering but you all know the drill by know. If you want anything done in thsi country then you have to get it done in an election year
Latest observation: I thought there would be more trees. There seem to be very litle from the plaza down to Abbey St
-
January 13, 2004 at 3:01 pm #728019
Anonymous
InactiveAnother 12 months that is a pity. But I think the planners should be praised all the same.
I am also confused as to why the plan was stage planned on such a small Street.
-
January 13, 2004 at 3:16 pm #728020
notjim
Participantyou see fintan o’toole was flying the abbey goes to the carlton site plan again. along with the usual arguements, he had a novel new reason for using the carlton site: the facade is quite short, so you wouldn’t have to spend so much on architecture.
-
January 13, 2004 at 3:26 pm #728021
FIN
Participantjesus….classy argument eh!
-
January 13, 2004 at 4:01 pm #728022
Anonymous
InactiveSolution level the Fingal Co Co offices,
The new enlarged facade would cost a fortune
😀
-
January 13, 2004 at 8:17 pm #728023
GrahamH
ParticipantFingal is being converted into a hotel – apparently.
The Abbey should never move to O ‘Cll St, yet another struture to add the morguelike atmosphere of northern endWhen we see the works being executed, and the builders on site etc, everyone inevitably get very excited and a perception is created that progress is being made.
However the improvment of the public space is only half of the plan – the other part being to improve the building stock of the street, specifically with regard to the tax designated sites, and then the broader approach to ‘encourage’ property owners to improve their buildings.
There has been not so much as the slightest scrap of progress in relation to this, not a single facade has been cleaned with the exception of the Gresham who were refurbishing anyway.
And the only progress on shopfronts has been from the Bank of Ireland who also were carrying out refurbishments, on account of their downsizing on the street.Assuming that the CC can get property owners to improve their buildings, all of the work will take place AFTER the paving works etc.
So in theory, and according to the plans in the IAP, the street is going to be a building site for years to come.
Ok, I accept such works won’t affect pedestrians etc, but it is unacceptable for buildings to be encased in scaffolding, for sites to be surrounded by hoarding and for the new paving to be lifted again, after all of the current works are finished!There is a complete lack of co-ordination here.
One need only look at the paving fiasco on Henry St at Christmas.
One need only look at the brand new traffic signals at O ‘Cll Bridge/Bachelors Walk which have stood unoperational for the past year.
What a joke.I’m not just picking holes here, I’m absolutely furious with the City Council, furious.
They couldn’t organise a prayer in a convent.
-
January 14, 2004 at 12:55 am #728024
Anonymous
InactiveI am sorry to hear that the former Dublin Co Co building is being retained, it is a horror story ans it is definitely the worst building on the Street. .:mad:
I am also happy that the Abbey is staying on Abbey St as that section of Abbey St needs an important building. Without the Abbey it really would ressemble Dodge City. 😮
But I differ with you on the role of the planners. I agree with you that the current situation is not perfect but my reading of the situation goes like so:
The O’Connell St IAP was basically a forward planning exercise. Traditional planning in Ireland has involved insufficiently clear plans containing many contradictory objectives.
This plan in contrast involved less objective inputs and more action like public works such as the Spire, new trees and new paving arrangements. DCC took a lead just like they did with the Smithfield Plaza. 😀
It was those measures that I was praising, I also think that the tax designation of properties was a good move. However why the time limits were not timed to ensure early completion beggars belief.
However the Carlton debacle is a disgrace and I have a lot of sympathy for the developer who was deliberately obstructed in the project.
The failure of the property owners to use the tax designation is bizarre and very shortsighted on their individual parts.
But given the previous take up of all previous designation schemes the take up on O’Connell St has been an unprecedented failure.
There is no forward planner who could have forecast it. It must be a first time that free money has been refused.
Regarding the traffic lights that really is no brainer territory, a specialty of the roads department.
I am amongst the happiest people that their destructive tendencies are firmly tranquilised these days. 😀
Finally I fully agree that co-ordination is the real villan here. Pre civic offices it may have been OK when DCC was scattered to the four winds but surely a walk from Block 1 to Block 4 wouldn’t start a wave of litigation for something or other
-
January 14, 2004 at 12:23 pm #728025
redeoin
ParticipantThe shops will not spend money on upgrades until the street is complete. Why would they make expensive upgrades in a building site. They should also wait to see how the street looks when it is finished, before calling in the exterior designers.
The City Council are progressing slowly but steadily, and are apparently going to get it right, judging by what is emerging at the plaza. Royston is just electioneering. I heard him on The Last Word. He knew nothing about the street plans; he clearly knew nothing about the legal difficulties the Carlton Site was mired in; he had failed to register that since the Spire was finished there were massive billboards spelling out what is being done on the street; he also failed to acknowledge that the street has to be kept open for very heavy business. Or that there was war when the City Council insisted on continuing works over Christmas, to avoid delays.
If he wanted to fault the plan, he could have asked the City Council why they don’t have twice as many people working twice as fast. He could have questioned the budget. He could have enquired about the legal difficulties. He could have asked if as Mayor was there anything he could propose to government to help speed up progress. But instead he engaged in the typical Fianna Fail rubbish about ‘results’ and ‘tough choices’; which is what they always say when they are about to pull a fast one.
And the fact that as Mayor he says he cares but still seemed to know f all, that any ten minute brief, browsing of the internet, or info. from a lackey would have told him, makes me think as Mayor he might turn out to be a Fianna Fail populist t**t. After all, I am sure he does care, but I thought his rank would make him a bit brighter than that.
-
January 14, 2004 at 4:43 pm #728026
Niall
ParticipantRoyston Brady will be one of two FF candidates in Dublin for the European elections and also a candidate in the Dublin City Council elections….. both on June 11.
-
January 14, 2004 at 4:59 pm #728027
Anonymous
InactiveThey ban the Dail-Local Authority dual mandate.
Then Royston comes up with a new one Euro-Local.
Buy Ryanair stock
😉
-
January 14, 2004 at 5:09 pm #728028
d_d_dallas
ParticipantBest menswear (name???) at corner of North Earl St is only shop I can think of that cleaned up outside.
maybe when the plaza is done we’ll see action…
-
January 14, 2004 at 5:12 pm #728029
notjim
Participantredeoin what is the obsenity t**t, i can’t work it out. is there a star for each missing letter or do you mean tit, in which case, i don’t think you need to bother with the stars.
-
January 14, 2004 at 6:10 pm #728030
d_d_dallas
Participanttry a “w” and an “a”…?
-
January 14, 2004 at 10:03 pm #728031
notjim
Participantof course, sorry. i amn’t sure twat needs staring out either, but i certainly agree i describes royston.
on the other hand, i have come around to thinking the abbey should move, that end of abbey street will look after itself, the gentrification of henry street is pushing shops that way and the ifsc and the luas will bring office to the area. on the other hand, the top of o’connell street is important, adding the abbey to the gate, the ambassador, the savoy and, at a push, the ugc, and you’d have a mini-west end to balance the temple bar’s mini-Soho.
btw, here is my temple bar comment: they wanted SoHo and got Soho, did I just make that up or has someone said it before?
-
January 14, 2004 at 10:33 pm #728032
GrahamH
ParticipantThe fact that there was a 5 year period between the IAP and the first works on the street is madness – this is what annoys me, that the current works are going to bring it up to nearly 9 years until completion, and there are no visible efforts to speed up other aspects of the project to make up for lost time.
Indeed the exact opposite appears to be prevailing.
Westmoreland St will then probably begin causing further disruption and unsightliness.
This work should be going on at the same time, or at the very least the northern end of O ‘Cll St and Westmoreland at the same time.Slow slow slow
-
January 15, 2004 at 11:22 am #728033
blue
ParticipantWouldn’t it be great to see the predestrian zone of Grafton St extended down College Green, Westmoreland St. and over O’Connell Bridge. Creating a huge paved area in front of Trinity and linking Grafton St. with O’Connell St./Henry St.
The stuff dreams are made of I know.
Even if the pavement could be widened on this route would be an improvement for the lowly predestrian.
-
January 15, 2004 at 12:40 pm #728034
redeoin
ParticipantYeah, i meant twat. The works are indeed slow when you put it like that. If I have learnt one lesson, it is to ignore draft plans, and actually wait for the cranes to go up. It spares a lot of pain.
Even keeping the roads, having the same pattern extended across O-Connell Bridge, and up D’Olier and Westmoreland St would be pretty cool. I assume that is the intention…
-
January 15, 2004 at 3:31 pm #728035
Rory W
Participantbtw, here is my temple bar comment: they wanted SoHo and got Soho, did I just make that up or has someone said it before?
Good one – haven’t heard that one before
-
January 15, 2004 at 3:56 pm #728036
Anonymous
InactiveThe present way that the lights gradually appearing towards the top of the Spire detracts from its overall appearance. I think it would look alot better if it were just a single light at the top. If the intensity got stronger as the perferated lights got closer to the top it might work, but at present they are all of the same intensity until the top where it is way brighter than the rest of them. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?
Phil
-
January 15, 2004 at 4:39 pm #728037
kefu
ParticipantI don’t think the lights have ever worked the way they were supposed to. The orangey lights that are there at the moment are only temporary.
I wouldn’t be surprised it they’ve gone back to the drawing board on this. I think they just took the fact that they broke completely as an opportunity. -
January 15, 2004 at 4:44 pm #728038
d_d_dallas
ParticipantI know it isn’t QUITE the same thing – but the “plaza-fication” of downtown Cork was stalled ala O’Connell St – delays involving the main drainage and financing causing chaos. The work when it EVENTUALLY started was crawling – but then eureka! CCC decided to commence work at both ends and meet in the middle rather than going North to South. The work has actually moved at incredible speed since and is ahead of schedule for completion. A little bit of initiative goes a long way.
-
January 15, 2004 at 4:48 pm #728039
Anonymous
InactiveKefu, I would say you are probably right there. I think many monuments go through the same theeting problems. I am sure they will rethink the present arrangement aswell.
-
January 15, 2004 at 5:16 pm #728040
redeoin
ParticipantI think the floodlights to light the spire will make a big difference when they are installed.
Also, at the moment the entire street is badly lit by intermittent nasty orange sodium lighting.
I hope when it is relaid, white halogen lights are installed, as they are around stephen’s green (but with a more modern lamppost design).
That way the lighting of the entire structure, and street will be very harmonius. I actually prefer the present orange lighting at the top of the spire, with the white tip. I think it looks really well…!
-
January 15, 2004 at 6:15 pm #728041
Anonymous
InactiveI like the tip with the white light, but I am not so sure about the rest of the lights, particularly when viewed from other areas of the city apart from O’Connell Street itself.
-
January 15, 2004 at 10:45 pm #728042
GrahamH
ParticipantThere’s enough flippin orange in this city at night!
I can’t wait to see the entire sculpture lit after dark, it’ll be fantastic, especially seen from Westmoreland St across the bridge.I saw the Spike got it’s first’real’ dose of graffitti last week in the form of big, blue marker/spray marks. I assume they’re gone now. To their credit, the CC have been pretty nifty in removing such marks.
-
January 16, 2004 at 1:15 am #728043
muppet
Participanthonestly the most interesting thread i’ve read online – ever …
no idea if you’re at all interested in my opinion as a foreigner but here goes…
I lived in Dublin (stoneybatter, then mountjoy sq) for about 5 months last year and to be honest i was shocked with how dirty the city is/was. its ofcourse nowhere near the worst place in the world — i’ve lived in India too — but that’s hardly a reason not to try and improve. I do find dublin very charming, and miss it actually, and i do love the “lived in” qualities it has. however i’m not really a fan of the “vomitted on” qualities.
im curious… and hope this doesnt sound stupid, but does the city have any sort of jobs for teenagers during the summer, school breaks etc, where they’re basically cleaning up/light gardening/maintenance/paint work/whatever for public places, such as O’Cnl Str, organised by the city? (they ofcourse have supervisors to keep them on track) up here (iceland) this solved two problems, though I realise there is a substantial difference in population, and the place is kept clean and tidy, and the teenagers get jobs rather than hanging around burger king all day. bigger (or smaller) firms around town can hire these “forces” off the city to clean up or whatever round their premises…yey!
is there already this sort of thing or would this not be possible in dublin?
-
January 16, 2004 at 10:48 am #728044
Anonymous
InactiveWhat you are referring to is giving them stewardship for their environment, is it? I would think that would be a very good idea.
-
January 16, 2004 at 11:17 am #728045
blue
ParticipantWell FAS used to run a student summer scheme that was basically dole for community work. Companies could also apply for these students too. I remember spending a summer clearing out an over grown river in my local town!
I’m not sure if its still running as the economy got better there were better paid things to do with your summer.
-
January 16, 2004 at 11:45 am #728046
urbanisto
ParticipantIts sounds like a great idea.
-
January 16, 2004 at 2:01 pm #728047
muppet
Participantnot sure what stewardship means, my english is limited, but yeah, probably right 🙂
cities should most definitelt not look at this as some sort of “charity” to get teens off the street, but actually see that this might give huge paybacks in terms of more tourists and richer tourists. might sound like a superficial aim, but my impression of dublin was that most people want to turn this into a snazzy metropolitan city, which i fear is unlikely to happen unless it’s cleaned up abit.
and on these notes, a friend of mine studying hospitality management in Dbln told me (lord knows where she gets this from) that ireland/dublin is trying to market itself as a capital of technology/IT, since maybe ireland could do with a “cleaner” image than the land of endless pints of guinness. It’s got to look it too.even walking along the liffey i sometimes, no joke, had to cover my nose from the stench of it. is it too much work/money to hire some boat with proper cleaning equiptment on it and at least scrub off the green gumbo off the inner walls?
i sound very negative, but i do love dublin and would love move to go back there…
-
January 16, 2004 at 4:17 pm #728048
GrahamH
ParticipantI think it would be a great idea as well – I’d most certainly have done it – there are so many things to be done around the city, furniture/hardware to be painted, canal banks etc to be cleared.
The Dep of Education employ local teenagers to help on school extension jobs over the summer – you can easily earn €700 and more over 8-12 weeks.This could be extended in cities and towns by local authorities, and on O ‘Connell St; there’s gonna be a hell of a lot of paving needing powerwashing a few times a year, esp after the leaves fall on the trees.
It’s giving labour to people who are looking for short-term, comparitively low-paid work. Competent teenagers fit the bill well. -
January 16, 2004 at 6:59 pm #728049
James
ParticipantVery Interesting thread.
Particularly the comments regarding maintenance and dirt. As an Architect I’ve always felt that our profession hasa tendancy to the belief that a ‘Building’ can solve all problems – eg: Bad Area – solution New Buildings. Dirty Street – Solution New facades. Social Housing – new shiny development (the Marmion Court Queen St development is typical – social problems worse than ever but all hidden away).
I’ve long had a notion (and it’s nothing more than that) that if you want to seriously upgrade the experience of the user of the city that you spend money not on general development but on the surrounding environment eg: plant trees, better streetlights, high quality granite paving, wider sidewalks, reduced through traffic. And I’m interested in the example of Parliament St where all of this happened when the street was rather shoddy and unpleasant – within the year shopkeepers were erecting awnings, propery owners were looking at their buildings in a new light and treating them as assets rather than problems – it all worked out rather well at a relatively low capital cost.
Most of the really nice cities that I’ve been to have an excellent and clean public environment rather than particularly good architecture ,I’m thinking for example of Melbourne which I really liked but where althoug hte architecture is nothing special the whole city has a rather nice pleasant and safe vibe.
That i na way is the problem wit hour development planning, it is’nt realy ‘joined up writing’ just individual sites and buildings given atteneion on an individual basis rather than to conform with an overall physical vision based around streets, squares, and aimed at teh ground level user.
Our streets ar’nt safe, they’re not wheelchair pr pushchair negotiable, traffic fumes permeate the air and there’s a lamentable lack of and hostility to ‘greenery’ on the grounds that it costs money to maintain.
In fairness to the O’Connel St Plan that’s been a real focus for the planners and architects, making better streets. Now I don’t like or agree with everything that they’re doing but generally that type of work is unshowey and results arn’t visible until completion ofthe works.
As to the Spike – well I’m not mad about it but it does represent a very laudable attempt to address the ‘marking’ of public space in a positive and non profit driven way.
Anyway, Apologies for rabbitting on,
James
-
January 16, 2004 at 9:38 pm #728050
GrahamH
ParticipantWell this is exactly what is being relied upon for O ‘Cll St, the domino effect.
Hopefully it will happen, even one cafe on the st would help! There’s nothing like on-street seating and awnings to make a place look great.
I walked down the st this afternoon, you can really appreciate how wide the pavements are going to be – its so exciting! The place will be unrecognisable, esp the western side which is so congested, there’s going to be so much space outside Easons etc.
The curving kerbstones wrapping around the entrance of Sackville Place look fantastic, an indicator of the quality to come.And most importantly the GPO will finally be acknowledged properly, with paving extending out beyond the portico, it’s columns have been crudely curtailed by the road directly infront.
Admittedly since it was built, this has been the case, but wasn’t as noticable as it is now.
And the column’s bases were finally cleaned over Christmas after years of neglect and look really really good. They’re so important, as not only are they part of the only classical building in the city that so many people come in contact with, but you can also literally feel the history of them walking past – I know that’s so sad – but when you think that Georgians were brushing past the very same columns nearly 200 years ago, it’s just a bit spine-tingling! -
January 16, 2004 at 11:36 pm #728051
muppet
ParticipantGraham — exactly, and would hopefully puts some respect into their attitudes toward their surroundings, knowing they might have to clean it up tomorrow 🙂
James — couldnt agree more. The most charming places i’ve seen have nothing to do with “most famous and expensive architecht”, but about the soul of the place, and the respect that is shown to it by its habitants.
wow what a yes-person i am …
ermmm the GPO, think it’s a majestic building in itself, and i’d love to see the developement on that and the spire/spike/stiletto in the ghetto since I used to pass it daily, are there any pictures online?
-
January 16, 2004 at 11:50 pm #728052
muppet
Participantah, all this talk is making me want to move back to dub…
so which one of you is going to find me a great job? 😉
-
January 17, 2004 at 1:04 am #728053
Anonymous
Inactivepossibly
-
January 18, 2004 at 11:53 pm #728054
Anonymous
InactiveRoyston goes further
January 18, 2004
“(20:36) Opposition politicians on Dublin City Council have called on the Lord Mayor of Dublin, Royston Brady to retract comments he made describing his fellow councillors as ‘clowns’.
In newspaper interviews, the Lord Mayor also described the councillors as ‘pathetic’ and ‘a waste of space’.
The leader of the Fine Gael group on the council, Ruáirà McGinley said he hoped the lord mayor would retract his comments at tomorrow night’s meeting of the City Council. He said the comments were uncalled for.
Sinn Féin’s group leader, Christy Burke, said that if the Lord Mayor did not withdraw his comments, he intended to go to the Taoiseach about them. “
Sound like muppet mighn’t be the only one looking for a job soon!
The extension of the Boulevard beyond O’Connell St would be great.
Where should it go, Westmoreland St through to Grafton St or towards Dame St?
Any ideas
-
January 19, 2004 at 11:38 am #728055
redeoin
ParticipantI think it should follow the obvious line across o’connell bridge, which is foul looking at the moment, with no room to walk, then split at D-Olier and Westmoreland St, and then:
– swing east from D’Olier St down Pearse St as far as Grand Canal Dock. If you want to integrate the Docks into the City Centre via Pearse St, the Boulevard effect will work very well, as the footfall increases.
– swing west from Westmoreland St to the top of Dame St. There is no room to walk on Dame St as there is, and the traffic takes up far more road space than it needs to. It is a lovely st, and would be fantastic highlighted as a Boulevard.
-
January 19, 2004 at 2:53 pm #728056
Anonymous
InactiveMy own instinct would involve Westmoreland St and Dame St.
I think that the Quays post Port tunnel will have dramatically reduced volumes of traffic. Pearse St would need to be used for traffic as it is the only south- North crossing between the East link and Christchurch these days. The architecture on Pearse st is quite patchy as well due to numerous demolitions in previous decades.
Westmoreland St College Green and Dame St present significant opportunities it is thought to extend the O’Connell St model.
Due to the streets being wide and having some excellent buildings. Hopefully if they attempt it the lessons on co-ordination will have been learned from O’Connell St.
-
January 19, 2004 at 3:19 pm #728057
muppet
ParticipantDame str is charming, has that old-city-street and arty feel to it.
even though pearse would be needed to get traffic through, i’d love to see it brightened up a bit. get’s a bit gloomey when you head east from o’dolier.sorry if i’m not following the thread topic exactly…
crossing grand canal on the dart i used to daydream about having beautiful apartment buildings and restaurants along the canal, lots of little lights reflecting in the canal. ahhh. could make a boardwalk over the canal so that entrances to cafe’s and restaurants would face the canal.
having not actually been there except in a train i don’t know what it smells like… 🙂thanks btw Diaspora
-
January 19, 2004 at 3:55 pm #728058
redeoin
ParticipantIt wouldn’t take as long to re-lay new wider paving on Dame St or Westmoreland St, once the council work out how much road space they can take back.
The problem with O’Connell St is setting out the entire St in a completely new pattern; moving the existing roads, and diverting utilities; catering for the Luas, putting in a full plaza at one section; not to say the spire; and dealing with the sheer bloody width and length of the street.
-
January 19, 2004 at 7:15 pm #728059
GrahamH
ParticipantI was thinking there as to why the option of removing the central median and placing the roadway down the centre of the street wasn’t considered – then I remembered – the minor issues of O’ Connell Monument, Parnell, Gladstone, Larkin – even Jesus himself!
The bridge must be integrated into the street – interestingly it’s not exactly alligned with the street at all which is the impression given; to account for the bend in the river it had to be orientated slightly to a NE/SW angle.
Westmoreland St is very fine and a regemented paving & tree plan should be even more effective than O’ Cll St as there are less junctions and overall less distractions from its unity.
Nice dream for the Grand Canal muppet – don’t forget the Liffey too! -
January 19, 2004 at 7:20 pm #728060
Anonymous
InactiveWhat about continuing the same central median down Westmoreland St.
The real bonus on O’Connell St I think will be the cafes in the central median. I know it will probably cost about €25 for a cup of coffee, but it’s good to dream!!!!
-
January 19, 2004 at 7:34 pm #728061
Devin
ParticipantHere’s an excerpt from a project I’m working on for a certain un-named (!) organisation, recommending improvments for Dame Street.
-
January 19, 2004 at 10:29 pm #728062
Anonymous
InactiveRoyston Goes Missing (rte)
(21:17) “Opposition Dublin City Council members have criticised the Lord Mayor, Royston Brady, for not attending a City Council meeting tonight after describing the councillors as clowns.
In a newspaper article at the weekend, the Lord Mayor also described the councillors as ‘pathetic’ and ‘a waste of space’.
A Fianna Fáil spokesperson said Councillor Brady was at a pre-arranged function tonight.
The Fine Gael group leader, Ruairi McGinley, said his comments had gone ‘beyond a joke’.”
I remember this guy now, laying into Tom Phillips at the Smithfield enquiry. Such parochial politics you wouldn’t get out of Jackie Healy Rae.
‘It will block my constituents light and so on’ he knew even less then than he knows now
Dame St and the magnicient City Hall really are crying out for something like O’Connell St. Only planned and executed on a much more efficient timescale.
🙂
-
January 19, 2004 at 10:30 pm #728063
muppet
ParticipantGraham, i’ll never forget the Liffey.. not the smell anyway 😉
This is all very interesting, why aren’t you the people who are actually working for the planning council? Do they have a suggestion box? Or one that they reads anyway?
if they dont have one, make them one. One of the impressions I got from Irish people — a generalisation, mind you — is that they are indeed people with strong views and morals, but they’d much rather talk amongst themselves rather than to the correct “authority”. I imagine there would be a reason behind it; years of repression etc, not having been allowed to speak up … catholic priests … ??
Again, sorry I keep getting off track… maybe i’m best kept at http://www.amature_pshycology.com… sorry!
-
January 20, 2004 at 9:17 am #728064
shadow
Participant“a certain un-named (!) organisation” = An Taisce
You be careful about the presence of hidden code in the properties of any document you place on the web.
-
January 20, 2004 at 11:47 am #728065
redeoin
ParticipantI have often noticed traffic on Dame St veering drunkenly all over the place. Getting it into two or three very neat lanes would free up a significant amount of pedestrian space.
-
January 20, 2004 at 12:00 pm #728066
blue
ParticipantI wonder could the Port Tunnel remove some much traffic that the south facing north quay could be reclaimed and pedestrianised, making the south quay two way.
Think I should get a coffee and stop day dreaming.
-
January 20, 2004 at 12:14 pm #728067
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterIt won’t remove enough traffic to achieve that. I take my coffee breaks in Bar Italia on the quays, and although taking the trucks out of the equation will ease the traffic, there is still a huge amount of cars and buses. Many buses stop on the quays… if the traffic was all on a two-way southern bank, one bus stopping at a bus stop would cause chaos. The quays aren’t wide enough.
-
January 20, 2004 at 12:23 pm #728068
Anonymous
InactiveThe Quays aren’t wide enough to close, but they are wide enough to accomodate more car traffic that is currently using other routes.
One thing that has always occured to me as crazy, are the number of Dublin buses parked between Burgh Quay and Wellington Quay. Not picking up passengers but doing the ‘tachograph’ 45 minute rest periods. If these were ‘rested’ elsewhere and the trucks go via the port tunnel, it would be possible to accomodate all car traffic from Dame St along this Route.
Thus facilitating the closure of Dame St to all traffic except a reduced number of buses and Taxis requiring half the space.
Then you could have what O’Connell St is about to become a Street with dramatically reduced traffic flows and much wider pedestrian spaces. The closure of Dame St to cars would facilitate an extenion of this to Westmoreland St giving a continuos Boulevard from Parnell Sq to City Hall.
The only changes required would be no right turns to be introduced at Trinity College and Christchurch.
-
January 20, 2004 at 12:49 pm #728069
blue
ParticipantI know it wouldn’t be easy but maybe sometime in the future when our public transport system is the envy of the rest of the world and cars are banished from the city centre it might happen.
… I really should get that coffee!! 😉
I’m just thinking of the long game. But I agree with Diaspora and others Dame St Westmoreland St should be first on the list. Just imagine College Green if it was traffic free it would be fantastic. Imagine sitting there having a coffee surrounded by Bank of Ireland, Trinity, etc it would be cool.
At the moment it’s so difficult to get from Grafton St to O’Connell St/Henry St by foot. The pavements are just too small for the footfall and it’s off-putting battling with others on this route. Pedestrianise this route and we’d have an amazing city centre area that is actually enjoyable to walk around in.
-
January 20, 2004 at 12:57 pm #728070
Anonymous
InactiveI’m not so sure that you could banish traffic completely from College Green.
I think if you kept the D’olier St-College St-Lower Grafton St-Nassau St route open in tandem with Pearse St, that traffic flows would be protected.
While giving Dame St and the upper end of College green back to the pedestrian.
It would really only involve a diversion of the existing flows going West via Wellington Quay and Parliment St. The flows East via Wine Tavern St and Ormond Quay.
A pretty small adjustment in real terms. 😉
-
January 20, 2004 at 1:03 pm #728071
blue
ParticipantAgreed, it would be a start and anything is better than the present situation.
-
January 20, 2004 at 1:04 pm #728072
Paul Clerkin
Keymasterthere’s a strong aroma of whacky baccy around here 😉
-
January 20, 2004 at 1:06 pm #728073
Anonymous
InactiveI thought it was buses that normally got stoned?
-
January 20, 2004 at 1:09 pm #728074
blue
ParticipantTraffic fume induced I’m affaid.
-
January 20, 2004 at 1:55 pm #728075
notjim
Participanti don’t think total pedestrianization is always good, while it works for busy shopping streets, it can take the life out of a place, lots of towns in the se of england give examples of this, i amn’t even sure that the trafalga sq pedestrianization has worked, it is good for the gallery, but to my mind it diminishes the square. sometimes the best thing is to have one lane of well behaved, read suffering, traffice. the rambla in barcelona is a good model here. i think college green would be fabulous with much reduced traffice, but i amn’t sure total pedestrianization would be as good, even if it were possible.
-
January 20, 2004 at 2:03 pm #728076
Anonymous
InactiveI wasn’t total pedestrianisation I was advocating. Simply three measures.
1. The elimination of the right turn at Trinity College for cars/vans/trucks
2. The same ban on entry to Lord Edward St for cars/vans/Trucks
3. Moving the taxi rank from College green to westmoreland St.
These three measures would free up sufficient space to place a central median on Dame St/College green, similar in size to thatproposed for O’Connell St.
Giving space for cafes and urban art/statues etc.
It would make the city a little more user freindly. I know it is not as simple as that, but it does merit examination.
-
January 20, 2004 at 2:40 pm #728077
Devin
ParticipantShadow:
”un-named (!) organisation” was a just reference to feelings expressed towards an taisce on another recent thread. I wasn’t really trying to conceal an t.
-
January 20, 2004 at 3:07 pm #728078
Devin
ParticipantInteresting comments about traffic in the city centre.
This is why the decision to terminate Luas line A at Stephen’s Gn was so disastrous, rather than the original plan to bring it down Dawson St, through College Gn and on to link with Line B at O’C St. The government just caved in to the vested interests of the AA, IBEC etc. back in ’98, who couldn’t contemplate losing an inch of roadspace in the city centre. And Garret Fitzgerald and his newspaper articles didn’t help either.
The original plan would have given the much reduced traffic priority on College Gn that notjim talks about, and given the city centre a civilised and continental feel. Instead we’ve just got the noise, fumes and brutality of heavy traffic domination. Really annoys me!
-
January 20, 2004 at 3:17 pm #728079
Anonymous
Inactive🙂
-
January 20, 2004 at 6:32 pm #728080
Niall
ParticipantYes I remember the ’98 debacle well. Mam O’Rourke and Mary Harney et al caved in to the shopkeepers and toffs on Dawson Street and College Green.
We now have two luas lines that meet nowhere!
-
January 21, 2004 at 9:41 am #728081
Andrew Duffy
ParticipantCompleting line B would make it viable if the proposed Ranelagh-Airport metro line were built – the tram would go from Ranelagh to O’Connell St., which is about three miles or so. As it is, if that metro line takes over line B south of Ranelagh, the digging up of Harcourt St. has been mostly in vain.
Incidentally, I have read that EU law prevents dual running of trams and heavy-rail trains on the same track – is this correct? A tram is, after all, still a train. -
January 21, 2004 at 9:50 am #728082
JJ
ParticipantAndrew,
I visited Newcastle last year where the Metro shares track with heavy rail on a new extension to Sunderland. Theres also shared track in several cities in Germany. No EU rules against it but I think rail safety issues can be a problem.For my money Line B will never be upgraded but theres a fair chance that the link to Line A will be built. Its removal was a very spineless decision from the cabinet at the time.
What happened to Mr Brennans decision about Metro by Christmas. Maybe he’s too busy with Aer Rianta and CIE!
JJ
-
January 21, 2004 at 10:14 am #728083
Niall
ParticipantI would imagine when Luas is opened there will be calls for the linking of Lines B and A.
They will go back to the original 1996 proposal and hey presto the Dept of Finance will give it the ok.
RIP metro, on costs grounds!
-
January 21, 2004 at 10:21 am #728084
Anonymous
InactiveAndrew is right,
The only option for Luas now is to go underground from Ranelagh and all the hassle on Harcourt St was really only a short term solution.
This really is a pity because Luas at ground level through College Green really would have added an ambience to the City.
To compensate for the loss of this, something will need to be done to further enhance the visual in the College Green through Westmoreland St to O’Connell St.
-
January 21, 2004 at 11:59 am #728085
d_d_dallas
ParticipantLuas will never be able to use the heavy rail tracks so even if the EU bans such practice it doesn’t apply here. We have the honour of having a completely non-standard rail gauge across the country. We can thanks our nieghbours across the Irish Sea for that one. This is one reason why it’s no so straight forward for CIE to do upgrades to the rolling stock – everything has to be custom made and commissioned. Bearing this in mind Luas was designed to a european standard gague (which means ease of new rolling stock – but incompatible with exisiting railways)
-
January 21, 2004 at 1:20 pm #728086
GrahamH
ParticipantWhen the Govt ditched the plans for A/C link they did so in the hope that when the current lines opened, there would be immediate calls for the link as a result of the success of Luas.
Metro has thrown this out the window – I agree it should go underground from Ranelagh – even if it means digging up part of O’ Connell St for a station.I was looking at some pics of O’ Cll St & Bridge from around 1980 – it’s quite extraordinary how much cleaner the buildings were then compared with now, it’s most noticable on the 1920s terrace from Eden Quay to Abbey St, including the Irish Permenent corner bldg.
All of the stonework has accumulated so much dirt in the intervening 25 years or so.
Even the GPO which was cleaned in 1984 is manky – compare it with the Custom House cleaned 4 years later – although I appreciate it is built of whiter Portland stone.
Also the balustrading on the bridge is bone white in colour and sparkling clean – such a contrast with today, I don’t think it’s been touched since.
The removal of the HGVs from the quays should help a lot on reducing the dirt and dust in the air, when walking along the quays for a few minutes you can feel and taste the dirt in your mouth – don’t know if anyone else has noticed this!
Alos the elimination of smoky coal a couple of years back should also help cleaniness into the future in a big way -
January 21, 2004 at 2:02 pm #728087
GrahamH
ParticipantThe last Georgian house on the street is to be finally restored.
A planning application in the window of the doorcase of the house, erected about 10 weeks ago, indiates the owners of the Royal Dublin Hotel wish to change it’s use for offices.
Changes include the strengthening of the floors and the removal of a concrete stairs to the basement with a wooden version to ‘historic detail’.
The sashes to the rear are also to be restored to ‘historic detail’ as are other features.
Interestingly they also intend to remove 20th century additions to the rear and replace them with an original garden – whether this will also be ‘to historic detail’ is unclear.
A 19th century mews building called Moore Hall is to be restored and significantly extended by building on top of it – again for office use.
There is no mention of plans to restore the damaged doorcase or public access issues.
Perhaps these are included in the overall plans.
I think the IAP stipulates that tax incentives designated to this property will only be offered if public access is granted.
Is the reception room on the ground floor currently being used by the hotel as a public space? I’ve never gone inside to find out… -
January 21, 2004 at 6:52 pm #728088
Devin
ParticipantYes, the ground floor is “the Georgian Room” of the Hotel. You can tell by the tart’s knickers curtains in the window.
-
January 21, 2004 at 8:29 pm #728089
Anonymous
InactiveDevin,
Are you sure it isn’t the Hideous in Harlods cross post you were talking about?
That imagery!!!!!!
https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2532&pagenumber=2
-
January 22, 2004 at 6:53 pm #728090
Anonymous
InactiveGraham,
To get any grants for the restoration of property under section 482 of the 1997 Finance act you must open your property to the public on 60 days per year.
Including 45 days between the 1st of May and the 30th of September. You must also inform the local tourist board on which days you intend to open.
After a period of five years you no longer are required to open the property for public admission, you may at all times charge a reasonable admission fee generally in the €3-10Euro range.
-
January 23, 2004 at 11:28 am #728091
Anonymous
InactiveRe: The Closing of Dame St yesterday
Yesterday the changes spoken of on Tuesday happened, the cities traffic functioned and the only unhappy people were the retailers who were not consulted.
It will be interesting to see the traffic levels on other work days when the Castle is in a similar use, and Dame St is closed again.
-
January 23, 2004 at 11:34 am #728092
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterBut did they close all of Dame Street or just the portion from the bottom of Georges Street upwards….
-
January 23, 2004 at 11:38 am #728093
Anonymous
InactiveThey only closed from Georges St up
But with the no right turn at the bottom of Georges St and the small flows that go up Georges St from Dame St.
It would be pretty close in volume terms to preventing cars using the Street between College Green and Parliment St.
I think that after more of these meetings have taken place the situation will become clearer.
But so far so good
-
January 23, 2004 at 11:51 am #728094
Sue
ParticipantCars were allowed to turn right at the end of George’s Street. The turn ban was waived for the day…
Retailers, though, I ask you. ALWAYS groaning about something. Middle Abbey Street looks great now with its completed Luas lines. And all the whingeing shopkeepers are about to make millions from having hundreds of Luas passengers disgorged on their doorsteps. Will they say “Thank you?” Will they f***!
-
January 23, 2004 at 12:22 pm #728095
d_d_dallas
ParticipantWell in this case the traders in Cow lane kinda had a point… the Gardaà were INTERVIEWING people who wished to walk through Cow lane (at either end) so obviously people were intimidated into not going near that area.
-
January 23, 2004 at 3:00 pm #728096
dc3
ParticipantThey also closed Merrion Street later on, diverting buses any which way with no warning. A 50% longer bus commute last evening and shoals of passengers left at the bus stops
-
January 23, 2004 at 3:04 pm #728097
Anonymous
InactiveI think this thread should be called the lack of Co-ordination thread.
It is just one example after the other of un-cordinated solo runs by our various public institutions.
-
February 2, 2004 at 12:53 pm #728098
Anonymous
InactiveWhile reading the letters page of that great achedemic journal the Southside people I discovered that our Royston has sat on the O’Connell St Committee of the Corporation since 1999.
He is right at least one of them is a muppet and a waste of space
-
February 4, 2004 at 8:31 pm #728099
GrahamH
Participant -
February 5, 2004 at 7:30 pm #728100
GrahamH
ParticipantSorry, there’s a great pic of the Spike and the GPO on the site if you click around a bit on it.
-
February 5, 2004 at 7:35 pm #728101
Anonymous
Inactivehttp://www.barrymasonphoto.com
There is a great picture of the spike taken from the new building (former Irish Press) on Eden Quay. It gives a real feel of the North Inner Cities Skyline.
-
February 6, 2004 at 9:55 am #728102
GregF
ParticipantHere’s a good one of the Spire (pre light break down ….ie when it had a white light adorning the top, unlike the cheap regular sodium street light yoke at the mo)
-
February 6, 2004 at 10:14 am #728103
Anonymous
InactiveDoes anyone know what the story is with the lights half way up. Is it some sort of aviation regulation? I think they break the simple form of the spire a bit.
-
February 6, 2004 at 10:53 am #728104
blue
ParticipantAre thoes photos taken using filters or is it down to the development that the colours are so rich esp. the sky is so blue?
-
February 6, 2004 at 11:04 am #728105
GregF
ParticipantNatural autumnal dusky light!
Although Barry Mason’s look kinda synthetic, almost as if they were reproduced in 3D Max..aka hence the kinda super realism, almost plastic synthetic CGI effect!
(in a Chuck Close kinda way) -
February 6, 2004 at 11:32 am #728106
blue
ParticipantAhhh ….. forgot what a computer can do.
-
February 6, 2004 at 7:05 pm #728107
GrahamH
ParticipantThe Custom House is now my desktop wallpaper – how cliched.
I think previous criticisms of the building’s floodlighting are more than justified looking at this pic, indeed it would appear that only the end pavilions are lit – and way too bright. And just look at that dome…The light mid-way up the Spike is a regulatory feature – and unlike the old beacon at the top, I don’t think anyone has actually found out what it’s for.
-
February 6, 2004 at 7:16 pm #728108
Anonymous
InactiveIt looks like the lighting at the tip of the Spire will have to be re thought … the current temporary measure is pretty awful … I quite liked the led’s but think we can do better …
Any ideas on what can or should be done ???
I thought a single slender white beam (as strong as possible) pointing sky wards from the tip might be an idea , although this would probably involve some modification to the tip …
-
February 6, 2004 at 7:46 pm #728109
GrahamH
ParticipantThose people there should have put their hands underneath the railing – they could be one of the small few to claim they touched the top of the Spire!
-
February 17, 2004 at 1:27 pm #728110
GrahamH
ParticipantThe view from outside Penneys towards the GPO is quite bizarre at the moment, with the six columns landing down into a load of muck.
So weird seeing the building out of its urban setting, just shows what a construct cities really are, built on what were just fields and grass not too long ago.
-
February 17, 2004 at 2:03 pm #728111
emf
ParticipantI was walking home at about 3 in the morning when the top section was lying on the ground. A crowd of girls pleaded with the security guard and he lifted the fence and let us crawl under to touch the tip! We were all so euphoric afterwards I remember even though we didn’t know each other! Could have been the drink I suppose!
-
February 17, 2004 at 2:08 pm #728112
-Donnacha-
ParticipantThe lights on the tip are pretty second rate, but wouldn’t look so bad if the rest of the Spike was floodlit. If it was in any other country, a couple of spotlights would be trained on it and it would look great.
Wasn’t it originally planned to be floodlit?
On the lights half-way up; I thought they were also aviation warning lights…
They look crap, too…:rolleyes: -
February 17, 2004 at 2:11 pm #728113
emf
ParticipantI’d suspect they plan to floodlight as part of the general O’Connell St upgrade and will compleate it sometime in the near future!
-
February 17, 2004 at 2:29 pm #728114
urbanisto
ParticipantI agree. I would imagine once the plaza section is complete they will tackle the Spire. Its just such a scandal that such a new feature should require such snag work. Between floodlighting, cleaning and the tip lights.
Elsewhere on the street. what do you make of the new groups of tree which have been planted. I like them although it looks as if the project team are moving away from the boulevard style planting of the original design no? And the side paving seems to have very little provision for trees. There are 200 new trees to be planted as part of the whole scheme.
Also I have always wondering what the iron ‘bollards’ were for at the base of the GPO collumns. Anyone enlighten me.
I saw you thread about the freize on the GPO Graham. I seem to remeber a story in the mid/late 80s regarding the removal of a freize from either the GPO or the Bank of Ireland. The usual bunf about symbols of oppression if I am correct was mentioned. I know both were cleaned up for the 1988 Millennium. Jog anyones memory?
-
February 17, 2004 at 4:38 pm #728115
GrahamH
ParticipantAll I know is that the cornice was replaced in the late 80s, along with the blank frieze underneath, which is why that upper part of the building is so clean and crisp in comparision with the rest.
Still don’t know about the coat of arms though.The bollards are original to the building, and rather charmingly, are individually listed on the protected structures list. Presumably their purpose was to protect the columns from carriage wheels, with the tall corner ones protecting the corner columns from crashes, which were very common. You can see their foundations exposed at the moment.
One confusing aspect about them is that in a picture from 1818, the year the GPO was finished, they are missing. In the same pic, tall oil lamps are attached to the railings surrounding the building.
In another pic of exactly the same scene, also from 1818, the bollards are evident and all of the lamps have been replaced with big lanterns hanging from curly brackets; these lanterns are also evident in much later paintings and sketches.
Perhaps the building wasn’t finished when the first painting was painted and the artist presumed that the proposed lanterns would be the standard oil-lamps evident all over the city, and the bollards hadn’t yet been installed.I’ve always really liked them, esp the ridges or fluting on them. The House of Lords portico has two small granite bollards, one at each corner.
The Spire will be lit eventually, perhaps it is best it’s in darkness at the moment because it’s really filthy now.
Where are the latest trees Stephen, I read about them but havn’t seen them on the street, are they behind O’ Connell Monument behind the fencing there or something?
-
February 18, 2004 at 2:44 pm #728116
urbanisto
ParticipantCheck out the trees between the Larkin statue and Abbey St. There are tow groups of 6 trees (birch and rowan I think) and they are installing uplights today. It will look quite good at night but its certainly very different from what I expected.
Interesting peice by Frank McDonald in the Times Property last week regarding the thnking behind the lastest Draft Development Plan (have you all made your submissions!). Planner were discussing the devlopment of PArnell Sq and the possible removal of the GArden of Remembrance (‘a dead space’) and the building up of the 3 inner sides of the square. Interesting idea…cant see it getting by the FF and SF councillors though. But it begs the question: where would be a suitable location for the Children of Lir monument (has to be one of my favs). I am proposing on the site of the current Father Mathew statue on O’Connell St, perhaps with a fountain. Thoughts anyone?
-
February 18, 2004 at 2:50 pm #728117
GrahamH
ParticipantForgot to mention that Dublin Bus’ new shopfront has been unveiled, it looks great – clad in limestone. (Not that I don’t think the building should be replaced with a building in the style of those in the terrace)
The stone or concrete surround of the building is being removed at the moment, and most extraordinarily – it would appear the original brick walls of the Georgian townhouses on the site are the retaining walls of the new building!
The removal of the cladding has revealed old brickwork, and it’s not that of the neighbouring buildings.
It’s as if the facades of thetwo houses were removed and the horrible 60s windows simply slotted into place! -
February 18, 2004 at 2:51 pm #728118
jupiter
ParticipantThat would be great if parnell sq was to be revitalised, its a tragedy such a huge and potentially important space is so neglected. However, I would be suspicous of plans to build on it, would it not be better as a badly needed green space on the concrete jungle of the north inner city, sort of contemporary stephens green, but more open etc. WE Need more tREES!! Could not the statue of the children of lir be reintegrated , with a contemporary open space??rather than moving it and causing a furore.Where could one see a copy of the new draft development plan??
-
February 18, 2004 at 4:38 pm #728119
GregF
ParticipantStephen C …I think the statue of Kelly’s Children of Lir would be far too large to have on O’Connell Street.
Perhaps if it is removed it will end up with the Floozy….aka Anna Livia fountain. -
February 18, 2004 at 5:02 pm #728120
Rory W
ParticipantIt’s as if the facades of thetwo houses were removed and the horrible 60s windows simply slotted into place!
I thought that is what had happened – just a new facade stuck onto the old buildings
-
February 18, 2004 at 6:36 pm #728121
Devin
ParticipantI’m pretty sure those fluted iron bollards at the ends of the GPO potico were the bases of lamp standards, which are seen in some early prints, and some very early photos too. The upper parts were removed a long, long time ago – maybe around 1870.
In that piece by Frank McD last week the DCC planner was saying how wonderful the new Roches Stores building was and that it combines very well with the Spire. And it does. When you stand near the Ilac entrance the conjunction of the Spire and the new Roches facade is very good.
BUT, from further back, the picture isn’t so pretty. The new Roches building has a ‘feature roof’ which projects several feet beyond the Henry St streetline. If you stand at the western end of Mary St, this roof cuts unfortunately into what should be a clean channel view to the Spire. Annoying!
-
February 18, 2004 at 7:54 pm #728122
emf
ParticipantHave you noticed that a new pub has opened in the former AIB building on the junction with Abbey St.?
I also noticed a planning application for a new pub (well they say cafe/bar!!) in the old Man U shop on D’Olier/ Westmoreland St.
What with the existing bar on the corner here (Redz! – Yrrrggghh!) and that new pub beside Wolfe Tone Pk at Jervis St I think this proliferation of new pubs is reaching epidemic proportions!!
-
February 18, 2004 at 8:12 pm #728123
Anonymous
InactiveQuote “Have you noticed that a new pub has opened in the former AIB building on the junction with Abbey St.?”
So Louis Fitzgerald eventually got it finished.
Fair play and also fair play with the former AIB on Dame St ‘The Bankers is great too’.Victorian Banking halls really make great Bar/Restaruants. The pomp and ceromony of the Victorian commercial architecture is really conducive to the licenced trade.
Is it really true that the former TSB at the end of Grafton St is about to become a Spar?
That really would surprise me if an owner was that unambitious in what is a pivotal property.
😉
-
February 19, 2004 at 11:34 am #728124
GrahamH
ParticipantIt was a Spar even before the restoration!
Now that you mention the lamp standards Devin on the GPO bollards, I do remember seeing a print years ago with them featured.
So I’ve scouted around and found a pic of them here:
http://www.antiquemapsandprints.com/p-9696.jpgNo doubt the large bases still served a defensive purpose, as any lamposts of the age were slender and elegant, a far cry from these cumbersome lumps!
-
February 19, 2004 at 11:40 am #728125
GrahamH
ParticipantAnd just look at this one of the Wide Streets Commission development – it’d make you cry!
-
February 19, 2004 at 11:47 am #728126
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterGraham the Spar is next door to the bank and still open…
-
February 19, 2004 at 11:58 am #728127
GrahamH
ParticipantAh – so moving to a bigger premises to cram in even more over-priced goods…
-
February 19, 2004 at 12:04 pm #728128
Anonymous
InactiveThe Spar on Wexford St has become a Mace to give the ‘better’ franchise to the new Spar on Camden St. The one in the former Irish Nationwide building that was a large department store at one stage.
That is about the best Spar I’ve seen (not that it is difficult to be the best Spar) and bears many simularities with the design of the Dunnes on Georges St. 🙂
-
February 19, 2004 at 1:00 pm #728129
Rory W
ParticipantAnd I see there is going to be a new ‘Centra’ next to wher Little Ceasers is being put (into Daly’s clubhouse! opportunity missed I think) on College Green. Pretty soon every shop in Dublin will be a multiple – Spar, Centra and Mace all with high prices, bad wine, minimum wages and a shed-load of porn on the top shelf. Boo to that I say!
Oh and I believe from the planning application that it is the aforementioned Redz that will extend into the former Man U shop. Crapola – another superpub, just what we need
-
February 20, 2004 at 10:58 am #728130
Devin
ParticipantYeah O’Connell Street always looks so stately in old prints.
Thanks Graham for reminding me to take a photo of the earth and foundations of bollards and columns in front of the GPO portico before it’s paved over. That sight won’t be had for long time to come!
-
February 20, 2004 at 8:26 pm #728131
GrahamH
ParticipantUntil NTL come along!
One of the small bollards has been taken up, it’s lying on its side on the kerb.
The first of the side pavement trees are going in now, nothing spectacular in their leafless state. I think they’re planes.
Why are London Planes so called? Are there other examples of these trees currently going in, fully grown elsewhere in the city?
Are there such things as Irish planes?Don’t know what to make of the new trees on the central median, they’re being planted quite symmetrically but the different species may end up looking messy with fully grown canopies. Does anyone know what the tall wispy ones in the middle are with the white trunks?
Clearly the double row of lime trees on the median is out the window now – although in the IAP it was always intended to plant different species, it just didn’t specify in this way.
The smaller crab apples on the median should look spectacular if they are the flowering variety; a neighbour has one that’s a little bigger and it looks fantastic in early summer.Whatever about the median, it is essential that the pavement trees are consistant the whole way down to unify the street and create perspective, at least the IAP acknowledges this as being necessary too.
To be cynical – maybe the CC balked at the idea of clipping 100 limes into boxes every year?
-
March 2, 2004 at 1:06 pm #728132
blue
ParticipantWhat condition will the Street be in for Beautiful Night event on May the first.
100k people is a huge number for a building site to handle!
-
March 2, 2004 at 9:06 pm #728133
GrahamH
ParticipantShould be an interesting situation…
But great progress is being made, it’s clear the whole paving process has been speeded up hugely in light of recent criticisims in the papers etc.
For example the whole pavement spanning the length of the GPO was dug up, cleared and sand levelled in just 3 days last week, including all the mess involved in diverting pedestrians. The speed is evident in other areas too, whatever about the lack of work or otherwise at weekends.As of Monday, some sort of matting material is being laid over the sand underneath the portico – called ‘Sealosheet’ or something – anyone know what it is? Weird it’s just being laid under this paving.
And you can really see now what it’s going to be like walking past the outside of the columns for the first time in a century, as pedestrians are diverted this way now.
At last the columns appear not as a wall or screen curtailed by the road, rather you can now appreciate them individually as architectural features, with space in front, behind and to the sides – ‘breathing room’ as it were. Their scale is very impressive also, something one could rarely acknowledge previously, squeezing through behind along with 50 other people.More trees are going onto the central median now – and at the crossing with Abbey St you can see the provisions made for the new lighting of the central median, possibly the tall carrigeway lamps – although I think these may be going along the side pavements.
Things are happening!
-
March 3, 2004 at 11:16 am #728134
Anonymous
InactiveWalking in front of the columns for the first time in a century? More like for the first time in 2 years!
Do you not remember or where you not here about 2 years ago a pavement placed in front of the GPO for all of 1 month or so. This paved area in front of the GPO portico was put in place and then taken away within 2 months later when work on the Spike started.
Obviously it was only planned to have that short a life span! But seriously, I was bewildered at the time as to what the hell was happening – back-handers perhaps? Or just complete ineptitude?
-
March 3, 2004 at 2:10 pm #728135
GrahamH
ParticipantThis pavement is often mentioned – I don’t remember it at all!
Was it directly in front, or on the median – I do remember a large expanse of tarmac that was laid, attached onto the median which narrowed the roadway to two lanes. -
March 3, 2004 at 5:59 pm #728136
Anonymous
InactiveThis pavement was made up on concrete flagstones (if i remember correctly). Certainly it didn’t look to be made of material of a quality as temporary as to match the life span of the actual pavement itself.
I was directly in front of the GPO portico – not part of the central median.
-
March 3, 2004 at 6:29 pm #728137
blue
ParticipantI remember it too, it was like a patio someone might have at the back of a bungalow. It seemed very out of place.
-
March 3, 2004 at 7:07 pm #728138
emf
ParticipantI believe that they were testing the roadworthiness of a section of the paving!
I remember reading something about it at the time!! -
March 3, 2004 at 8:22 pm #728139
Anonymous
Inactivethe section of paving was laid to create a platform etc. for the President / Taoiseach and other big wigs to stand as the remains of Kevin Barry etc. and the accompanying military parade passed down O’Connell street …
Remember ?? thought it was fairly extravagant myself to see it being pulled up a couple of weeks later.
-
March 4, 2004 at 4:41 am #728140
Devin
ParticipantThat piece of paving from 2 yrs ago was made of poured concrete – no slabs or anything.
I thought it was put down as a gesture to the people, because the permanent paving work was taking so long to commence – or as a space test, to see how traffic would cope with only 2 lanes.
But maybe you’re right about the military parade Peter F.
-
March 4, 2004 at 7:06 pm #728141
urbanisto
ParticipantLots of new trees planted today… all the boxed limes along the opposite side from the GPO have been planted. They look great.
The street will be a bit of a state for St Patricks Parade though. I can see all the paving at the GPO being finished but other areas of the street will look patchy. It was a bad idea not to reroute in my opinion. Having said that all our major setpiece ‘civic spaces are under construction. St Stephen Green, Smithfield, O’Connell St. Seems like the devil you do the devil you don’t.
-
March 11, 2004 at 11:51 am #728142
GrahamH
ParticipantThe trees look really good, it would also appear that accommodation is being made for a sunken light at either side of each tree.
On the median the sunken lights are all ready in, they’re only in the treed areas though. Also the main carriageway lamps are going along the side pavement edges rather than the median.
The paving beneath the portico of the GPO is finished, with a strip of the pink granite filling in the gaps between the columns that I’m hmmming about…Also found out that a Super Valu convenience store is moving into the Eircom building at the northern end. You’d despair, you really would…
-
March 11, 2004 at 12:14 pm #728143
blue
ParticipantHow the f*** are Super Value allowed to move there I thought there was going to be some sort of restriction on who and what appears on the street from now on.
Super Value is hardly going to give the street the “Champs Elyses” feel the DCC is after.
That just makes my blood boil. 😡
-
March 11, 2004 at 12:14 pm #728144
Anonymous
InactiveOriginally posted by Graham Hickey
Also found out that a Super Valu convenience store is moving into the Eircom building at the northern end. You’d despair, you really would…Graham, I often think that the success of these sorts of areas is about the flows of people between different sections of the street. If a convenience store causes people to use the area, so be it, there is no real problem!
-
March 11, 2004 at 12:30 pm #728145
blue
ParticipantI don’t think O’Connell Street needs another gaudy convenience store to encourage people to that area. It’s got enough pedestrian activity especially at the time the shop is going to be open.
What would make more sense is if the Abbey does move to the Carlton Cinema and the area may become the theatrical area of the city it would keep this area buzzing at night.
The streets needs a bit of class, I think if the rumours of Harvey Nicks moving to the street were true it would be a great. An anchor store like HN would in turn attract other better quality shops and restaurants.
-
March 11, 2004 at 12:40 pm #728146
Anonymous
InactiveOriginally posted by blue
The streets needs a bit of class, I think if the rumours of Harvey Nicks moving to the street were true it would be a great. An anchor store like HN would in turn attract other better quality shops and restaurants.
I fully agree with you about the Abbey, but if there were only certain types of shops allowed on the street it would have the effect of the street becoming an exclusive shopping district as opposed to ‘the mainstreet of the nation’.
-
March 11, 2004 at 12:54 pm #728147
blue
ParticipantWell I do agree with you there, that’s not what anyone wants but I think the opening of a large exclusive shop on the street would have the knock on effect of other less exclusive shops etc moving there.
For example I don’t shop in BT on Grafton Street but there are plenty of less exclusive shops on the street that I do shop in.
Its the capitals main street it should have a certain amount of exclusiveness and this will in turn attract less exclusive shops etc. that are better quality to what’s there at the moment.
-
March 11, 2004 at 1:48 pm #728148
urbanisto
ParticipantIm not sure why we cant have our cake and eat it on O’Connell St. There is plenty of space for a new Abbey AND a shopping mall. Simply turf the Fingal crowd out an redevelop the old County Council Offices in addition to the Carlton site (if ever there was a building identifiable with so many bad things its this one).
Curoius this new Super Valu store. Just how many convenience stores can a city centre support. There is a new Spar opening at Chapter House on Abbey St and Musgrave’s new flagship store is opening soon in the old Virgin building (nice elabotrate windows here by the way).
I supose to dedpends on the type of development but its a bit depressing that this seems to be the only type of shop the street can attract.
Had an interesting presentation from the Project Manager of the IAP last week. The CC have no powers to compel traders to lerave the street (fast food, amusement arcades etc) but can only hope that through the imporvements (which are to continue for another 3 years!!!) more high calibre names will want to move to teh street and the undesiriables will sell up and move on. A bit tame eh!
-
March 11, 2004 at 1:49 pm #728149
urbanisto
ParticipantAnother thing… so far we have Harvey Nicks in O’Connell St… the old Bank of Ireland College Green and the new Gaiety Centre on South Kings Street!!
-
March 11, 2004 at 2:42 pm #728150
emf
ParticipantNew SPARS are popping up all over the city centre too!
I spotted the tell tale ‘New SPAR opening here soon’ (Groan!) signs on Talbot St, Parnell St and Abbey St (opposite Jervis)!
I’m sure there are lots more too! -
March 11, 2004 at 2:59 pm #728151
blue
ParticipantJust how many convenience stores can a city centre support.
Exactly, it’s just unbelievably.
It’s the SPARIFICATION of the city.
SPARville as it will soon be known.
-
March 11, 2004 at 3:58 pm #728152
d_d_dallas
ParticipantSuper Valu, Centra, and Musgraves are the same company (i.e. Musgraves) so if anyone knows about market saturation in a particular area…
This shop wont be a Super Valu per se. I think they want to model it the lovely Dunnes’ on Georges St and N Earl St… so a classy shop in an area in dire need of something to attract some punters. -
March 11, 2004 at 9:39 pm #728153
GrahamH
ParticipantOf course this is the key to it all, a decent, well-designed store with a broad range of produce would be welcome – rather than a place with a standardised factory churned-out bland interior, limited stock and general poor quality environment.
The description of ‘conveniece store’ isn’t encouraging, but then again, they’d hardly call it a supermarket either. Is there a demand though for such quality at the top end of O’ Cll St, joining with Parnell St of all places?
I was passing the other day and that area was crammed with mothers with buggies screaming at each other, hoards of kids queueing for the Savoy, and the place littered with rubbish; it’s gonna be hard to change…Did someone mention way back that the whole Eircom building is to be refaced?
I saw the new Spar on Talbot St too – all you can do is laugh.
-
March 11, 2004 at 9:43 pm #728154
GrahamH
Participant(and not go in)
-
March 12, 2004 at 10:49 am #728155
Anonymous
InactiveI’ve seen the name Harvey Nichols mentioned all over the noticeboards – why this need for a upper-class English store to underpin a regeneration of what is hoped will be the main street of the nation?
-
March 12, 2004 at 10:58 am #728156
blue
ParticipantWell I don’t see any Irish ones stepping up to do it! I would prefer and Irish store but its just not going to happen.
Whats wrong with a foreign store on the main street anyway or is it just because its English?
-
March 12, 2004 at 1:01 pm #728157
Anonymous
InactiveIn part, yes it is because its English. It would be nice to see some variety in the retail choice and so, I would welcome some continental department store sooner than another English store – don’t we have enough with the Jervis centre?
I personally wouldn’t like to see the Irish High street a carbon copy of the English High street.
I would also question the repetition of the name Harvey Nichols when it comes to Dubln city centre regeneration – sure what have they got to do with here?
And if Irish department stores aren’t queuing up to locate onto O’Connell St. – well for one, that’s been understandable up to now. But if the DCC manage to pull off a fairly decent street after all this work, maybe we should begin asking why Irish department stores won’t relocate there rather than invite in an English store the first chance we get.
-
March 12, 2004 at 1:29 pm #728158
blue
ParticipantI agree with you, variety is the spice of life after all and we don’t want a carbon copy of Oxford St or any other English high street. However Harvey Nicks is hardly on every street corner in the UK and we already have Clearys, Eason and Pennys on this street so I don’t think it would end up a carbon copy. I just want to see the street restored to its former glory and if that means a large English department store leading the way I have no problems with that.
The entrance of UK retailers into the Irish market can only be seen as positive, offering the consumer more choice and VARIETY. The much-berated Jervis St Centre is a fine example of this and also how a shopping centre should be run. Irish shopping centres where second rate, in my opinion, until arrival of competition.
What will probably happen is a new shopping centre will eventually be built on the Carlton cinema site and this will have the necessary draw to get people into the north end of the street and in turn hopefully raise the quality of the surrounding establishments.
-
March 12, 2004 at 3:02 pm #728159
emf
ParticipantAnyone got any old photos of the Findlaters shop which used to occupy the Eircom spot?
-
March 12, 2004 at 3:08 pm #728160
emf
ParticipantSorry forgot to add:
Bill Cullen worked as a paper/delivery boy in Findlaters before moving onto his successful car dealership career (I seem to remember from his autobiography!)It can’t be closed all that long!
-
March 12, 2004 at 8:28 pm #728161
GrahamH
ParticipantThink it was knocked in 1969 or 70. I’ve never seen a pic either, or a decent one of Gilbeys for that matter.
With regard to department stores, unfortunately there simply aren’t any Irish ones, save Clerys, Arnotts and Roches(ish) – all of which are now well established in their locations. Looking abroad is the only option.
A continental store would be preferable, and considering Harvey Norman’s ease of move here – all be they used to it – it can’t be that difficult for a non-British store to come to Dublin.
Although – condsidering Arnotts commandering programme, it won’t be long before they reach O’ Cll St anyway!The street is so lucky to have Clerys, it really isn’t pointed out enough, both in terms of the institution and the building itself.
It’s entrance doors are just magnificent, it’s remarkable they’ve survived. Also great are the bronze display windows, and the windows above ground floor which have fanastic profiles and detailing, as well as the many brass name plates at ground floor level.And there’s some much unnoticed beautiful stone carving too, comprising heads and wreaths, at the join with the first floor.
The fact that it’s an Irish business, and an old one at that, is possibly the best aspect to it, and that it’s surviving in what is now a hugely international industry. And whereas its ground floor is now very international in produce, the upper floors are remaining distictively Irish (and affordable), selling flowery curtains and all that malarkey.
It’s so bizarre at the moment, going up the escalators, passing through the grand columned ground and first floors, and suddenly landing back in 1976 on the 2nd floor, with the suspended ceilings, flouresent tubes and brown carpets!The renovations thus far have been meticulous, with the one exception of the ceilings on the ground floor, where the new suspended panels with new lighting are a bit too wide, concealing too easily the original plasterwork – that ridge-and-ribbon design – so typical of the 1910s & 20s.
-
March 15, 2004 at 10:50 pm #728162
J. Seerski
ParticipantSuper Value on O’Connell Street is not necessarily a bad thing. It is fitting considering the History of the site that it returns to selling groceries.
As for Clerys, does anyone know that Mary Guiney, Chairwoman of Clerys, is 102 and possibly the oldest proprietor of any company in the world (certainly the oldest woman?) It makes Clerys unique in more than one respect. I read somewhere that someone called the store ‘Irelands answer to Selfridges’. Certainly it has similarities, but the building is more elegant and refined than its overpowering London counterpart. If anyone has been at both stores, the similarities and the differences are quite startling.
-
March 16, 2004 at 9:45 am #728163
GregF
ParticipantGood on ye Mary Guiney!…..any relation to Michael down Talbot Street?
As O’Connell Street is starting to take shape and look great is’nt it only a pity that it’s not finished or even half finished for St Partick’s day tomorrow and especially as we hold the Presidency of the EU at the mo. Could have been a showpiece for the city and country…..alas not, but remains a building site!
-
March 16, 2004 at 11:46 am #728164
urbanisto
ParticipantIt is… but it will be ready (or at least this phase will) for the Beautiful Night on May 1.
-
March 16, 2004 at 12:47 pm #728165
d_d_dallas
ParticipantI wouldn’t mind a bit more “carbon copy” Oxford St here. I live here! It’s not like I have my monthly flying visits to London or anything so having a decent range of comparison shopping venues in my everyday life would be welcome. Dublin has a pathetic lack of decent city centre commercial space. Suffolk St, Sth King St, new ILAC might help out though…
The only good thing about Clery’s is it’s facade – a thoroughly second rate shop inside (stock etc). Potentially with it’s location and building could be a premier department store. Must do better! -
March 16, 2004 at 2:17 pm #728166
GrahamH
ParticipantAdmittedly I’ve never bought a thing in the place – just a good nose around at the lastest changes and slip out…
And their A/V section upstairs is pretty dismal, it should come on big time though once the builders reach that far up.Just on the issue of Clerys, or rather the building that pre-dated it, the New Mart monster store; I’ve always though it more than just a coincidence that this huge building, with all the bells and whistles of Victoriana was completed in 1853, slap bang in the middle of the Wide Streets Commission’s regemented Lr Sackville St, within 2 years of the Commission disbanding in 1851 and their powers being assumed by Dublin Corporation.
It would be more than just a tad humorous to think that the Corpo were wrecking the street from the moment they got their hands on it!
-
March 16, 2004 at 2:20 pm #728167
GrahamH
ParticipantOh – the trees in front of the GPO are going in now, and the uplighters between the trees on the Clerys side are being installed.
-
March 16, 2004 at 2:29 pm #728168
urbanisto
ParticipantThey look great dont they. This section of the street is really starting to take shape. I did notice that the street-level bollards in front of the GPO have been taken away. The paving here is complete so it doesn’t look as if they will be reinstated. Its a small thing but as they are heritage items it would be a great shame if they were permanently lost.
-
March 16, 2004 at 2:36 pm #728169
GrahamH
ParticipantAh they must be going back – sure they were listed. Definitely be following that up if they’re not reinstated.
The paving outside Easons is such a pleasure to walk on compared with what was there before – so even and smooth. -
March 16, 2004 at 2:40 pm #728170
urbanisto
ParticipantThe large bollards are there and being set into paving but the areas set aside for the small ones have been paved over. Maybe they are being resited.
I was thinking that uplighters between the pillars of the GPO would have been very effective.
-
March 16, 2004 at 5:26 pm #728171
Devin
ParticipantThat’s very serious if those iron bollards at the bases of the columns have been removed and paved over. I’m going down to check it out now. There’ll be hell to pay!
-
March 16, 2004 at 6:57 pm #728172
Niall
ParticipantAnyone got any pics?
-
March 16, 2004 at 9:20 pm #728173
Devin
ParticipantRelax people! I enquired on-site and the stumpy bollards will put back as they were. The authorities want to open that part of the paving around the portico for Paddy’s day and there wasn’t time to finish it with the bollards.
Still, I don’t approve of the way those bollards have been treated up to now. They are valuable items of early Dublin street furniture, but were just left lying randomly around the site – and left out at night with no protection against theft other than the wire hoarding which often has walk-in gaps anyway, inviting the civically-inconsiderate passer-by to nick one for their back garden!
The bollards don’t appear to have been numbered during removal either. Assuming they had been in-situ for a long period of time up to this, each one should – for the sake of histortic continuity – go back to its original column base.
-
March 17, 2004 at 3:41 pm #728174
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterGo ahead for O’Connell St hotel revamp
The Irish IndependentA further key piece of the O’Connell St redevelopment jigsaw is now in place following the granting of planning permission by Dublin City Council for a major redevelopment of the landmark Royal Dublin Hotel. Proposed works by owner Ampleforth Ltd includes a complete refurbishment and remodelling of the interior of the hotel, together with two, new bedroom wings with frontage onto Parnell Street and Moore Lane. The proposed design by Dublin-based Ashlin Coleman Architects is part of the plan to create a new and enhanced image for the hotel. Planning permission has also been granted for a new facade for the hotel on O’Connell Street. This exciting facade – designed jointly by Ashlin Coleman with UK architectural practice MacCormac Jamieson Prichard – will complete the new look for the hotel
-
March 17, 2004 at 4:29 pm #728175
GrahamH
ParticipantAre they the same Ashlin & Coleman of Clerys fame?
It’ll be interesting to see how this first major modern building in 30 years relates to the street.I just thought of the parade last night regarding the bollards, to cut the slabs into circles takes time & skill, so rather than rushing, quickly throwing down some slabs to accomodate the parade seemed the likely reason.
There was clearly a lot of work even in cutting slabs to fit around the two tall end bollards.I agree about the numbering, indeed it was a great shame that they had to be lifted at all – it’s like taking up the floorboards in a period house – immediatly you lose the history and connection with the past – the idea that a Georgian workman laid these bollards nearly 200 years ago is lost.
-
March 18, 2004 at 1:18 pm #728176
urbanisto
ParticipantWhat did you thin of the new facade for the Royal Dublin. I think it look great. Very different and modern. My god the difference between now and then will be so dramatic.
The Indo also had details of a new retail development at the EBS building on Westmoreland St. The piece was suggesting that the building would be demolished apart from the centre section (which is protected) and a new facade consiting of multi coloured lit panels replace it. It looked great as well. There is also plans for a pedestrian link to Temple Bar via Fleet St, although it wasn’t clear what this entailed.
-
March 18, 2004 at 1:18 pm #728177
urbanisto
ParticipantWhat did you thin of the new facade for the Royal Dublin. I think it look great. Very different and modern. My god the difference between now and then will be so dramatic.
The Indo also had details of a new retail development at the EBS building on Westmoreland St. The piece was suggesting that the building would be demolished apart from the centre section (which is protected) and a new facade consiting of multi coloured lit panels replace it. It looked great as well. There is also plans for a pedestrian link to Temple Bar via Fleet St, although it wasn’t clear what this entailed.
-
March 18, 2004 at 1:55 pm #728178
GrahamH
ParticipantWas it in yesterdays Indo?
I’ve been looking for a picture for ages – can anyone put up the pic and/or article – the subscription Indo online is blocking it out.The RDH claim that they are based in Dublin’s oldest Georgian house (built in 1752) which sounds ludicrous at first. But when you think about it – aside from Leinster House, it possibly is. Even Molesworth st, as crumbly and baroque as it is, is a teeny bit later.
There must be some contenders on Stephen’s Green south though, and perhaps those running alonside the Central Bank.The ‘house’ is crucial, otherwise Joe Walsh tours on the same street – as undeserving as the store is – would beat it hands down.
-
March 18, 2004 at 2:00 pm #728179
GrahamH
ParticipantInteresting about the EBS too – if anything goes ahead on this site, the minimum to be done is for the granite infill panels be replaced with glass.
Multi-coloured lit panels – sounds like a 1983 Latvian Eurovision set – very scary… -
March 18, 2004 at 4:49 pm #728180
Rory W
ParticipantSurely Henrietta Street is the oldest?
-
March 18, 2004 at 4:58 pm #728181
GrahamH
ParticipantExactly! – I came running back to pop it in before someone noticed – but you just always have to be that one step ahead Rory
🙂Going to e-mail them and tell them where to shove their spurious claim – just like their other assertion that the house they now extoll the virtues of, was structurally unsound and warranted demolition.
-
March 19, 2004 at 1:02 pm #728182
Anonymous
InactiveRoyal Dublin …
-
March 19, 2004 at 1:03 pm #728183
Anonymous
Inactiveand the EBS …
-
March 19, 2004 at 1:23 pm #728184
GregF
ParticipantI saw them in the Indo on Wednesday….kind of a funky make over for the both, moreso the EBS. Better than the black glass I suppose and the end of Sam Stephenson’s mark.
-
March 19, 2004 at 4:39 pm #728185
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterThe EBS development is terrible looking in that image.
-
March 19, 2004 at 4:44 pm #728186
GregF
ParticipantPity that original Art Deco edifice was gutted
-
March 19, 2004 at 4:49 pm #728187
Anonymous
InactiveThe EBS was once an Art Deco building?
-
March 19, 2004 at 5:24 pm #728188
GregF
ParticipantYep, hence the preservation order on the central remnant.
-
March 19, 2004 at 5:47 pm #728189
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterGregF, you make it sound like the rest of the site containing building of equal interest to the central piece. AFAIK that wasn’t the case.
-
March 19, 2004 at 5:54 pm #728190
Anonymous
InactiveI’ve always wondered what the building looked like with its original wings – any pictures around?
-
March 19, 2004 at 7:17 pm #728191
GrahamH
ParticipantYikes that EBS is woeful, image that next to the straight-laced brickwork of ajoining buildings.
What a nasty, tacky distraction.Give me the black glass anyday, it is starkly modern but discreet in its simplicity.
The RDH is um, interesting – the devil’s in the detail so we’ll have to wait.
I really hope that extra floor that’s set back is invisible from down the street.
The Gresham terrace opposite have mansard roofs, the RDH terrace doesn’t. -
March 19, 2004 at 7:31 pm #728192
GrahamH
ParticipantAnd the outdoor cafe terrace will be a major bonus to this area of the street, really major.
Thanks Peter for scanning.
-
March 25, 2004 at 10:04 am #728193
Anonymous
InactiveIts either a joke at this stage or has long since passed that but are they ever going to pave O’Connell St?!
Progress is slow to say the least – it certainly comes in peaks and troughs and although the peaks provide for identifiable progress, the troughs are too frequent and too long.
I cant understand why they haven’t copncentrated their efforts firstly on the Henry St. junction. I’ve spent months in crowds funnelled into a narrow pedestrial crossing by large concrete barriers. Surely the contractors know that this is by far the busiest stretch of the street and would make an effort to finish it first and with the greatest of haste?
Am I being too logical?
-
March 25, 2004 at 1:36 pm #728194
GrahamH
ParticipantA lot of the paving has been put down very quicky, esp outside Clerys, Easons and the GPO, but certainly the Henry St juntion is taking an eternity, coupled with the farce that was the completion of that street’s paving in the middle of the Christmas rush, after lying idle for two years.
But from a contractors, or indeed the CCs point of view, why bother going to the extra effort to finish here first (not sure if I’m being critical here or not) No one’s going to complain,people just put up with being diverted and funneled. To awkwardly plan the laying of services, paving and other works, just to accomodate pedestrians may seem pointless to them.
But the central median is definitely taking way too long to open.
-
March 25, 2004 at 1:42 pm #728195
GrahamH
ParticipantOh and the work on the RDH is due to start at the end of the month, probably says it in that Indo article.
And ok, I didn’t quite tell the RDH to ‘shove it’, indeed the e-mail I sent was the very picture of politeness (and pedantry).
Alas – no reply. -
March 25, 2004 at 4:53 pm #728196
loismac
ParticipantI think to correct the problems with Dublin’s city centre, the cc need to take one project at a time and complete them first before subjecting the city to twenty at once and not completeing any on time or to a majorities opinions it would appear effectively. May be Im niave in my opinion
-
March 25, 2004 at 7:59 pm #728197
Anonymous
InactiveOriginally posted by Graham Hickey
But the central median is definitely taking way too long to open.The question is will DCC O’connell St committee member Royston be old enough to run for president by the time its finished? It is scheduled for completion prior to the Euro elections in June, will this muppet be able to point to a job done on time as promised?
-
March 31, 2004 at 10:52 am #728198
GrahamH
ParticipantI’m hating him more by the day, I’ve gone through 3 television sets already from putting my foot through him. He’ll be expecting a bronze statue of his smug self on the median next.
So to the street of which he speaks – it’s loads of pics time.
They were taken last Friday, so if you were wondering about that weirdo walking around O’ Cll St with a camera padlocked, chained and bolted to their arm, taking pictures of the ground, you know who it was.Firstly the major roadworks outside Princes Street.
Followed by the new paving outside the GPO.
-
March 31, 2004 at 10:54 am #728199
GrahamH
ParticipantThe GPO
-
March 31, 2004 at 10:55 am #728200
GrahamH
ParticipantThe new lime trees:
-
March 31, 2004 at 10:56 am #728201
GrahamH
ParticipantOutside Easons:
-
March 31, 2004 at 10:59 am #728202
GrahamH
ParticipantOne of the new pedestrian crossings, with steel grip studs – proof that those crude red tiles at crossings all over the city are and never were required in that colour.
Also some detail at the GPO
-
March 31, 2004 at 11:01 am #728203
GrahamH
ParticipantSome of the paving detail:
-
March 31, 2004 at 11:02 am #728204
GrahamH
ParticipantThe central median, work here is pretty much finished now:
-
March 31, 2004 at 11:03 am #728205
GrahamH
ParticipantAlso – the work underway on the Dublin Bus building:
-
March 31, 2004 at 11:13 am #728206
GrahamH
ParticipantOn that GPO pic, it should say the stone turns black in the rain!
The Luas wires crossing the street went up on Monday and Tuesday, feels very European now!
Unfortunately the wires passing by Mansfield Chambers/Clarks and the way they’re attached to its corner is less than sympathetic. -
March 31, 2004 at 3:45 pm #728207
blue
ParticipantGreat pics Graham. I’m down that part of the city the odd time but its so hard to see the changes as its so conjested at the moment. Great detail. Roll on the completion day when ever that is!
-
March 31, 2004 at 4:16 pm #728208
Anonymous
InactiveI really like that new shop front on the Dublin Bus building. It looks really well. I think the street overall is starting to shape up very nicely indeed. I just walked down it and admired the change in the footpath width makes to the perception of the GPO and buildings nearby.
Phil
-
March 31, 2004 at 8:12 pm #728209
shaun
ParticipantI was in Clearys recently for the first time since I was a kid and the place has got a real vibe to it, much more so than any chic Grafton street estabishment. From the upstairs full length windows you can stand and look down at the Spike and the crowds milling by. I go shopping in Antwerp or Brussels city centers and never you will never see the kind of rushing, busy crowds that make their way through Dublin. In fact, shopping on the Northside of town is so much more exiting than Grafton street etc., the people, the decadence of O’Connell street, the seediness of the streets down to Connelly station, the shabby but teeming Ilac center, amazing places, once glorious Parnell square, these are the places that form the character of town, they’re unique, hope they don’t change too much and become all nice.
If you were to look for a European equivalent of O’Connell street it would have to be the main raiway station quarter, the place where the thugs, hookers and junkies hang out, will they just move further north up the street now. -
April 1, 2004 at 11:43 am #728210
GrahamH
ParticipantWith the CC acting as the Pied Piper of Hamelin 🙂
Praising the seediness of Talbot St, now there’s a first!
But I agree about the place becoming ‘too nice’; the idea of O’ Cll St as Oxford Street’s offspring is less than pleasant.
I don’t think it will ever be though, even if the CC put every resource they have into trying to make it so, the place wouldn’t change to that extent.There’s always going to be a certain shabbiness to the place, and indeed the city centre in general.
I was on Lower Baggot St, Ranelagh and around that general Victorian township/suburbia the other day, and the contrast with the condition of the bustling areas here and that of those directly across the canal was so marked, from the condition of buildings above ground level, to paving to the cleaniness of the streets – so different.On another matter, does anyone know what’s going onto that huge site opposite Jurys on Parnell St? It’s a massive space.
There’s a fantastic view of the grimey rears to all the Georgians on Parnell Square from here, with their vast chimney stacks straddling across the roofs. Remind you of photos of the tenements, and rare aul times… -
April 1, 2004 at 12:04 pm #728211
GregF
ParticipantI think appartments are planned here on the former garage site across the road.
-
April 1, 2004 at 12:58 pm #728212
urbanisto
ParticipantThe Walden garage site is being converted into 6 apartment blocks. There are also plans to restore a vacant lot on Parnell Sq with a replica Georgian facade. I know waht is said about pastiche but in this case a Georgian facade is called for to restore the original terrace. A bit of a clean up of the buildings along this side if the square would be most welcome
-
April 1, 2004 at 1:25 pm #728213
d_d_dallas
ParticipantI thought pastiche was to be avoided at all costs under the O’Connell St plan…?
-
April 1, 2004 at 1:30 pm #728214
GrahamH
ParticipantTrue, but they made an exception for here.
-
April 1, 2004 at 1:32 pm #728215
blue
ParticipantWhy?
-
April 1, 2004 at 4:10 pm #728216
Anonymous
InactiveNumber 4(?) Kildare Street (the stone building which forms part of the national library beside the old Kildare Street Club that) is an interesting building in that its shape is very similar to normal brick georgian buildings and its proportions seem to be similar as well. I know it is a little away from the area being discussed, but for me it proves that pastiche is simply not the answer. I have no idea about when this building was built or if the stone work is just a facade (which would be interesting in itself because it would represent a completely different example of facadism to the type we now have). I suspect that it dates from the 1920s or 1930s but I don’t really know. Anyway the point is that it is possible to fit buildings into an existing streetscape without resorting to full blown pastiche.
-
April 1, 2004 at 5:45 pm #728217
shaun
ParticipantPhil,
I know the building you are refering to, it’s a humdinger isn’t it. It’s a stripped classical front applied to a Georgian facade and the architect was Frederick Hayes, date 1935. It reminds me of London art-deco.
-
April 1, 2004 at 5:57 pm #728218
Anonymous
InactiveShaun, thanks for that information (and so quick too). Do you know of any sources of information about it? It is an absolute gem. Definitely in my top 10 in Dublin.
Thanks again
Phil
-
April 1, 2004 at 6:14 pm #728219
shaun
ParticipantIt’s a pleasure….I gleaned this information from S.Rothery’s “Ireland and the new architecture”, great book. He also adds about this building that “this was the Refuge Assurance building. Polished grey Ballinasloe limestone slabs were used up to the first-floor window-cill level, and grey fossil limestone slabs, attached with copper dowels, were fixed to the rest of the front. The result was a flat shiny elevation with the desired fashionable look.” He calls it somewhat outrageous. Is there anything else like it in Dublin that you know of ? Oh, and yes, it would make my Dublin top 10 easily.
-
April 1, 2004 at 9:54 pm #728220
GrahamH
ParticipantThat building is interesting, but the stock of Kildare St is so jumbled that the limestone cladding desn’t stand out or its lovely windows.
Parnell Square is entirely red bricked, and entirely in the same style. This should be reinforced here with an appropriate replica (some of the original doorway remains as a guide at least)
I think it’s claimed as being the longest mid-eighteenth century terrace in the city – scraping the barrel there a bit perhaps – but whatever about facts, it’s the appearance that matters. Anything other than Georgian would look ludicrous here, especially considering the rythmical stepping up of the area.Indeed what’s annoying on Kildare St at the moment is the replacement of all the windows in the Setanta centre with cluttered cumbersome grey PVC. The streamlined nature of the original 80s windows of sheer expanses of glass is gone now, and the way they used to act as a modern interpretation of the surrounding sashes, mirroring their proportions.
-
April 2, 2004 at 8:30 am #728221
shaun
ParticipantI agree, a faithful Georgian copy using good materials would be best up on Parnell sqare. Something akin to Mountjoy square, although I have only been up there once since it was saved from complete destruction, and it still comes in for a lot of criticism for being pastiche, or fake.
-
April 2, 2004 at 9:13 am #728222
Anonymous
InactiveLads, the building on the corner of Parnell Sq. East and Denmark Street is pastiche and looks quite obviously so. I really think that something with similar proportions, similar brick colour etc but bearing a contemporary stamp aswell would be much more appealing.
-
April 2, 2004 at 7:12 pm #728223
GrahamH
ParticipantI agree that there is nothing worse than bad pastiche, and that yoke on the corner you speak of Phil is such an example, as are some the Zoe Dev ones on Mountjoy Square, complete with ground-to-attic exposed chimney stacks tacked on the side.
‘Replica’ I think is a better word to describe an accurate, faithful reproduction of the original, down to the bootscraper; such building in strictly limited circumstances such as this can work better than modern interpretations if they unify an area, which I think will happen on Parnell Square.
-
April 2, 2004 at 8:05 pm #728224
GrahamH
ParticipantJust on the subject of Georgians, I was looking (again) at the corner buildings of O’ Connell & Henry St.
It appears, even from the engraving of Gardiner’s Mall from 1750, that Joe Walsh Travel and the one beside it were always retailers, from the moment they were built, even though they existed on an otherwise exclusively residential street.They never had the long plots of garden all the other houses had, just narrow back yards. They also have very crude squared-off backs to them.
In the engraving from 1750 as pictured below, they’re the only buildings without proper doorcases, and Joe Walsh even has a big display window – and in the picture from 1818 it even has a flat roofed porch over the entrance!
These buildings also appear to have been carved up a few times into different properties over the centuries.I’m really only raising this again because I took a picture of the side of the building the other day with what may be the original windows (below) – and that it’s facinating that such an old building, not only for the street but for Dublin in general, lies right in the midde of what is percieved a completely redeveloped street.
(sorry the pic’s a bit big)
-
April 2, 2004 at 8:08 pm #728225
GrahamH
ParticipantThat mutli-pic again:
-
April 5, 2004 at 4:26 pm #728226
Anonymous
InactiveOriginally posted by Graham Hickey
‘Replica’ I think is a better word to describe an accurate, faithful reproduction of the original, down to the bootscraper; such building in strictly limited circumstances such as this can work better than modern interpretations if they unify an area, which I think will happen on Parnell Square.
Graham, I think you and I will just have to agree to disagree on this one. The word ‘pastiche’ still refers to something being replicated. I know we now associate it with some of the worst attempts at historic street rejuventation in the country, but on a fundamental basis a replication is a replication. This is as much the case for ‘good’ replications as it is for bad ones. Infact, a good fake is probably worse than a bad one in the long run as it fools the observer into thinking that it is somhow from the same time period as it surroundings. I think that there is a enough subtle differences between Georgian Buildings, which we now probably don’t really notice, to allow a well designed building with similar materials and proportions to fit in well. I love historic landscapes, but when I start to feel that they are in somehow inauthentic, I loose some of my admiration for them.
-
April 5, 2004 at 8:26 pm #728227
J. Seerski
ParticipantJust admiring O’Connell Street from the Carlton Cinema today… however…
The sweep from Earl Street to O’Connell Street is quite possibly the finest stretch of streetscape in Dublin, but it is so shamefully destroyed by O’Connell Bridge House. This has to not only be one of the worst buildings in Dublin, but also the most ill- situated. It ruins this spectacular ensemble of architecture – akin to placing a block of flats in the middle of Westminster Palace in London.
There were plans for some modification of this vile piece of work, but nothing less than total demolition and a new building restricted to four storeys would be the best result here.
On other matters, one of the unintended effects of the new trees surrounding the GPO is that they obscure much of the horrendous shop signage adjacent Clerys. Perhaps this practice should continue where shops deliberately ignore planning restrictions regarding signage. 😀
-
April 5, 2004 at 11:43 pm #728228
GrahamH
ParticipantOnly now Clerys of all people have plastered the front of their store with those horrendous temporary signs. Why these are allowed under planning regs I do not know – thinking of Liberty Hall not to long ago…
I agree about the view of O’ Cll Bridge House from Earl St, or even from the Savoy; it looms over the finest terrace on the street – the post-1916 reconstructed terrace from Eden Quay to Abbey St.
It looked even worse when the mast was even taller until it’s recent cropping. It’s so so alien to the vista, so inappropriate.
And the view from the Millenium Bridge and Ha’penny is destroyed by it too. Instead of just having the comparitively slender profile and interesting roof profile of Liberty Hall to one side, you have the horrible leaden lump of O’ Cll Bridge House intruding – also destroying the general impression of a low-rise city from this point.Phil – I agree about replica and pastiche being precisely the same thing, just that replica doesn’t carry the baggage of the woefully inadequate mock-ups of the 80s as you say – resulting in marginally less confusion!
As always there’s two issues relating to Georgians, one – their architecture, and two – their history or posterity etc.
When we talk about being fooled by a replica, we’re referring not to the architecture or asthetics, but honesty and history etc etc.
I fully accept this as a viable arguement when talking about new-builds like housing estates, or some farcical office development.
But when you build a single structure that will unify a terrace, that will bring a whole together, it’s a different issue in my view.Suppose it’s a matter of taste with regard to being fooled or not. Certainly I’d be the last one to brush history aside and to deem the’originalness’ of the 18th century housesof no great importance – to see even a broken original pane of glass makes me fume! But to build a replica not only makes an area architecturally true, it also reconstructs it as the developers intended – so you’re being as considerate as possible to both the age of the buildings, as well as the present day appearance.
That’s my view anyway – something I think applies also to the likes of O’ Cll St with the likes of Dublin Bus and the shoe shop place. -
April 6, 2004 at 8:51 am #728229
Andrew Duffy
ParticipantI can’t understand this hatred of O’Connell Bridge House – it can only be the old chestnut of height, even though it is barely even a midrise building. I doubt you’ll find a single tourist who has any feelings, positive or negative, about it. Try mentally rubbing out the 30 metre high lager advertisement next time you look at it – it will improve.
I find it unusual that the lumpen, pointlessly frilly form of Liberty Hall is better in your estimation, Graham.
-
April 6, 2004 at 9:32 am #728230
Anonymous
InactiveAs I say Graham, I think we will have to agree to disagree on this issue. I suppose it is a matter of taste. Andrew, I must agree with you on the O’Connell Street house issue. In fact, I would like if the other one which was planned for the site now occupied by the Balast House was actually built aswell.
Phil
(ps, dont faint Graham, because I know you will be shocked by my point of view 🙂 )
-
April 6, 2004 at 9:49 am #728231
blue
ParticipantTo the untrained eye it certainly isn’t an eyesore and Dublin has a lot worse.
Its a pity tourists aren’t allowed up it. The view from the top must be amazing. It would make up for not being able to climb the spire.
-
April 6, 2004 at 10:20 am #728232
GregF
ParticipantWould be a brilliant location for a roof top restaurent, as it was once before, I think.
Any entrepreneurs out there with lots of money and ideas? -
April 6, 2004 at 12:26 pm #728233
blue
ParticipantI might be wrong but I do remember something about the owner of this building refusing to open it up. Even after some lobbying which is a shame because it would be a great attraction. Having a meal up there would be amazing.
-
April 6, 2004 at 12:39 pm #728234
Andrew Duffy
ParticipantIt was a restaurant for a year or two after opening (1964-1965), and apparently popular amongst Dublin society, but the owner soon converted the floor into his personal offices.
-
April 6, 2004 at 3:07 pm #728235
redeoin
ParticipantI would definitely take down O’Connell Bridge House, and maybe even Liberty tower. It is probably not so much the height as the shape and the positioning; they are so angular and boxlike and intrude on the city rather than complement it.
With the new tara tower going up, hopefully at some point those two buildings will be replaced by something that gives a very stylish and modern view of the city centre from o’connell st, millenium bridge etc…
-
April 6, 2004 at 3:56 pm #728236
GrahamH
ParticipantThe fact that O’ Connell Bridge House is barely even mid-rise Andrew is the very problem.
It is neither tall enough to distinguish itself from the surrounding area, nor small enough to integrate into the neighbouring stock. It just shoves itself mercilessly into the streetscape, as if shouting at the WSC terraces to move over more to accomodate its fat self.
As I trot out every time this issue comes up, it creates the impression of a mid-rise city, ruining the low-rise character of the riverscape.
It’s partially the old chestnut of high-rise, and I’m not going to shrivel up under the stairs for taking the view that anything over five storeys is grossly inappopriate for this, the most important junction in Dublin, taking into account Westmoreland St, D’Olier St, the Bridge, the Liffey, the four quays and O’ Cll St.
This building also completely and utterly destroyed the view of
D’ Olier St from the bridge and Bachelors walk, eating up nearly half of the WSC terrace, creating a canyon in its place. It also set precedent for D’ Olier House next door, consuming further original stock.
This distinctive street, that looked so beautiful from the other side of the river, and that fitted in so well with the quays and Westmoreland etc was wrecked.Architecturally, it’s not the worst of buildings, although one can think of many a better one, but location location location is the stickler.
Regarding Liberty Hall, at least an effort is made at distinguishing itself. It needs five more storeys though to make it slenderer and less squat. And I’ve always liked its roof – so distinctive.
More than can be said for O’ Cll Bridge House. -
April 6, 2004 at 3:58 pm #728237
GrahamH
ParticipantBetter chuck in a smilie to show I’m not being nasty
🙂
-
April 6, 2004 at 4:19 pm #728238
d_d_dallas
Participant40 years on and it’s still being discussed… O’Conn Bridge house is as much part of the view, appropriate or not. What would be inappropriate would be to remove it purely to restore a vision that dates from, well… we all know this boring argument. Personally I like to see every generation leave their mark (should that be scar…?!?) – It’s part of the nasty corrupt 60’s layer deposited on the city.
-
April 6, 2004 at 7:46 pm #728239
Anonymous
InactiveOriginally posted by d_d_dallas
40 years on and it’s still being discussed… O’Conn Bridge house is as much part of the view, appropriate or not. What would be inappropriate would be to remove it purely to restore a vision that dates from, well… we all know this boring argument. Personally I like to see every generation leave their mark (should that be scar…?!?) – It’s part of the nasty corrupt 60’s layer deposited on the city.Given the giant outlay during the refurb in 1999 it is amazing that a decent cladding wasn’t put on. It lay empty for two years because no tenant would pay 50 quid a square foot for such an ugly building. Bad design including refurbs costs money as prestige foreign tenants want quality!!!!!
-
April 6, 2004 at 8:07 pm #728240
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterI though it lay empty because of its lack of parking spaces?
-
April 7, 2004 at 10:10 am #728241
redeoin
ParticipantDoes anyone know when the next Carlton hearing is?
Ireland.com 7th April 2004
“The Minister for Arts, Sports and Tourism, Mr O’Donoghue, has given his strongest indication yet that the National Theatre could move from Abbey Street. Delays and the high cost of developing the existing site gave the Government little choice but to look elsewhere for a new home for the Abbey Theatre, he said yesterday. Mr O’Donoghue commented on the theatre’s future while at the Abbey launching “A Policy Framework for Education, Community and Outreach” for the Council of Cultural Institutions. “Given the cost acquisition and time factor of expanding the footprint of the Abbey at its present location, we have no choice but to begin looking elsewhere. The Carlton site is one that comes to mind,” he said after launching the education document. “We have the most imaginative and creative generation of our history and there is no expression of that creativity in our public architecture. Obviously, the regeneration and refurbishment of O’Connell Street would be greatly enhanced by a signature development such as our national theatre,” the Minister said. Speaking in the Dáil earlier, Mr O’Donoghue said that redeveloping the Abbey’s current site would be “problematic, time consuming and expensive” and that he would prefer to see it on a new city-centre site. Mr O’Donoghue qualified his later references to the Carlton site by acknowledging the current High Court challenge to the compulsory purchase order by Dublin City Council. No decision can be made about that site until the outcome of the court case. He said the Government would await the outcome of the Carlton case before making a final decision about the Abbey, “provided we don’t have to wait too long”. He would not be pressed on how long the Government might be prepared to wait. The director of the Abbey, Mr Ben Barnes, who attended the launch, said: “The Government and the Abbey are all very keen that a decision is made about the new theatre in this centenary year.” When Mr O’Donoghue last spoke on the Abbey in the Dáil on February 26th, he said the theatre’s current site “has not been ruled out, but it is beginning to look more difficult”.”
-
April 7, 2004 at 7:14 pm #728242
Anonymous
InactiveOriginally posted by Paul Clerkin
I though it lay empty because of its lack of parking spaces?There were many reasons why it wasn’t let, but the gossip at the time was that the rental price at IR50 per square foot was the primary reason versus IR38-42 for often superior specification buildings in the IFSC and Dublin 2.
It is also not a very prestigious building either, I wonder how many non-government tenants it has had over the years?
-
April 13, 2004 at 5:51 pm #728243
GrahamH
ParticipantAnyone see the repeat of the Tall Tales programme about the Pillar last night? Watching it for the second (ok 4th) time, you can see how much the place has changed even since the late 70s and 80s.
We think it’s bad now – it was woeful then, esp the Ann Summers terrace and the Dublin Bus terrace with discount stores galore.
And Burger King at the lower end was divided up into 2 or 3 tacky stores, with no unity to the facade and signs all over.
There was nasty shopping centre car-park lighting down what was a fragmented median – indeed you could even park behind O’ Cll Monument.
The distinguished Clarks building was plastered with Texaco signs, and had tacky signage for Burtons or something that was occuping the retail unit, much like every other store.
And as difficult as it is to believe, the Burger King-to-Supermacs terrace was even worse than it is now.Good things – ah the Metropole, the Capitol – no Penneys.
They fitted so well next to Easons & Mansfield, and of course flanking the GPO on the other side.
Some glimpses of Gilbeys and the precursing Georgians of Burgerland – now Schuh (Burgerland was in the Georgians before they were knocked too)
As late as 1980 O’ Cll Monument’s railings were still there – presumably removed in the works of 88.What seems bizarre now is that buses could drive up the street, turn left just inches north of where the Spike is now, cross the median and go down Nth Earl St!
It’s also very easy to see from earlier pics how mature and uniform the trees at the northen end are, compared with the ad-hoc planting further down. This area must have been so prestigious in the late 20s after all the reconstruction, with the trees well established from around 1903.
Loads of shots of O’ Cll Bridge House being built too – felt like shouting at the screen – STOP! You don’t know what you’re doing! If only you knew! Pity there isn’t an erase button on the remote – zap it to oblivion.
-
April 14, 2004 at 1:01 am #728244
Devin
ParticipantThat building you were talking about recently Graham has just been painted – the 2nd building in on Henry Street – not sure about the paint job – yellow and black. not sure if it does anything for it.
Regarding windows, from what I know of sash windows (I did a course that involved going round looking at period building details, so I gathered a certain amount of knowledge on the subject) those sashes date from the 1830 to 1850 period. The small, quadrant-shaped sash horn came in at about that time, as a strenghtening device (before that there was no sash horn at all).
After about 1850 it became possible to make larger panes of glass, so multi-paned ‘Georgian’ windows fell out of fashion – though they were still used at the back of houses cos they were still cheaper to make – and gave way to Victorian two-over-two or one-over-one paned sash windows. Sometimes, to economise, the glazing bars of Georgian windows would simply be removed and a single pane of glass inserted. This is what I think happened with the windows at the corner building – the travel agents. They appear to date from the same time as the multi-pane windows next door. I reckon if you could see them up close, you would see the marks of where the glazing bars were removed.
A larger and more decorative sash horn began to be made with Victorian windows. A really common mistake around town that annoys me is when newly-made ‘Georgian’ sashes include the curly Victorian sash horn – it looks too fussy on multi-pane sashes!
-
April 14, 2004 at 8:33 am #728245
Anonymous
InactiveOriginally posted by Graham Hickey
Loads of shots of O’ Cll Bridge House being built too – felt like shouting at the screen – STOP! You don’t know what you’re doing! If only you knew! Pity there isn’t an erase button on the remote – zap it to oblivion.Yeah, Graham apparantly there was a sequel planned aswell. It was cancelled in the last minute and we have Ballast House instead. However, I have heard that it is only computer generated and could actually be switched off at any moment! 😉
-
April 14, 2004 at 5:07 pm #728246
GrahamH
Participantheh heh
I hate Victorian horns on Georgian sashes too, esp on crappy repro houses. The best are the PVC versions that swing outwards with the horns attached. Unbelievable!
The horns were also useful for strenghtening the frames as a result of the new Victorian plate or cylinder glass, which was much much heavier than the wafer-thin Georgian crown glass.
I’m glad you say the glass was introduced around 1850, most people – including Peter Pearson – say it came here in the 1830/40s. This is not the case – certainly not for mainstream use.
I have yet to come across a single example prior to 1852/3, which was when the Mansion House had it installed as possibly the first building ever here. An indication of its price is down the sides of the House, where the original 1710 chunky sashes remain.
Cylinder glass was developed in Bristol I think in 1832, but took some years to come down in price and make its way to Ireland, and for it to be made here.Even the largest of houses being built on the Pembroke Estate in the late 1850s only had it installed in the drawing room windows, with Geogian glass and sashes upstairs.
1860 is a good marker for the ‘cheapening’ of such glass, meaning it could be made in larger sheets less expensively, resulting in the standard one-over-one sashes replacing two-over-two as you say Devin. Hence the two-over-twos were now shunted upstairs in Victorian houses, with the larger new panes kept for drawing rooms downstairs. (Sorry, I’m something of a fanatic on Irish windows!)
Suppose the horns on the windows on O’ Cll St are a bit of a giveaway, moreso the glazing bars which would be three times as chunky if dating from the 1740s. The first floor Victorian sash is obviously new because it’s a larger window, but the upper windows may indeed have just had the bars removed, I’ve seen this done elsewhere as well. And the fact that every pane in the older yellow side windows, save 2 or 3, have modern smooth glass instead of wavy crwon, has to be as a result of the Pillar explosion, there’s no other expnation for so much replacement glass, and for some old panes to remain. Suppose insurance claims for the time could confirm this or otherwise.
I find the contrast between Merrion Square and Fitzwilliam Square facinating, the fact that Fitzwilliam has way more replacement Victorian plate than Merrion, despite Merrion being older and supposedly needing replacement windows sooner.
I think this conveys the difference in class of the areas; Merrion was was full of the professions, aging aristocrats and stuffy ‘old money’ in the 1860s, whereas Fitzwilliam was inhabited by fashionable, youngish ‘new money’ merchants, who were much more conscious of taste and fashion and ‘conspicuous consumption’. Plate and cylinder glass were something of status symbols, something that the musty old folk on Merrion Square didn’t care about anymore.
That’s my theory anyway – like to think that such egos influnced the city’s architecture – suppose just like every other building! -
April 14, 2004 at 5:48 pm #728247
notjim
Participantso i have a 1860 victorian house, albiet a very crappy one, with 6 over 6 windows with horns.
-
April 14, 2004 at 6:19 pm #728248
GrahamH
ParticipantAha, one must also factor in whether it’s an artisan house, or lower-middle class, middle middle class or upper middle class – in Victorian terms of course 🙂
If it’s a typical smaller single-storey terraced villa, with maybe one or two steps up to the front door, then Georgian sashes were common until about 1865, esp if the developer was a tight-wad, which was common in the 1860s cause the real cash to be made in that decade was in larger housing.
Alhough admittedly most housing like this would have a two-over-two as a drawing room window by 1860 with Gerogians to the rear, so if yours is similar – um – it would have been a tad out of date at time of completion!
Some areas of the city tended to be more ‘progressive’ than others, so it also depends on what general area your house is in. -
April 15, 2004 at 9:41 am #728249
notjim
Participantthanks for this graham, its a terraced villa style house, one story at the front, two at the back with a foolishly small number of foolishly large rooms and 20% of the floor area given over to the hall. i really like it but i can’t work out why houses where built like this, what was the market? its in the east wall by the way.
so for the drift off topic.
-
April 15, 2004 at 2:45 pm #728250
GrahamH
ParticipantIreland is great for its halls, no developer here would ever contemplate building a house even today without a hall, unless it’s a bedsit or similar – unlike the UK where walk-in ‘Neighbours’ style houses are everywhere. UK based people I know are constantly amazed at the size of halls here.
The East Wall would explain the windows – typical lower-middle class housing stuffed in on cheap land near the railway line that no one else wanted – accociated with dirt & disease etc. In contrast with Clontarf across the water on comparitively high ‘healthy’ ground, hence larger more fashionable housing here.
If your house was the same but in a different location, say off one of the middle-middle class Circular roads, it would have a two-over-two window at the front, being in a more fashionable area.Villas were built as you describe simply to copy larger houses, despite them having no room! So you’d have a large drawing room to the front and a statement of an entrance hall simply to impress visitors, to the detriment of the rest of the house.
To devote so much space to entertaining and reception of guests was absolutely crucial to lower-middle class people to distinguish themselves from the masses – of which there were a great many in Dublin! I know it all sounds so simplistic and ordered to divide society up in this way, but they’re just general descriptive strokes – with a lot of blurring between them all.To make it relevant – O’ Connell Street is 2 miles from the East Wall.
O’ Connell Street has windows too 🙂 -
April 15, 2004 at 11:21 pm #728251
Devin
ParticipantI like the way, in the Merrion and especially Fitzwillian Square areas, if the ground-to-top floor windows of a house have been changed at some point, there’s almost always a nice 8-over-8 or 10-over-10 original sash lurking in the basement.
200 year old sash windows kick ass! You can’t beat the encrustation of paint, the panes of sparkling old glass here and there, and the general well-aged look.
-
April 19, 2004 at 10:07 am #728252
GregF
ParticipantDoes n’t the area in front of the GPO which is now almost complete look absolutely great, especially now that the foilage is opening on the trees. What great vision and urban planning here and what a brilliant public space that has been created. It has given this part of the street an air of dignity, solemnity and style too. It will be a great location for holding any official events, commemerations, parades or pageants etc…
What a superb job and money well spent! -
April 19, 2004 at 10:36 am #728253
blue
ParticipantNew guidelines for the design of shop fronts for O’Connell Street have been launched in an effort to restore O’Connell street back to its former glory.
The guidelines have been prepared by Howley Harrington architects in partnership with Dublin City Council.
A statement form the Council said: “Local businesses have also an important role to play in the physical transformation of the street and the restoration of the main civic thoroughfare of our capital city to its former architectural glory.”
The council has already demonstrated its commitment to the provision of a revitalised O’Connell Street with the Spire of Dublin and the ongoing construction of a grand civic plaza to the front of the GPO.
City Manager John Fitzgerald commented: “By the end of this year, LUAS will be traversing O’Connell Street at the junction with Abbey Street, making the street more accessible and bringing many new visitors to the street. Some shops and businesses have made their contribution by properly maintaining or successfully installing well designed and carefully constructed shop fronts and facades.â€
-
April 19, 2004 at 10:39 am #728254
Anonymous
InactiveBlue, thanks for that. where can one get a copy of those guidelines? are they on line or can they be got from the Council Offices?
-
April 19, 2004 at 10:45 am #728255
blue
ParticipantCopies of the Shop Front Guidelines are available from Paul Crowe, Central Area Office
paul.crowe@dublincity.ie -
April 19, 2004 at 11:33 am #728256
Anonymous
InactiveThanks for that Blue.
Phil
-
April 20, 2004 at 10:55 am #728257
alastair
ParticipantA little OT, but I noticed some really nice shop frontage work for the ‘Diagem’ phone shop at the top of Capel street. It was nothing special before (to say the least), but the building has been given a renovation, and the shop now has a tasteful and well finished steel and black glazed finish, with internal security shuttering. Discreet but effective signage. Was most impressed.
-
April 20, 2004 at 10:58 am #728258
urbanisto
ParticipantThats because its a DCC flagship project. part of Living Over the Shop. The CC renovated the buildings so I guess their idea of what a good shop front should look like would be part of that. Its just a pity that their planning dept didnt see any inconsistency in allowing the monstrosity across the road to be built (corner Capel St and St Marys Abbey Luas line)
-
April 20, 2004 at 11:12 am #728259
blue
ParticipantYeah, I was also very impressed by these shops and now I’m even more impressed to hear that DCC are behind it.
But I totally agree, the new monstrosity where the Luas crosses Capel St is so out of place its unbelievable. Although its not finished there is enough of it to know what it’s going to look like. It’s just wrong on some many levels. This building wouldn’t look out of place in an early nineties technology park but certainly does on Capel St.
Its like the DCC had to redress their good work further down the street.
-
April 21, 2004 at 5:44 pm #728260
GrahamH
ParticipantIf that’s the building I think it is – heaven preserve us – have you ever seen such rubbish. It’s like a time capsule dug up from the depths of a 1992 cesspit! What a shame.
Was on the plaza on O’ Cll St today – wow I see what Greg F is talking about. All the railings are gone from the median and the area looks fantastic! And the median stonework flows almost seamlessly into the road, something one couldn’t really appreciate till now. What a pity lighting wasn’t sunken into each of the lighter coloured squares – how amazing would that have looked at night!
The first of the carriageway lamposts have gone in too – complete with brackets to hold celebratory banners. There’s posts going onto the median too for the smaller pedestrian lights which’ll look really good. -
April 21, 2004 at 5:50 pm #728261
GrahamH
ParticipantForgot to say – Penneys are proposing a complete revamp of their store on the street, along the lines of the Mary Street branch, to start in the autumn.
My ‘informer’ didn’t know if any exterior works are happening – although one can presume the marble on the ground floor is going – heres hoping Mr Builder accidentally pulls down the rest of the facade while he’s at it.
Interestingly the second floor is occupied by none other than their vast stock room, stretching right up to the main street facade. No wonder BHS wanted a four storey concrete facade at the front – although they almost succeded down poor Princes Street. They’ve a huge stock room in the basement too. -
April 22, 2004 at 5:02 pm #728262
Devin
ParticipantNo. 2 Capel Street – Diagem – was not part of the DCC flagship – it was just 3 & 4. The refurbishment of 2 was a private initiative.
There was a ghastly oversized plastic fascia on the Diagem shop previously. But underneath that there was actually a nice ’50s black vitrolite shopfront. When the owners applied to refurbish the building a few years ago they sought to replace that shopfront with a modern wooden one. an taisce’s dublin planning committee asked that they retain the vitrolite one. Parts of the vitrolite were cracked and exact matching replacements couldn’t be got, so it was agreed to replace the whole thing in the same style. It’s a pity the original vitrolite couldn’t have been repaired, but I think the end result is good and looks smart.
Now if only somebody would do something about that awful ‘Pops Deli’ one on the corner.
-
April 23, 2004 at 8:51 am #728263
GregF
ParticipantAnyone see the arty air spot light show… (aka Bat signal)….which kicked off last night on O’Connell Street as part of the celebrations for the accession of the new membership states to the EU.
An art installation designed by Rafael Lozano Hemmer, which involves the participation of the public to design the light constellations, it looked brilliant as it lit up the sky with the Spire amongst it all. People stood in awe. It should become somewhat of a permanent feature. -
April 23, 2004 at 1:36 pm #728264
J. Seerski
ParticipantMassive new light fittings are being placed at four corners of the new plaza – I await with interest….
-
April 23, 2004 at 2:05 pm #728265
Morlan
ParticipantOriginally posted by J. Seerski
Massive new light fittings are being placed at four corners of the new plaza – I await with interest….COOL! I take it that these will be to light up the spire??
At last!!
-
April 23, 2004 at 5:29 pm #728266
Devin
Participantand that silly strip of light around the middle of the Spire can be removed??
-
April 23, 2004 at 6:21 pm #728267
louisfields2003
Participantwell done eire worth all the money
-
April 23, 2004 at 6:21 pm #728268
chewy
Participantdamnit we need more clouds….
yeah i was impressed with it, its hard to get your head around how you could make an interesting unique design? anyone tried?
lasers shows etc have rarley been that good, beyond a brief novelty but i like this…. lots of ppl stopping to look
i think it be cooler if it was movely all the time. any get some good pictures of it, the one on the front of the times was good get ol jim larken in there, ya know getting the a _good_ picture. i was talking ones of the lights hitting the statues on top of the gpo but i din’t have zoon on me camera…
and yes oconnell streets looks good… whts ya think of the square trees…? the look really nice that they are budding so quickly… still would have prefferred the old ones…
-
April 23, 2004 at 7:27 pm #728269
GrahamH
ParticipantOnce they fill out they’ll look really good.
See what you mean about the lights hitting the statues, looks great, as does the way various usually unnoticed chimneys suddenly blaze up with light.
The GPO bollards have yet to be reinstated and the area looks decidedly finished – hmmmmmmmm
-
April 28, 2004 at 2:16 pm #728270
GrahamH
Participant28/4/2004
The lamps are being connected now to the aforementioned massive poles. These will be used to blast the plaza with light, as there are no street lamps here for obvious reasons.
There’s similar poles in pics in the IAP I think.It’s a pity they have to stand outside the GPO, but at least they’re centred on it, which unfortunately is not the case for Clerys, where one pokes right up to one side of its facade – there’s little that can be done about it though as it has to be at the corner of the plaza. It’s not going to look any better when all 6 or so lamps are attached.
There is no provision to date for the floodlighting of the GPO either.I’ll try and get pics tomorrow.
What are very impressive, what were pretty much touted from the start, are the French styled lamposts for the carriageways, which have pedestrian lamps at a lower level to the rear to light the pavements. Their glass-domed heads look great, not least because they’re new and shiny, lets hope they stay like that!
Presumably smaller similar heads will be used for the median pedestrian lighting.Passing today, it was interesting to note that the steel grip-studs at all the new pedestrian crossings are laid and drilled by eye, a man was there with a massive drill making the holes, while another guy came along after, squirted cement or similar into the hole and pushed in the studs!
Things are coming on really great overall.
-
April 28, 2004 at 4:15 pm #728271
Morlan
ParticipantThat’s great. Somebody told me that the Burger bars on O’Connell St are to be removed, Burger King, MacDonalds etc. Is this true? And what sort of changes are being made to various shop fronts? I take it that neon lighting is now a no no.
-
April 28, 2004 at 4:19 pm #728272
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterThat just sounds like wishful thinking Morlan…..
-
April 28, 2004 at 6:05 pm #728273
chewy
Participantimho there to be bit too much street furniture ie poles, there put a pedestrain corssing right in front of jim larkin
im a big fan of the statue, (not so much the man) and altough the light fittings arn’t as big as the usuall black ones they do sorta stick in front of the statue taking from it’ll be hard to take picture without getting a traffic light in the frame
-
April 29, 2004 at 2:39 am #728274
Starch
Participant….no offence man, but have you been typing with you’re forehead
-
April 29, 2004 at 12:10 pm #728275
urbanisto
ParticipantA good news story from O’Connell St….
I noticed a recent planning application to expand the Centra at 16 O’Connell St. This is the mid-terrace shop just after Clery’s. The proposal involved knocking through into No. 15 and erecting new signage etc. It would have looked awful and completely ruined the fact that these are two seperately designed buildings. The fact that there are already a zillion other convenience stores in the area added to my poor opionion of this development.
I was considering an objection and went to the Planning Office only to find the proposal had been refused by DCC on the ground that it would ruin the exsiting terrace and be contrary to the provisons of the new Architectural Conservation Area for O’C St. It also noted that no more permissions for fastfood outlets or convenience stores would be granted along O’Connell St.
A quiet victory of sorts and a promising development for the street.
Regarding the new lighting. There does seem to be an awful lots of lighting in the cental median. You can now see the fixtures that will be used. I have seem them used a lot in London. I am looking forward to the new lighting scheme being switched on… any idea when?
-
April 29, 2004 at 12:10 pm #728276
urbanisto
ParticipantA good news story from O’Connell St….
I noticed a recent planning application to expand the Centra at 16 O’Connell St. This is the mid-terrace shop just after Clery’s. The proposal involved knocking through into No. 15 and erecting new signage etc. It would have looked awful and completely ruined the fact that these are two seperately designed buildings. The fact that there are already a zillion other convenience stores in the area added to my poor opionion of this development.
I was considering an objection and went to the Planning Office only to find the proposal had been refused by DCC on the ground that it would ruin the exsiting terrace and be contrary to the provisons of the new Architectural Conservation Area for O’C St. It also noted that no more permissions for fastfood outlets or convenience stores would be granted along O’Connell St.
A quiet victory of sorts and a promising development for the street.
Regarding the new lighting. There does seem to be an awful lots of lighting in the cental median. You can now see the fixtures that will be used. I have seem them used a lot in London. I am looking forward to the new lighting scheme being switched on… any idea when?
-
April 29, 2004 at 12:27 pm #728277
urbanisto
ParticipantA good news story from O’Connell St….
I noticed a recent planning application to expand the Centra at 16 O’Connell St. This is the mid-terrace shop just after Clery’s. The proposal involved knocking through into No. 15 and erecting new signage etc. It would have looked awful and completely ruined the fact that these are two seperately designed buildings. The fact that there are already a zillion other convenience stores in the area added to my poor opionion of this development.
I was considering an objection and went to the Planning Office only to find the proposal had been refused by DCC on the ground that it would ruin the exsiting terrace and be contrary to the provisons of the new Architectural Conservation Area for O’C St. It also noted that no more permissions for fastfood outlets or convenience stores would be granted along O’Connell St.
A quiet victory of sorts and a promising development for the street.
Regarding the new lighting. There does seem to be an awful lots of lighting in the cental median. You can now see the fixtures that will be used. I have seem them used a lot in London. I am looking forward to the new lighting scheme being switched on… any idea when?
-
April 29, 2004 at 3:13 pm #728278
GrahamH
ParticipantPretty soon, the 70s floodlights on the buildings have been covered over with black plastic in anticipation of the big switch on – or switch off.
That’s good to hear about Centra and that terrace – I never noticed that planning notice – was the decision to grant permission for Super Valu made before or after this supposed ban on any other convenience stores?
There are a lot of the median lights alright – they’re the same as the ones in that park off Gardiner St – they’re in the IAP too.
I’ll have pics later. -
April 29, 2004 at 8:39 pm #728279
J. Seerski
ParticipantMaybe its just a guess, but those new ‘massive’ lights on the plaza maybe adjustable via remote control??
Also, I noted from the list of protected structures from DCC that ALL of the bollards in front of the GPO were protected – alas only two were re-installed. Who was responsible for this???!!!!
Otherwise the whole project seems o be coming together – in part at least. Then we have mayday to look forward to and it will be all wrecked…. Any bets on all those trees being intact on Tuesday next???!!!
-
April 30, 2004 at 9:30 am #728280
GregF
ParticipantGiven that the crusties are supposed to be in favour of protecting the environment, I would’nt put it passed them however if they vandalized the trees and street. Such is their somewhat twisted and anarchic ideology. If that will be the case thay are no better than the gurriers who wantonly snap in half the newly planted tree saplings in housing estates.
Anyone see the plant containers that have been placed around the city….ie O’Connell Bridge, the Boardwalk, High Street. They have these new ‘Hanging Gardens of Babylon’ quirky looking 3 tiered things planted up with ivy and perennials as well as the regular box containers. Placed in proper street locations could look really good however. A great way of greening the city too.
-
April 30, 2004 at 7:22 pm #728281
GrahamH
ParticipantSome of the plants along the Boardwalk are looking decidedly exotic – pretty pricey too. The planters are a bit too over-powering for the boardwalk, as if they’re concealing the fact that there’s not enough seating along the bare walls.
-
April 30, 2004 at 7:29 pm #728282
GrahamH
ParticipantAll of the GPO bollards have been listed for well over 10 years now – walking by the other day it is easy to see how the CC may be viewing them as an obstruction in the context of the new paving and plaza.
I’ll give them till the end of June when this phase is offically finished – and if they’re not back by then it’ll be time to follow it up.Anyway here’s the first of many pics from yesterday, Thursday the 29th – the big lights.
-
April 30, 2004 at 7:32 pm #728283
GrahamH
ParticipantFollowed by the new carriageway posts:
-
April 30, 2004 at 7:34 pm #728284
GrahamH
ParticipantNext a plan view of the Plaza – thanks to Clerys for this:
(look how good the GPO pillars look now) -
April 30, 2004 at 7:37 pm #728285
GrahamH
ParticipantNext some views of the median:
-
April 30, 2004 at 7:40 pm #728286
GrahamH
ParticipantFollowed by some shots of the median lamposts which are sooooo 1997!
-
April 30, 2004 at 7:43 pm #728287
GrahamH
ParticipantThe LED sunken lighting – these are going to look fantastic when lit – I’m guessing the inner or outer ring of lights may be a different colour:
-
April 30, 2004 at 7:45 pm #728288
GrahamH
ParticipantHimself:
-
April 30, 2004 at 7:50 pm #728289
GrahamH
ParticipantThe greatest Irish photographic cliche, Larkin silhoutted.
Don’t worry chewy – it’s still possible to take a half decent pic of him! -
April 30, 2004 at 7:52 pm #728290
GrahamH
ParticipantFinally – the plaza trees are coming on great:
-
April 30, 2004 at 8:03 pm #728291
GrahamH
ParticipantThose bins all over the place are temporary.
And finally finally – Mansfield Chambers with the Luas power lines passing by – what a pity, in front of one of the street’s finest.
Suppose every other European capital lives with it. -
May 1, 2004 at 1:56 pm #728292
Niall
ParticipantExcellent Gabriel as usual!!!
Notice from one of the pics, that very interesting Irish disease:
Road signs half way down poles, grrrrrrrrrrrr
Nowhere else in the world is this witnessed!!
-
May 2, 2004 at 5:45 am #728293
Morlan
ParticipantThanks Graham, they’re greats pics.
It has been so long since I’ve been in Dublin, I didn’t realise that the roads on the street had been narrowed.
Is it buses and taxis only now?
Also, now that there is more footpath space, will the restaurants and pubs on the street be able to put some outdoor seating for the summer? There was always a lack of outdoor seating in Dublin in the summer compared to other Europeann cities.
-
May 2, 2004 at 2:35 pm #728294
notjim
Participantyou’d be surprised then morlan, outdoor seating is the thing for pubs since the smoking ban
-
May 3, 2004 at 1:57 am #728295
Devin
ParticipantWell done for all the photos.
The photo of the plaza from Clery’s illustrates very well the function of the curved edges of the pavements: to visually blend the higher surface into the lower surface and reduce the cluttering effect of pavement / road / pavement / road / pavement – make it look more like a unified plaza.
This trick reminds me of the ‘ha-ha’ at the end of the lawn at the back of Castletown House; a wall and ditch that prevented animals from coming right up to the back of the house, but looking from the house all you saw was the lawn blending into the parkland beyond.
-
May 3, 2004 at 3:57 pm #728296
GrahamH
ParticipantWas it just the animals it prevented from coming near 🙂
It’s a brilliantly simple idea – it was used all over Britain too to protect ornamental gardens near the house from the wilder parts of the estate.A feature that has come into view since being able to walk in front of the GPO portico is the top of the two tall bollards at either side, where the holes from the lamps which used to be perched atop are now evident. The right-hand one has been long blocked up but weirdly the left-hand one hasn’t.
There’s a pic here of the hole – it’s difficult to say if the lamps were ever converted from oil to gas and hence if the hole is the result of a gas pipe. I’ve seen a pic from 1900 and the lamps appear to be gone already.
You can see too in the pic where the plinth of the lamp used to sit.
-
May 4, 2004 at 10:20 am #728297
-
May 6, 2004 at 12:23 pm #728298
CTR
ParticipantWalked down in front of the GPO Tuesday night at about 10PM. WOW! Even in the rain it looked good.
The quality of the paving, the lighting, the trees – everything is to a high standard.
One thing, the traffic lanes are badly marked and I’d worry that pedestrians could easily stray into them (especially at night, in the rain).
As regards locking bikes to trees. The council shoud remove and impound them immediately. There should be a solution though, in fairness to cyclists. Some appropriate provision should be made to have discreet bike stands on the street or off it (say Princes street near Arnotts Car Park entrance).
I agree with earlier post re putting signs half way down poles. The tram crossing signs at the middle Abbbey St junction have this ailment. The signs are at the correct height but the poles are just too long!
Does anyone have any idea on when they are going to get working on the rest of the street? Let’s hope that they don’t wait too long. The plaza is lovely but the rest of the street is still very run down.
-
May 8, 2004 at 3:00 pm #728299
chewy
Participantthats another thing i noticed, did anyone else? because of the way the plaza is all dark-grey block it is very difficult to know when to stop and pause before crossing the road, the idea is nice but in practice its disarming
in recent times i tried make a conscious effort not to jay walk but you do find yourself walking across the road not cos the lights has turned green but cos a number of people around have started to cross sheep like
btw the cobble-like tram line stretches look nice
-
May 10, 2004 at 4:28 am #728300
Devin
ParticipantWell I think the traffic is still going through there way too fast. It should be made go ultra slow. There doesn’t seem to be any recognition on the part of drivers that the plaza area is now a sensitive, pedestrian-oriented zone. It’s still just a case of ‘piss down O’Connell Street as fast as you can’.
And you’re right, it’s dangerous. They’ll have to do something about that.
-
May 12, 2004 at 1:44 pm #728301
GrahamH
ParticipantYep – they’re going way to fast – I was in the car on O’ Cll Bridge yesterday for the first time in years (it was really scary being sandwiched in the middle of the acres of traffic!) and when the lights turned green the surrounding traffic just booted it away up the street – and if the plaza is empty ahead with the lights green at the Spire, they race to make them too, esp motorbikes.
With regard to the distinction between roadway and pavement, this was obviously going to be a problem from day one – it’s so tempting just to walk across the usually vacant plaza roadways, indeed to such an extent that the crossings at the Spire look almost ludicrous with half the street empty, often with traffic held up at the Abbey junction.
Certainly the tripping factor from not noticing the change in levels is an issue, but then again if you use the crossings as we should be – there isn’t a problem!The bikes tied to the trees look awful, and they will damage them over time. This must be stopped but a partial explanation is that the bike-park behind O’ Cll Monument has been removed for the moment.
What is completely unacceptable is the parking of massive motor bikes in the middle of the median, which is happening all the time. Indeed when taking the earlier photos I was restricted from taking a few wide shots because they were in the way.
The cheek of them, it’s the same as parking your car there. These must be clamped, that’ll stop them pretty smartish. -
May 12, 2004 at 1:49 pm #728302
Anonymous
InactiveI am making the assumption that the new civic plaza demarcated by the trees is really only there for use during civic functions. ie, it is only really designed to be functional during certain celebrations or events when the street is closed off to traffic. Does anyone know what the deal with it is? I am sure the aim is for the traffic to go slower through it all the time, but I don’t really see it functioning fully except at the times which I have mentioned above. Anyone else any thoughts on this?
Thanks
Phil
-
May 12, 2004 at 2:39 pm #728303
GrahamH
ParticipantWell it has the function of addressing the GPO which was as big an issue as the ceremonial function during the planning. Don’t know if you remember Phil the scrawny 80s trees that used to block the view of the building but their absence has made such a difference.
But yes – to an extent the plaza is somewhat obsolete in that most people don’t even want to walk down its median section because of how exposed it is, you feel a bit uncomfortable – and it doesn’t appear to lead anywhere as well.
But the views of the GPO from here, in the middle, are unparalled, and the way the perspective of the building changes as you walk along is fantastic – it makes such a powerful statement now.
It’s difficult to stand back and view the plaza in the context of the street as a whole, as we’re seeing it being assembled all the time, as well as the lead up to it, ie the stretch from the quays that has yet to be finished – but I think it works.
Once the lower stretch is finished and you can walk along the lines of trees approaching the Spire, and then suddenly the whole place opens out, I think it will be felt that you’re somewhere special and that this area of the street is being treated the way it deserves. -
May 12, 2004 at 6:28 pm #728304
Anonymous
InactiveGraham, sorry if I came across in a negative way. I fully agree with you about the way it opens up the view of the GPO. I loved walking past outside it for the first time a few weeks ago (i think i put a post about it up). I suppose that all I am saying is that it will probably work at its best when it is being used for functions etc.
Thanks
Phil
-
May 13, 2004 at 10:47 am #728305
asdasd
ParticipantWhy no street furniture in the centre median? Like something facing the GPO – it does look very good from there. Or is supposed to be a walkway only?
-
May 13, 2004 at 1:54 pm #728306
bigjoe
Participantdrove down o’connell st this morning for the first time in a while. I thought the tress looked really well. the middle part of the street is really beginning to take shape now nicely.
-
May 13, 2004 at 7:31 pm #728307
GrahamH
ParticipantSuppose there’s no seating there because – well, would you want to sit there!?
And for the sake of a few lamposts it’s not worth obstructing the views of the GPO. They better get rid of those appalling bins soon however.
But certainly yes – it has little other use outside of uncancelled special events 🙂
-
May 14, 2004 at 12:01 pm #728308
asdasd
ParticipantSuppose there’s no seating there because – well, would you want to sit there!?
yeaah. I would actually. The traffic seems light enough these days – so that sitting outside on a bench facing the GPO would be pleasant enough. Nobody seems to walk this meridian as it doesn’t seem , yet, to go anywhere.
-
May 14, 2004 at 8:26 pm #728309
GrahamH
ParticipantFrankly I’d agree – it would be pleasant as a seated area, but not in the format of benches scattered about in the windswept plaza of present – one would be embarrassingly exposed sitting there.
What could work, if Dublin would grow up a bit, is a low level water feature designed in an elongated fashion to run along the length of the centre of the median – so that it acknowledges not only the linear nature of the median and the street as a whole, but also acts as an unobtrusive but impressive centrepiece to the plaza. Or maybe it could be divided into two long pools. Of course the primary concern would be keeping it in proportion to the plaza and the width of the median – I think exceptionally crude box drawn on the attached pic below isn’t too bad! (although perhaps the traffic would be too close)
And if course seating in the form of its polished stone wall could run the entire way around the feature. It would be packed on sunny summer days with people relaxing running their fingers through the water etc. And the benefit to the street would be immense – one of the primary aims of the IAP is to keep people on the street rather than it being used as a corridor to get elsewhere.
One can easily imagine the scene on postcards, it would look great – day or night, perhaps even better after dark with loads of low fountains lit up in bright white light, the plaza lit from above and an illuminated GPO as a powerful backdrop.
It could be a great architectural statement in a public space – a space Dublin has always lacked. -
May 14, 2004 at 9:10 pm #728310
PaulC
ParticipantI am sorry Graham – but that is the worst idea I have heard in a long time. You might as well have said “Bring back the Anna Liffey fountain” – It would be a rubbish collector.
-
May 14, 2004 at 9:24 pm #728311
GrahamH
ParticipantMy point exactly – every other European capital can treat them with respect.
Even if it was mistreated here, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility to maintain it properly. -
May 15, 2004 at 10:32 am #728312
Anonymous
InactiveI don’t think it is too bad an idea. I know I have asked this before, but I am still wondering if those 5 random pillars will ever be put in place opposite the GPO? (or was it just a bit of artistic liscence within the IAP?)
-
May 15, 2004 at 3:59 pm #728313
chewy
Participantdid any of read that piece in the indo, i can’t remember the name but a guy who has a regualr column wrote about how he went to the departmnet of education off eh malborough street it is, in where those nice neo-classical? buildings are and sat down in a seating area to have his lunch and was told by an employee, not a security man of porter he couldn’t eat his lunch their….
he said they don’t put seats cos your supposed to be shopping not sitting but that’s not entirely true but i often find it hard to find somewhere to sit for ten minutes to read newspaper or have my lunch … in the city centre… i usually go to the central bank or the boardwalk which is a great for that….
but especially along o connell street theres nowhere really but to sit up on the daniel o connell statue..
and how about somewhere sheltered to sit if its raining or windy?
what was that someone was saying about parking motobikes on the median where should one park your motobike?
-
May 15, 2004 at 5:52 pm #728314
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterI’ve been run off the Dept Ed premises twice now when I tried to take photographs of the buildings.
-
May 17, 2004 at 10:57 am #728315
blue
ParticipantI think the DCC is afraid of vagrants and skateboarders taking over any seating provided so instead of dealing with those two groups they just don’t provide any seating in the first place therefore avoiding the “problem”.
Look what happened on South Kings Street last year, the DCC removed the beautiful tomb like seating they provided because a few rate paying businesses complained about the clientele using them.
Those seats are now lying unused somewhere maybe they could be used in O’Connell St somewhere but then again they might look like an after thought. They defiantly should be taken out of storage they are very different looking and probably very expensive.
Dublin certainly could do with more water features, we fare very badly on this front compared with the continentals but I think the kiosk cafes should eventually use the space in front of the GPO. It would be a great place to stop for a coffee and I’m sure they kiosks can be moved when the space is need for an event.
-
May 17, 2004 at 11:40 am #728316
notjim
Participantsurely the area in front of the gpo is designed as a square and putting stuff in the middle would ruin the formal beauty of it, kiosk and seats and so on can go in the meridian to either side.
-
May 17, 2004 at 12:15 pm #728317
blue
ParticipantMore like a rectangle but I see your point.
I just think it just looks empty at the moment and un-square like, almost like a deserted island despite the carriageways being of similar design. No one seems to use it even to get to somewhere else. Most squares have some sort of occasional activity, like a market, why not a semi permanent cafe? But if the cafes are planned to go along the sides then something else is needed.
-
May 17, 2004 at 1:06 pm #728318
Anonymous
InactiveI know it sounds a little far fetched, but what about benches that are solid and can rise up out of the ground to be used whilst the square is not being used for functions, but to be sunk back down when it is? They could opperate in a similar fashion to those bollards that rise up and down to allow delivery vehicles into pedestrian areas in the morning, and stop traffic from entering at other times.
-
May 17, 2004 at 1:51 pm #728319
blue
ParticipantVery Thunderbirds 😉
-
May 17, 2004 at 2:33 pm #728320
GrahamH
ParticipantThose rise-out-of-the-ground toilets (what are they called again?) never came here in the end – they were proposed a few years ago now.
I don’t think kiosks would be appropriate on the plaza, esp if the refrigerated containers of Grattan Bridge and Boardwalk are anything to go by – it’s more of an architectural space than an everyday place for the likes of kiosks to poke up into, and benches I think would look too small and out of scale with the overall scheme – although definitely it would be a nice space to sit if the seating was integrated into a low feature of some kind.
The kiosks (if discreet enough) will be great beneath the (eventual) canopy of the trees further down the median, with shady seating alongside.You hit it there exactly blue about the plaza being like an island – it’s just stranded there, featureless. Whereas by no means all squares have to have centrepieces, this needs one, it feels like there’s somthing wrong, something missing.
And Dublin needs water! Anna suffered from being too far up the street, in a lonely spot, just perfect as a refuse collector and home for a couple of boxes of Daz every week. The plaza is entirely different – such a feature would be exposed and (mostly) respected and enjoyed. -
May 17, 2004 at 2:56 pm #728321
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterOriginally posted by Graham Hickey
The plaza is entirely different – such a feature would be exposed and (mostly) respected and enjoyed.I see your comment and raise you your weekly wages on it…. I’m sorry but this is shite…. Dublin is better off without water features….
-
May 17, 2004 at 4:24 pm #728322
blue
ParticipantOriginally posted by Paul Clerkin
…Dublin is better off without water features….On what do you base this on, the Anna Livia Fountain?
-
May 17, 2004 at 5:16 pm #728323
-Donnacha-
ParticipantI don’t think Dubliners have enough civic pride to treat a water feature in a prominent site as anything other than a rubbish bin/ toilet.
-
May 17, 2004 at 10:13 pm #728324
GrahamH
ParticipantYep – and the Spike will be covered in graffiti within a week
If such logic was applied to the tossing of a couple of crisp packets into the fountains of Trafalgar Square, they would never have been erected.
Come on Paul – a weekly scoop across the suface with a net, a fish down for a few cans and a couple of tablets of chlorine – I’d do it myself. -
May 18, 2004 at 3:29 pm #728325
blue
ParticipantDublin has never had a substantial well-sited water feature so we just don’t know how Dubliners would treat one if they got one. I’d give them the benefit of the doubt, after all the small one in St Stephens Green is treated well!
-
May 18, 2004 at 3:33 pm #728326
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterStephen’s Green pond has to be dredged annually to take all the rubbish out of the bottom – every january, they put a coffer damn at the bridge and drain one side at a time… and then they use a jcb to remove the rubbish……
other water feature at Wolfe Tone Quay has had to be drained and left switched off….
the peace park at Christchurch Place – fountain always filthy
-
May 18, 2004 at 3:41 pm #728327
blue
ParticipantI was talking about the fountain but so what if there is a bit of maintenance! Water features add a lot to public spaces when done properly. Just look at how any other European country uses them. We just don’t do it properly here and I don’t agree with putting one outside the GPO but that’s no reason why we shouldn’t have one elsewhere in Dublin.
-
May 18, 2004 at 4:13 pm #728328
notjim
Participantthis is a bit of a change of topic but i always thought that we should make a huge glass (or perspex) dome to fit over larkin at christmas, then it could filled with artificial snow and giant fans which would switch on for a few seconds when you put a euro (for the poor or whatever) in a box. leaving it to fall gently on our hero.
-
May 18, 2004 at 4:27 pm #728329
blue
ParticipantBetween Thurderbirdesque seating and giant snow globes this thread is getting very weird/creative. Its great. :p
-
May 19, 2004 at 8:43 am #728330
Andrew Duffy
ParticipantThe fountain on Wolfe Tone Quay has been running for a couple of months. The park there is also getting done up, and the railings repainted. Perhaps something to do with the brand new tram line running beside it?
-
May 19, 2004 at 8:51 am #728331
GregF
ParticipantOriginally posted by notjim
this is a bit of a change of topic but i always thought that we should make a huge glass (or perspex) dome to fit over larkin at christmas, then it could filled with artificial snow and giant fans which would switch on for a few seconds when you put a euro (for the poor or whatever) in a box. leaving it to fall gently on our hero.They have something like that further up the street in the guise of the encased Sacred Heart statue ….I’m sure if ye shook it, snow would appear too.
-
May 19, 2004 at 9:07 am #728332
Morlan
ParticipantOriginally posted by notjim
this is a bit of a change of topic but i always thought that we should make a huge glass (or perspex) dome to fit over larkin at christmas, then it could filled with artificial snow and giant fans which would switch on for a few seconds when you put a euro (for the poor or whatever) in a box. leaving it to fall gently on our hero.:p That sounds so tacky! Bring it on.
-
May 19, 2004 at 9:31 am #728333
notjim
Participantencased Sacred Heart: the taxi drivers shrine, erected by Dublin’s taxi drivers to celebrate the marian year of 19 whatever, i have to say this is one of my favourite things on o’connell street, its so domestic somehow, its like something in someones house, only bigger.
-
May 19, 2004 at 12:01 pm #728334
Sue
Participantquote:
encased Sacred Heart: the taxi drivers shrine, erected by Dublin’s taxi drivers to celebrate the marian year of 19 whatever, i have to say this is one of my favourite things on o’connell street, its so domestic somehow, its like something in someones house, only bigger.what a load of nonsense. It’s another attempt by the Catholic fascist majority to shove their nonsensical beliefs down our throats
-
May 19, 2004 at 12:12 pm #728335
notjim
Participantgosh, i better go and have another look, that’s not how i remembered it.
-
May 19, 2004 at 12:14 pm #728336
Anonymous
InactiveStephen’s Green pond has to be dredged annually to take all the rubbish out of the bottom
yeah but have you seen what they take out ? its sludge & other crap not empty tayto bags … I suppose as the pond is surrounded by trees, many of which overhang, it gets clogged after the autumn …
-
May 19, 2004 at 12:52 pm #728337
Rory W
Participantwhat a load of nonsense. It’s another attempt by the Catholic fascist majority to shove their nonsensical beliefs down our throats
What a lovely tolerant place we live in…
Actually the statue was the only thing left from the bombardment of a building during the civil war and as it remained unscated (bit of a mirilce considering the state of the building) it was re-erected in the middle of some trees at the top of the street.
It’s nice and its harmless so leave it alone.
-
May 19, 2004 at 12:57 pm #728338
Morlan
ParticipantOriginally posted by Sue
quote:what a load of nonsense. It’s another attempt by the Catholic fascist majority to shove their nonsensical beliefs down our throats
Here here. It’s the most horrid looking thing ever. It should be removed as part of the O’C rejuvination.
-
May 19, 2004 at 1:04 pm #728339
Morlan
ParticipantOriginally posted by Sue
quote:what a load of nonsense. It’s another attempt by the Catholic fascist majority to shove their nonsensical beliefs down our throats
Here here. It’s the most horrid looking thing ever. It should be removed as part of the O’C rejuvination.
-
May 19, 2004 at 1:10 pm #728340
Mob79
Participant“Catholic fascist majority “, i can only imagine how insulting a statue of jesus must be to all of Irelands protestants and methodists etc. I like it, quirky little thing.
-
May 19, 2004 at 1:25 pm #728341
Anonymous
InactiveOriginally posted by Sue
quote:what a load of nonsense. It’s another attempt by the Catholic fascist majority to shove their nonsensical beliefs down our throats
Sue, that is one of the harshest things I have seen written on this site. The various monuments and statues on O’Connell Street portray, for me, an interesting story of the various powers who have shaped Dublin and Ireland over the last 100-150 years.
-
May 19, 2004 at 2:26 pm #728342
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterThat statue should be removed completely…
-
May 19, 2004 at 2:40 pm #728343
Anonymous
InactiveWhy?
-
May 19, 2004 at 3:01 pm #728344
GregF
ParticipantThe Father Mathew statue near the Sacred Heart is an awful looking thing too …and I say that not just because it’s connected with religion…but because it is a rather mediocre piece of sculpture. Humble I suppose like Father Mathew himself.
-
May 19, 2004 at 4:07 pm #728345
notjim
Participantlike phil said, it is part of the physical historical record and like Rory W and i said, it is quite appealing in a quirky and pecularily intimate way. i am amazed anyone would want rid of it, the healthy attitude to diversity is to allow the accreattion of culture articifact, not to remove anything that is not culturally neutral.
on the other hand, going back to GregF’s originally point, it would be tempting to have it filled with water and made home to a couple of goldfish, it would then become a monument to our emergence from faith into irony. i don’t know what the taxi-drivers would think.
on a similar note, is that religous dancing lady still around or was she removed in the renovations.
-
May 19, 2004 at 6:18 pm #728346
GrahamH
ParticipantOh she’s there alright – there only yesterday entertaining the hoards of tourists who have decended on the capital in the past two weeks 🙂
Jesus must be mortified incased in his PVC there – this is the only aspect of the statue that should be changed (the PVC that is!)
And a last thing on a water feature – yesterday was roasting, with a fantastic atmosphere in the city centre for anyone who was there, with the Boardwalk packed (with not enough seating) and as usual O’ Cll St a few degrees hotter than the rest of the city.
It would have wonderful to be able to sit at a waters edge on the street and have a Tangle Twister – no a Brunch, they’re nicer – and enjoy the sun instead of wearly plodding along in the heat.Water brings life and energy to urban spaces – one need only look at the atmosphere created by the small features in the Green alone. Maintenance really is not an issue – esp with tiled, efficient designs.
And on O’ Cll St yesterday virtually every tree on the median had bikes chained to them, with one tree having 4 attached! And people had to weave in and out of motor bikes there were so many behind the John Gray statue – and all this despite the new temporary park besdie the Spike.
This has got to stop. -
May 19, 2004 at 6:21 pm #728347
asdasd
ParticipantI am no practicing Catholic and haven’t been to Church for 10 years, except for Weddings. I say that to pre-empt criticism about being “religious”. Statements like Sue’s display the inherent extremism in Irish society – which appears sometimes as Catholic Nationalism, and other times as a re-action to it.
The dislike of the Statue because it is Catholic, is similar to the dislike many Nationalists had for Statues of British Imperialists which they felt did not represent them. They wished, like Sue, to remove this from our history – to cleanse the “evil” past like a Stalinist airbrush.
If the Catholic church is an evil force in Ireland’s ( or the World’s ) history , then so is much of what the British Empire represented. In fact, both Catholicism and British imperialism had their good and bad sides for Ireland, though I think in general – given the famine, penal laws, et al – the Catholic church edges it over the British on the good side.
But nothing – no piece of statuary or building – should be judged by who produced it, or what ideology promoted it, but by it’s aesthetic value now. Otherwise we would have to burn down those fine Georgian buildings built on the wages of rack rents, or on the profits from slavery.
I dislike that statue and so it should go somewhere else – it is not suited to O’Connell street; but not because I belong to the new wave of fanaticism which would deny a particular part of the past.
Again.Lets hope she doesn’t blow the thing up.
-
May 20, 2004 at 2:06 pm #728348
Anonymous
InactiveFrank McD talked about Ian Ritchies new book about the Spire today in the Irish Times. Sounds like it could be quite interesting
-
May 20, 2004 at 3:40 pm #728349
Morlan
ParticipantIn my opinion I think the holy statue should be removed and placed at the entrance to Tara Street dart station. It would look much better there.
-
May 20, 2004 at 3:55 pm #728350
Anonymous
InactiveSounds like you are trying to get at something there Morlan, what is it?;)
-
May 21, 2004 at 2:31 pm #728351
Sue
ParticipantWhat a load of old twaddle, Asdasd (and what a lazy moniker. Why didn’t you call yourself Qwerty ?)
Because I don’t want religious fanatics waving their icons in my face, you equate me with people (and they don’t even exist) who would burn down Georgian buildings cos the Brits built them.
Catholic statues are not part of an “evil” past, they are part of a pernicious present. I want them all removed, especially that Marian shrine on the pier at Dollymount Strand. Ireland is now a multi-denominational multi-cultural society and these icons cause offence to those of us who don’t do idolatry.
Catholics can put Mary or Padre Pio or whoever on a pedestal in their homes and worship them all day long, as far as I am concerned. But I want to be able to walk down the main street of my city without having religious relics waved in my dial.
-
May 21, 2004 at 2:33 pm #728352
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterWell said Sue!
-
May 21, 2004 at 3:40 pm #728353
Devin
ParticipantAnyone over the age of about 25 who grew up and went to school here will remember that Catholicism had a very severe grip on Ireland up until about the end of the ’80s.
A couple of years ago when I was still in my Catholic hangover I would have said get rid of that sacred heart shrine. But now I think it should be left – it’s a layer of history and quaint – the bad memorys have faded…
In ways Father Ted was the final nail in the coffin for Catholic Ireland. No man of the cloth or bride of Christ could ever be taken seriously after that. Sue I’m surprised that anyone could still hold your views in Ireland in 2004.
-
May 21, 2004 at 4:02 pm #728354
notjim
Participanti’m with devin on this, you know, eamonn casey once called me a heathen during a school visit and look what happened there. the way to seal a victory is to treat your opponent with tolerance.
-
May 21, 2004 at 4:03 pm #728355
Anonymous
InactiveSue, would you get rid of the catholic imagery used on the O’Connell monument aswell? I am starting to find this debate interesting, because it has made me think about some things that I had not thought much about before. I am not sure if we can compare the destruction and removal of colonial monuments with the proposed removal of religious iconography. I realise that there is a strong link between religion and politics, but it is not clear-cut.
-
May 21, 2004 at 5:00 pm #728356
shaun
ParticipantWhy are christian and Marian shrines in Ireland usually so cringingly dreadful, you would never dream of tearing down the Marian shrines that adorn Belgian cities. Not that I would like to see any religious statues destroyed, I mean doesn’t anyone remember the Taliban blowing up the huge Buddah statues. Maybe some day we will learn to “adore” the millions of Marian statues around the country, when they become fashionable.
-
May 21, 2004 at 5:08 pm #728357
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterWho said anything about blowing it up – take it away and let the taxi drivers adore it somewhere else hopefully indoors.., its not as it it has any intrinsic artistic or architectural value – its just a tacky plaster statue like thousands inside second rate catholic churches and presbyterys across the country….
-
May 21, 2004 at 6:27 pm #728358
Sue
ParticipantPhil, I didn’t know there was Catholic imagery on the O’Connell monument – do tell us more. But I have no problem with that…. O’Connell secured “Catholic Emancipation”, so presumably the imagery relates to that political achievement and is not simply a bit of flag-waving by fanatics.
For the record, I deplore the blowing-up of the Buddhas, but because they made a genuinely artistic statement as well as a religious one. Marian shrines in this country, with no exception that I can think of, have no artistic or aesthetic value whatsoever – they are simply in-your-face, aggressive demonstrations of what should be private beliefs. Notice how these displays of icongraphy by fundamentalists are usually (a) built really high so that we all have to see it or (b) put in a really prominent position so that we definitely can’t miss it.
If the Catholics had their way, the Blessed Virgin would be at the top of the Spire. (But then she never did get up the pole, arf arf) 😀
-
May 21, 2004 at 6:30 pm #728359
shaun
ParticipantRemoving the thing is tantamount to blowing it up, it’s a wrong way to go. We all blush and cringe a bit when we pass these things, but it is rather freaky I think. Coincidentally, was it not on this street that another famous statue was “removed” in 1966 because some people objected to it’s presence.
-
May 21, 2004 at 8:26 pm #728360
J. Seerski
ParticipantEnough! Live and let live and less smug attitudes about our culture. Live and let live – and that goes for our architectural past.
W.B. Yeats, hating the Pillar, said of the removal debate (in the 1930s – 30 years before its destruction!!!) ‘I think we should accept it as part of our tradition – and not pick and choose – though it is not a beautiful object’.
This logic was eminently reasonable and should be employed by those who want to ‘pick and choose’ the past.
I think the Sacred Heart statue is mediocre – but leave it be. Pick this out then why not the Papal Cross, the Wellington Monument, the old Parliament House sculptures…the list would go on and on…:o
-
May 21, 2004 at 8:33 pm #728361
GrahamH
ParticipantWho gives two hecks if it’s tacky – its part of the history of the street and part of the history of Ireland.
It is as much part of the street’s history as the Happy Ring House neon signs.Just as O’ Connell as the ‘Liberator’ had his part in the country’s history and the Catholic Commercial Club a few doors up, and is represented on the street, Sir John Gray did too whether people like it or not, and Larkin and William Murphy – and the Catholic Church, albethey of varying prominence.
Removing such a statue smacks of PCness of the decidedly irritating variety. And whatever about the rest of Ireland moving on, there is still a devout community in this area of central Dublin – what a crude slap in the face it would be to remove it.
Its accociation with surviving the Civil War is reason enough for its retention, just like a damaged keystone or similar would be salvaged from a building and displayed, regardless of its asthetic value.
Its horrible modern casing should be removed however – it is of no provenance or relevance and will look terrible when/if the trees are removed. -
May 22, 2004 at 12:28 am #728362
asdasd
ParticipantActually Sue, though you throw the term around I think it is you who is the fundamentalist – since you want to erase the past. And it was that which equated you with previous generations who also wanted to erase the British past in Ireland.
Nobody defending the statue here is religious, I imagine. What we are is tolerant. I don’t even particularly like the thing. However it is part of the history of Ireland. You wish to erase that past much as a fundamentalist protestant would have destroyed Catholic iconography during the English revolutions.
The fact is the totalitarian mind will appear in different generations in different guises. And when it does appear there will be threats to human liberty which tend to be presaged by either book burning or Statue bashing. The Taleban come to mind ( and by the way in their mind they are the “progressive” future).
As for the present Catholic power curtailing people’s liberty in modern Ireland. Please. We have much more to fear from the PC mob. Ask a smoker – which I am not, by the way.
And I suspect strongly that your cultural genetic propensity to fanaticism would have made you the Catholic fascist back in the day, as you are the PC fascist now.It is not surprising that Ireland has taken wholesale to political correctness either, as it has always produced a minority of sanctimonious hypocrites mostly from the leafy suburbs. Take a bow.
The curse of being a libertarian, a real liberal, is that we have to fight your fanatic type in different guises across different generations.
Lets make this clear: There are statues all over Ireland which annoy somebody somewhere, either because of the ideology behind the statue ( British, Catholic, Anti-Capitalist like Larkin) or lack of ideology ( The Spire).
How much should go Sue? All of it, or just the stuff that annoys you? And when do you finish? When finished with Ireland do you move onto Italy? What about Rio De Janeiro. That horrible cross is build on Public land – should it go? Will you burn it down in a fit of “liberalism”. Should Paisley go with you , or will ya do it alone?
( Yes. My moniker is lazy. You really got me there)
-
May 22, 2004 at 11:13 am #728363
kefu
ParticipantI don’t think it’s about religion. It’s about the fact that it’s a tacky, badly kept, glass-encased, cheap “non-monument” that looks like it was left over from a sale at a £1 shop.
It just about sums up the shoddiness of the North end of O’Connell Street.
Were the wealthy taxi-drivers to pool together and erect an actual “monument”, be it Marian or a crucifix or whatever in its stead, I don’t think anybody would object.
Plus, the reason nobody wants to remove the Papal Cross, Wellington Monument etc is because they are worthwhile, are “monumental”.
This reminds me of the bid to save the Easter Rising house on Moore Street. Despite the campaign, it’s still a shack and the upstairs windows are still boarded up. All that’s visible is that tiny plaque.
History should not be used as an excuse for mediocrity, especially not on O’Connell Street, which is now one-third a spectacular street again.
If we worked on this basis of preserve everything, we would still have those god-awful London plane trees (witnesses to what happened to the GPO – give me a break) at the middle of O’Connell Street instead of what we now have. Something that you can actually be proud of. -
May 22, 2004 at 11:15 am #728364
-Donnacha-
ParticipantJaysus, some people are getting het up over this!
I don’t think the Sacred Heart statue belongs on O’Connell Street because it’s a piece of low-grade religious iconography. I’d lump it in with those plastic Virgin Mary-shaped holy water bottles you get at Lourdes, and anyone who would defend it as religious art would be on very shaky ground.
But saying it should go merely because it’s religious smacks to me of the New Ireland revisionism that would have us believe the country’s history began with the discovery of money some time in the mid-90s and its geography stops at the Dublin commuter belt.
Ireland is not, as Sue says, a multi-denominational, multi-cultural society yet.
Things are changing, but the vast majority of us are still of Celtic stock and are still Catholic, however often we go to mass. It’s still a huge part of our culture, whether some of us like it or not. Personally, I can’t see the big deal if that manifests itself in the odd statue on our streets. As long as the statues are good.Asdad – are you getting mixed up between Rio’s Christ the Redeemer (amazing) and Montreal’s light-bulb cross (crap but strangely appropriate) I agree that Sue’s argument would see both pulled down.
-
May 22, 2004 at 2:14 pm #728365
schumann786
ParticipantLet us all bask in the glory of whatever being has created all that is around us.
Everything is achievement of some sort and so should not be looked down upon.
Everything is a celebration of spirit and endeavour.
Everybodies point of view is relevant in its own context.
Everything is manmade.
So I say enough with the whining.
Lets us build mosques and synagogues next to each other.
And let us build a golden buddha next to the sacred heart.
Everybody should be fine with that in New Ireland.Right! -
May 22, 2004 at 8:23 pm #728366
-Donnacha-
ParticipantHear hear, kefu.
-
May 22, 2004 at 8:42 pm #728367
Anonymous
InactiveOriginally posted by kefu
This reminds me of the bid to save the Easter Rising house on Moore Street. Despite the campaign, it’s still a shack and the upstairs windows are still boarded up. All that’s visible is that tiny plaque.I agree on this one, sometimes the priority for urban renewal is so strong that a choice has to be made, fossilising one house because some historical figures were arrested there was just too far.
I agree that the marian shrine should be sold to Carrolls gift shops as a prototype for yet more indonesian plastic tat.
The Taxi rank should also be moved to Cathal Brugha St, the one at the side of Clery’s works very well.
-
May 23, 2004 at 5:06 pm #728368
chewy
Participantand not cos of what they saw…
the refurbishment of o’connell street reminds of changing rooms… or those even shorter programmes on in the morning where they simply repaint the room and different colour and then the owner comes in and she says oh you made the place so much _better_ …
painting it a different colour doens’t nessecarily improve it…
ie you got square of front of the gpo but it empty and useless
and have you been reading all those things singing the praises of the spire in the papers i still think its sh**e
-
May 24, 2004 at 9:09 am #728369
tismeself
ParticipantHello to yiz all on here,” I just popped in, and I find your comments very interesting. I guess you could say that I’m from the “Rare Oul’ Times,” I left Dublin in 1957, the Royal, Nelson’s Pillar, and many other places that are probably gone by now. How about # 16 Moore Street?” (The Irish Alamo) a very historic shop from 1916. I am now 45 yrs in California and really looking forward to going back next year. I have had a book published about my growing up in my dear oul’ Dublin. Some (not many) of my family depicted in my book are still there, in fact I just talked to an old pal that I used to play with this morning on the phone, what a thrill that was, yer looking at over 50 yrs since I seen him. I have great memories of my Dublin as it was there that I recieved a great foundation for my success today, ethics, humor, making friends, and helping people around me in life. Nice to be here with “me own.”
I picked username “Tismeself” in fond memories of my grandda, who used to identify himself with that name. My real name is Leo Byrne!”
Slan
“Life is grand” -
May 24, 2004 at 9:50 am #728370
Morlan
ParticipantIt’s about the fact that it’s a tacky, badly kept, glass-encased, cheap “non-monument” that looks like it was left over from a sale at a £1 shop.
😀
Well, well said. This is the only issue here – it’s a complete heap o’ shite. If nobody is arsed to maintain it then it should go.
-
May 24, 2004 at 10:50 am #728371
Anonymous
InactiveOriginally posted by Sue
Phil, I didn’t know there was Catholic imagery on the O’Connell monument – do tell us more. But I have no problem with that…. O’Connell secured “Catholic Emancipation”, so presumably the imagery relates to that political achievement and is not simply a bit of flag-waving by fanatics.
As you said, it is more related to O’Connells political achievement in securing Catholic Emancipation (Maid of Erin holding Catholic Emancipation in her hand), but I got the impression that you found anything relating to catholicism in the urban landscape as ‘fascist’.
-
May 24, 2004 at 2:06 pm #728372
Rory W
ParticipantI just think its one of those little harmless quirky things that make us Irish – so what if it isn’t aesthetically pleasing its part of Dublin. And just like the happy ring house and the why go bald sign it isn’t to everyones taste (no matter what it represents to the individual) it’s not the worst. We should not do away with things just because they are not in vogue but should have reminders of past times (and tastes) throughout the city.
I’d be more concerned about the crappy shops and gangs of junkies on the street than a (tiny) statue.
-
May 24, 2004 at 8:58 pm #728373
GrahamH
ParticipantAgreed – it’s not as if it’s a major blemish on the streetscape.
I also agree that structures should not be preserved soley for history or their age where they impinge on projects that serve ‘the common good’.
One may percive this statue as being cheap and of poor quality but sure that’s always been the nature of religious imagery in Ireland – we have always just accepted it. Replacing it with something abstract or ‘of merit’ would be contrived in the extreme.
It is small, insignificant and representative of Irish life moreso than any other statue on the street (unfortunately including the PVC)
And as the IAP highlighted the last thing wanted prevailing on the street is nausiating ‘good taste’.
What double standards would be demonstrated by the removal of something that still has meaning for people that is ‘tacky’, whilst allowing golden arches and palm trees to proliferate but a few doors away. -
May 24, 2004 at 9:02 pm #728374
GrahamH
ParticipantForgot – the new bins have arrived. You wanted minimalist – you got minimalist!
Very nice, with large capacity, but loads of them weren’t levelled and are balanced at the most ridiculous angles on the new drainage slopes.And a new bike-park has been put on the median at the Abbey junction – not that it stops you know what.
-
June 3, 2004 at 7:28 pm #728375
GrahamH
ParticipantDick Gleeson, City Planner was on the radio last week having a chat about the development thus far – nothing new was revealed really – mainly that the next stage to be started ‘straight away’ is the median down to the bridge which will followed ‘straight away’ by the widening of the western (McDonalds) pavement (presumably surgical gloves and free health insurance will be provided to workers on this section)
Then the eastern pavement will be tackled. No timeframes were given but I think the entire lower section is to be finished by middle/late next year. Presumably the busy western side will be finished by Christmas.He described northern O’ Cll St as a ‘challenge’, and spoke of the Carlton’s central role in this part of the scheme. He hopes that the Abbey will come to the site, and said that it has become more likely that it may move to here. However what was good to hear is that the CC still want a significant shopping/leisure use attached to the site, something in the region of 500,000sq feet (isn’t the ILAC 250,000) which could either be in the form of an open street stretching back to Moore St, or a more traditional mall-like scheme.
He said it would be a challenge to incorporate both the Abbey and a major retail facility into the development, in particular accommodating the service needs of the Abbey such as the standard 3 storey high entrance for scenery, and a large loading bay for the accociated large vehicles – but nonetheless it is feasible (suppose then Moore Lane in a full circle would return to its original service/ancillary use). He also mentioned car-parking as necessary.
Also he said that if such a double-amenity development arose, further properties further north would have to be acquired – presumably referring to the Fingal building and/or the space behind.Asked about shops on the street, nothing new here – the improvement in public space will improve the image of the street, eventually resulting in the market dislodging some of the less desirable retailers (to Talbot St :D), and that the public purse isn’t big enough to buy out more reluctant offenders – also mentioning that just a couple of fast-food outlets would still be acceptable.
And on the issue of poor old Parnell Square, plans are advanced to reshape the area as a ‘cultural square’ with the Gate and the Municipal Gallery as the the cornerstones. It is proposed to create a public space (didn’t mention where – Garden of Rememberance?) and to execute ‘other interventions’ – again no timeframe.
Has anyone been on the street at night, i.e what do the uplighters etc look like? Some pics would be great. Apparently they’re all up and running.
-
June 4, 2004 at 10:31 am #728376
blue
ParticipantI wonder have the DCC any plans on improving the way trade refuse is collected especially waste from the fast food outlets. Other wise any shinny new pavement out side McD’s is just going to be blackened in days! It really is disgrace full how rubbish collection can cause some much litter.
I was on O’Connell St the other night after a few pints and the lighting is excellent if bit orange! Maybe that was the pints!
-
June 4, 2004 at 11:56 am #728377
Anonymous
InactiveOriginally posted by shaun
Removing the thing is tantamount to blowing it up, it’s a wrong way to go. We all blush and cringe a bit when we pass these things, but it is rather freaky I think. Coincidentally, was it not on this street that another famous statue was “removed” in 1966 because some people objected to it’s presence.The State is obliged to favour all equally or not at all. Its presence, like the presence of similar structures on State property is in breach of the constitution post the McKenna and Coughlan decisions.
-
June 4, 2004 at 11:57 am #728378
Anonymous
InactiveOn a completely separate issue (and one more relevant to this site), the story on the front page of the Indo refers:
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1192857&issue_id=10959
-
June 4, 2004 at 2:11 pm #728379
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterSafety takes the shine off O’Connell Street
DUBLIN’S new-look O’Connell Street is to be sandblasted because buses are skidding dangerously on its shiny granite surface.
Dublin Bus has raised concerns about the street, which only recently emerged from the chaos of Luas construction and a multi-million euro regeneration project.
Now the city council has admitted there is a problem and says it will have to sandblast the eye-catching granite surface.
The bus company wrote to the council after two recent incidents. In one, a bus skidded as soon as the driver hit the brakes.
Dublin Bus raised serious concerns about the safety of the road’s surface in wet weather.
The council, in a statement to the Irish Independent, last night admitted that it was aware that there was an issue with regard to potential skid problems with a small section of the street where granite has been laid.
“These problems will be rectified within the next two weeks,” the council said.
The rest of the street where the granite has not been laid will not affected.
It is understood that the operations manager of Dublin Bus wrote to the council highlighting the issue.
In one of the accidents on May 31, two people were injured as an airport shuttle was rear-ended on the street during rush hour.
-
June 4, 2004 at 2:11 pm #728380
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterSafety takes the shine off O’Connell Street
DUBLIN’S new-look O’Connell Street is to be sandblasted because buses are skidding dangerously on its shiny granite surface.
Dublin Bus has raised concerns about the street, which only recently emerged from the chaos of Luas construction and a multi-million euro regeneration project.
Now the city council has admitted there is a problem and says it will have to sandblast the eye-catching granite surface.
The bus company wrote to the council after two recent incidents. In one, a bus skidded as soon as the driver hit the brakes.
Dublin Bus raised serious concerns about the safety of the road’s surface in wet weather.
The council, in a statement to the Irish Independent, last night admitted that it was aware that there was an issue with regard to potential skid problems with a small section of the street where granite has been laid.
“These problems will be rectified within the next two weeks,” the council said.
The rest of the street where the granite has not been laid will not affected.
It is understood that the operations manager of Dublin Bus wrote to the council highlighting the issue.
In one of the accidents on May 31, two people were injured as an airport shuttle was rear-ended on the street during rush hour.
-
June 4, 2004 at 5:07 pm #728381
chewy
Participanti presume its outside the gpo spire area is it, im not walking anywhere near that area now at all….
-
June 4, 2004 at 9:33 pm #728382
Paul Clerkin
Keymasteroh man… the irish independent demographic clearly includes yerself… this is a classic FUD – fear uncertainty doubt story based on a small piece of truth – they are probably going to sandblast a small braking surface near the pedestrain crossing – of course having the buses travel slower up the street would also work…
but if people stay away – they can now run with the storey “o’connell street reno a failure as people stay away”
-
June 5, 2004 at 1:14 pm #728383
Anonymous
InactiveI agree that many Herald stories are FUD material hence the name ‘Evening Hysteria’ being used by many.
But beyond the ‘Rear-ended’ quote it does raise a valid question, how did the roads department OK a road surface that was obviously of the wrong specification. If it doesn’t provide sufficient traction for buses it must be a lot more dangerous for cyclists.
It is just another indication of the years of lethargy followed by a panic once the pressure came on to finish prior to the election.
The opinion polls are begining to take shape. The TNS/MRBI poll shows Gay Mitchell on 24%, taking a seat in Dublin, but a drop of three to 15% for Fianna Fáil’s Royston Brady.
-
June 5, 2004 at 10:24 pm #728384
chewy
Participantwell im not really going to go never corss the street there but i was enjoying slating the scheme:)
story is generally true though ain’t it…
and an inappropriate material was used?
-
June 6, 2004 at 6:07 pm #728385
GrahamH
Participant“The rest of the street…will not be affected” – indeed.
The only granite on the entire 1650ft length of O’ Cll St’s carriageways to date is that of two pedestrian crossings on each side of the median and the small area of the crossing at the Spike.But whatever about the exaggeration, I agree about consultation with Roads – I mean…ah sure whats the point in stating the obvious – you know the routine.
Also agree about the rubbish mounting from 3 o clock or so – it is disgusting and disgraceful.
-
June 9, 2004 at 1:43 pm #728386
chewy
Participantperhaps this is what the council are doing with o’connell street…
re all one colour paths and road… and if it is i’d be dead impressed….“Woonerf” – Anarchy the Key to Safe Streets?
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/000765.htmlWhy don’t we do it in the road?
A new school of traffic design says we should get rid of stop signs and red lights and let cars, bikes and people mingle together. It sounds insane, but it works.http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/05/20/traffic_design/index_np.html
the 20mph thing is interesting
someone was saying theres going to less traffic on o’connell street i guess thats true
-
June 9, 2004 at 5:30 pm #728387
Rory W
ParticipantA new school of traffic design says we should get rid of stop signs and red lights and let cars, bikes and people mingle together. It sounds insane, but it works
Lets not – it’ll frusrtate everyone + we ignore regulations over here anyway (just try walking from Stephen’s Green to Henry Street and see how pedestrians, bikes buses and cars interact)
-
June 22, 2004 at 1:22 pm #728388
J. Seerski
ParticipantEr, has anyone seen the new Dr Quirkey’s shopfront unveiled today? – its, er, dreadful. Looks like one of those corpo houses that has been ‘beautified’ with grecian pilarra and some ‘fancy’ railings…
Did this get planning permission – I don’t recall…
The old shopfront was bad – but not as vile as this rubbish….
See the Savoy are doing their bit -AT LAST – the foyer looks impressive enough – all they need now is to rid the building to its left of that bits and pieces shopfront….
Its a major improvement, thankfully.
Here, I heard a proposal also that the GPO is to be sublet to shops as An Post view it as a major underuse of existing space – don’t know whether this will work. perhaps where the phone booths and the stampshops are could be better used. Even a stylish restaraunt, perhaps?
:confused:
-
June 22, 2004 at 8:56 pm #728389
GrahamH
ParticipantThat’s a nice idea alright – where did you here it from?
The main foyer always feels very empty, the central section stretching over to the windows is a bit windswept – no changes were ever made to around here, where entrances used to be, and the magnificent wooden clock has been missing for ages from the central table.
Must see Dr Quirkey’s, was wondering what would emerge from under the hoardings… -
June 22, 2004 at 9:43 pm #728390
Paul Clerkin
Keymastergreat a Spar in the GPO… Pearse would be proud
-
June 23, 2004 at 11:17 pm #728391
Anonymous
Inactive“Tiocfaidh Ar SPAR!” It’s all about shelf determination
-
June 24, 2004 at 1:21 am #728392
Devin
ParticipantOriginally posted by chewy
A new school of traffic design says we should get rid of stop signs and red lights and let cars, bikes and people mingle together. It sounds insane, but it works. [I’ve read through those links and it’s an interesting idea, but I don’t think it’s a runner in Dublin, because motorised traffic is in such heavy dominance; it would just continue to dominate…
Besides, the concept of letting everything mingle together doesn’t adress the issue of air pollution – cars etc. produce air pollution, pedestrians & cyclists don’t..
-
June 24, 2004 at 9:48 am #728393
GregF
ParticipantTalking about new building facades unveiled as in DR. Quirkey’s ….anyone see the the former Virgin Megastore aka McBirneys which has just been unveiled too near O’Connell Bridge.
The Joyce House up on Usher Island looks good but it is minus it’s fanlight.
Also I was at Croker on Sunday and noticed that the new HIll 16 fits rather awkward up against the Cusack Stand. There is a gap between the two. Kinda looks shit really if it is to be left like this.
-
June 27, 2004 at 3:47 pm #728394
GrahamH
ParticipantGuess who’s back – back again (sorry)
-
June 27, 2004 at 4:09 pm #728395
GrahamH
ParticipantDeep down I always knew the CC would follow through in the end 🙂 (and with only a couple of days left till the end of the 6 month period!)
They look really good now, it would be terrible to loose them, they’re nice for weary tourists to sit on too (God knows there’s nowhere else :D), and they warm up quite nicely in the sun – apparently…And from the sublime to the ridiculous – Dr Quirkey’s new shopfront.
From a distance it looks fine, pretty good actually, as it ‘supports’ the upper floors very well, and the colouring largely matches the stone dressings of the building.
It’s only when you get up close, and observe the silliness of it all, and the underscaled plaster detail, such as pilasters, and heads of all things, that it all falls apart. There’s a kinda Grecian thing going on too which is quite scary really when combined with the new purple railings – on a cheap and inappropriate granite base – that are more suited to Cadbury World than O’ Connell Street.Overall, I think it’s an improvement on the old dour marble. The shopfront itself looks fine from a distance, it looks simple and elegant – but this should be the case up closetoo, with clean lines and some simple detail, matching the upper floors.
What’s most interesting about this is that wasn’t this building earmarked for part of the Carlton scheme? Is this confirmation that it isn’t or that any development isn’t expected for another 5 years?! -
June 27, 2004 at 4:12 pm #728396
GrahamH
ParticipantWilly Wonka comes to town:
-
June 27, 2004 at 4:23 pm #728397
GrahamH
ParticipantAlso have the first of many before and after pics here. I was going to save them till the street was finished, but sure we’ll all be dead and buried by then, so here’s just two of the plaza.
The shots are taken from the exact same postion – behind Larkin cause he’s the only thing I knew would be still there 2 years later! – and using the same lens angle etc.
Sorry about the trees getting in the way, didn’t know they’d be there at the time of the first pic (oh and of course the sun always shines on O’ Cll St now!) -
June 27, 2004 at 4:32 pm #728398
GrahamH
ParticipantThis one is has better exposure, and the contrast between the two pics is more pronounced.
So from shabby heritage – to cool, calm and contemporary:
-
June 27, 2004 at 4:45 pm #728399
GrahamH
ParticipantIt really is a magnificent job to date – well done to everyone involved in the City Council; whatever about the initial delay, the excecution of the job has been fast and well managed with pedestrains and traffic. And the attention to detail has been excellent, from the precision paving, to the steel studs, to those lovely bins (there was a guy there yesterday crouched on the ground taking pics of them, he even had a cloth to polish them with!)
Just one problem with the finished works that I hoped wouldn’t happen – one of the clipped limes looks decidedly dead outside Clerys – all of it’s leaves have fallen off. If it can’t be treated hopefully there are ‘spares’ that it and other damaged trees in the future can be replaced with. -
June 28, 2004 at 10:09 am #728400
Anonymous
InactiveSAP have been preparing the limes specifically for O’Connell street, saw a pic of the site a while back, appeared to be about 60 in stock …
-
June 30, 2004 at 3:09 pm #728401
GregF
ParticipantThe tree looks as if it suffered from the very warm weather we had a while back….a case of underwatering!
-
June 30, 2004 at 8:42 pm #728402
GrahamH
ParticipantHere’s two more before and after pics – just thought I’d throw in 1853 too for good measure:
-
June 30, 2004 at 8:45 pm #728403
GrahamH
ParticipantAnd from the eastern side:
-
June 30, 2004 at 8:46 pm #728404
Paul Clerkin
Keymasterthat last one really shows just how massive an improvement has been made
-
June 30, 2004 at 8:47 pm #728405
GrahamH
ParticipantAnd here’s a comparison between the proposed plaza view and ‘reality’:
-
June 30, 2004 at 8:49 pm #728406
GrahamH
ParticipantAfraid to say Dr Quirkey’s wasn’t quite finished in the last pics – they’ve discovered kiddies poster paint…
-
July 1, 2004 at 10:41 am #728407
kefu
ParticipantDon’t think it’s ever looked better and that includes 1853
-
July 1, 2004 at 3:44 pm #728408
blue
ParticipantHas the company doing the work on O’Connell St gone on holiday? I haven’t seen anyone working there for a while!
-
July 1, 2004 at 9:40 pm #728409
J. Seerski
ParticipantIf it could only get worse….
Graham said it looked deceptively nice from a distance, but Dr Quirkeys are even making this possibilty end with the application of ‘gold leaf’ paint on some of the hideous cheap pillasters outside.
What the hell is going on with the Savoy? They have moved the ticket office to the left but have left the awful shutters and poor quality windows on the facade. This was a good example of what was wrong with O’Connell St. design and yet it is being kept on by the cinema? They have done an impressive job inside but that shopfront to its left is an eyesore. And don’t mention the main Savoy cinema sign….
But Things are changing on O’Connell St. If the Abbey moved to the Carlton it would do untold wonders to this end which is akin to a wasteland in parts…
🙁
-
July 2, 2004 at 6:45 pm #728410
GrahamH
ParticipantThe upper end has to be the most depressing part of the inner city – well maybe Parnell’s worse but it’s still terrible; it’s the atmosphere more than the physical environment I think, a wasteland in every respect.
Have to laugh at the gilding of Dr Quirkey’s – should have seen it coming 😀
The Savoy definitely needs work on the ground floor alright, and the sign. I think its greatest asset are the upper floor windows which are classic elegant Edwardian – they should be shown off better with a clean facade which hasn’t happened yet.
The mirrored PVCs of neighbouring buildings need a good smashing however, and unfortunately the Gresham never replaced their chunky aluminium jobs in the refurbishment with the original steel specimens.
In some archive footage I saw recently it was funny to see the mighty trees at this end as tiny weedy little things, barely 15 years old. I wonder if it was ever intended for them to get so large. -
July 5, 2004 at 1:25 pm #728411
Anonymous
Inactivea few pics I took last night …
The plaza really does look great. The Birch in the central median are excellent and frame the Spire nicely from different positions, as do the limes.
Still find the Spire really impressive, especially at dawn & dusk. Am happy enough with the final product, despite its imperfections. Not sure what the story is with this ‘rust’ thing, but it was fairly obvious from the early days that it would need cleaning regardless, I suppose someone other than DCC should fit the bill.
Still a spectacular landmark though …
-
July 5, 2004 at 1:26 pm #728412
Anonymous
InactiveSpire through the limes (dusk) …
-
July 5, 2004 at 1:28 pm #728413
Anonymous
InactiveGPO, looks so much better with the plaza in front, any plans to give it a clean ???
-
July 5, 2004 at 1:28 pm #728414
Anonymous
Inactivethe plaza from the Spire …
-
July 5, 2004 at 1:29 pm #728415
Anonymous
InactivePlaza, Clery’s etc …
-
July 5, 2004 at 1:44 pm #728416
Anonymous
InactiveCentral median
-
July 5, 2004 at 1:46 pm #728417
Anonymous
InactiveSpire through Birch …
-
July 5, 2004 at 1:47 pm #728418
Anonymous
InactiveLast one … Spire, Larkin, GPO
-
July 5, 2004 at 8:53 pm #728419
Devin
ParticipantO’Connell Street:
“The upper end has to be the most depressing part of the inner city..”
“..it would do untold wonders to this end which is akin to a wasteland in parts”
I often think that, while the upper end is really bad now, it shouldn’t be that difficult to transform (when the Carlton redevelopment finally begins!) because it is bookended by better quality environments; Lower O’Connell Street, minus the fast food strip, and Parnell Square with the Gate & Hugh Lane etc. The Architectural Review made reference to the latter in their landmark 1974 study of Dublin:
“The north bank of the Liffey is a flat plain, about a quarter of a mile deep and about a mile long…On this narrow central plain most of the local business of Dublin takes place. At the eastern end, centring on O’Connell Street, are the popular shops; and as a consequence the Georgian fabric has been much built over, pulled down and worn out. It is indeed hard to realise that O’Connell Street itself was originally a very classy pedestrian mall.”
The AR might come back and see what they think today!
“On the higher ground at the back the urban environment gets better”
I presume a reference to the set piece buildings in and around Parnell Square.
“At the extreme east end, in the area around Connolly Station, everything is in shattering decay; but the area between Mountjoy Square and Parnell Square is still closely set with tall, splendid relics of the 1790s, sadly run down, but still retrievable..”
-
July 5, 2004 at 10:16 pm #728420
GrahamH
ParticipantIt has to be one of the greatest losses for Dublin that the Rotunda wasn’t centred on O’ Cll St because of Gardiner’s lands, it would be so fantastic to have it terminating the vista today, with the arms of the colonnades sweeping round to Gandon’s pavilions – what a statement it would make. Such an irritating loss – so near yet so far!
Great pics Peter – you couldn’t have hung round for 10 mins longer for the LEDs to come on? 🙂
I think all the stone looks better in the rain, not only does it darken it, but it makes the place feel huge too, turning the plaza into a giant mirror. -
July 5, 2004 at 11:36 pm #728421
Anonymous
Inactivethanks Graham, yeah i was hanging around for ages waiting for the damn things to come on, didn’t cop on till i got home that they actually had just started to come on as i was taking the last photo … might take a trip in again during the week:D
-
July 5, 2004 at 11:37 pm #728422
Anonymous
Inactivecan just see them there on the right side …
-
July 6, 2004 at 10:08 am #728423
GregF
ParticipantThey’re great photos Graham and Peter (the way they compare and contrast….etc)
I saw that dodgy tree on the GPO plaza which lost it’s leaves being replaced this morning. -
July 6, 2004 at 5:11 pm #728424
Devin
ParticipantDespite the supposed stricter control of the ACA, there are still some horrible things happening in the O’C St area. As well as Dr. Quirkey’s there’s that new oriental fast food restaurant on Westmoreland Street, ‘Charlie’s’. I thought that would be a no-no at this stage.
The plaza is great though. It is world-class.
-
July 7, 2004 at 1:03 am #728425
anto
Participanta plaza that has traffic going through it, great!
-
July 7, 2004 at 8:50 am #728426
GregF
ParticipantCharlie’s with the black and luminous yellow streaked frontage. There’s a couple of dives on Parliament Street too painted up in similar garish colours of lemon yellow and silver….colour blind or what!
-
July 8, 2004 at 8:48 pm #728427
J. Seerski
ParticipantI have to say its a good omen to see that the tree that was dying on O’Connell Street was replaced promptly. Some of the other non-sculptured trees have died quite quickly and have been since removed – Possibly these trees couldn’t survive on the street.
Saw the Luas cut the street today for first time – nice addition.
-
July 9, 2004 at 9:21 am #728428
GregF
ParticipantAll the enthusiasm for O’Connell Street, but hold on to your horses folks. Has any one seen Henry Street lately. The £2 million makeover of this street just a few years back heralded the same optimism but since then the street has become rather shoddy. Anyone notice that the contemporary design steel bins that matched the lighting and banner masts have been replaced with the old black cast iron Victorian pastiche styled bins. Also has anyone one noticed the missing paving slabs in places due to roadworks. At the entrance to GPO arcade there is a large crater sloppily filled in with a dollop of tar. Will the same fate befall O’Connell Street. Dublin City Council is slacking.
-
July 9, 2004 at 7:09 pm #728429
Niall
ParticipantYes, the aul dollop of tar, can’t beat it, very Irish disease!!
Henry Street looks awful, not as bad as Liffey Street though, Yikes!!!
-
July 9, 2004 at 7:22 pm #728430
GrahamH
Participant‘street’ – good one!
If the whole place fell into a big hole overnight you wouldn’t miss it – in fact it would just make it easier to get to the Ha’penny.On Henry St the new shiny bollards outside Roches have been shoved into the ground with a dollop of redish cement around the base which is very messy. And as for the plague of chewing gum.
Still like the paving colour here though – the red and grey works very well. -
July 10, 2004 at 5:43 pm #728431
chewy
Participanti thought that talbot street had its period of renewal a couple of years ago?
but ive noticed on many streets if you look up, which ya rarely do, there many nicely ornate builfings with all their paint peeling off?
like that shop whats it called the one with the demin and leather nad the blue building above it and then the grey building across the road above the alcove
-
July 11, 2004 at 12:05 am #728432
Anonymous
InactiveTalbot Street is a difficult one, there are some absolute gems on the Street and some horror stories, Mallmart was one one of them I think.
I am hopeful for Talbot St I think that the move of Independent News Papers in addition to the existing BOI Int treasury offices should help greatly.
The bar at the corner of Store St has a lot of potential if under the right management, I think that above all else is what the area needs are a few good night time uses. I think that Capel St has done very well with bars over the last few years I think a few in Talbot St would do O’Connell St no harm at all.
-
July 11, 2004 at 12:33 pm #728433
Anonymous
Inactiveexcept that the indo’s proposed building looks like a heap of crap …
-
July 11, 2004 at 3:27 pm #728434
Anonymous
InactiveAgreed from an urban design view point it will not be winning awards.
But from a land use perspective it has two effects, firstly it extends the office use back towards O’Connell St (from the IFSC cluster) providing a customer base for local business in what I think all will agree is sadly quite a run down area.
Secondly it provides a substantial building in the retail core of the O’Connell St-Abbey St- Gpo arcade area. If handled right it could prove a shot of adreneline to the area, has anyone ever noticed just how poorly utilised that Williams lane is (between the Gpo arcade and Spirit on Middle Abbey St)
-
July 12, 2004 at 8:24 pm #728435
GrahamH
ParticipantYes – indeed I only found out this lane existed quite recently!
What building are the Indo moving into on Talbot – is it the sleep-inducing red brick just being completed? At least it’s better than the BOI – if I see another polished granite slab in this city…It’s good to see some investment being made in the street – I think the CC refurbishd the place in 1997, when the maze of islands and trees etc were introduced, but it has deteriorated rapidly.
Anyone have a pic of what’s replacing Mall Mart – there’s some bricks peeking through anyway. -
July 13, 2004 at 6:06 pm #728436
Ronan C
ParticipantAll this new streetscape development in Ireland is going to waste – we can build them but can’t maintain them ! The only exception is the Boardwalk, which generally speaking is clean and tidy.
Yeh, what and where is the new Indo building ??????
-
July 15, 2004 at 9:13 am #728437
JackHack
ParticipantI’m wondering what was the thinking in putting the cycle lane on the inside of the street when conventional wisdom is that cyclists use the left hand side of the road when cycling.
I’ve noticed a number of cyclists getting elbowed dangerously off the street just as the old road layout meets the new. This happens with the new cycle lane on the inside of the street causing the traffic to veer over to the left, leaving nought space for yer man on his puch bike.
In hindsight it would have made sense to have cycle lanes on both sides given the amply space available. Or is the plan for cyclists to use the footpaths as on the continent, in which case I hope the Garda are informed so as they wont be wasting their valuable time annoying cyclists instead of wasting their time in otherways.
-
July 17, 2004 at 5:46 pm #728438
GrahamH
ParticipantThat’s a good point about the layout – I dread to think what it’s like trying to cross sides from the quays or bridge onto the street layout.
Perhaps the lanes were laid out along the median as there is much less potential pedestrian conflict along here, and no side street junctions breaking the lanes.Interesting photograph of the street here from 1858 – one of the earliest photos of a street scene in the city. Must have been taken on a Sunday morning or something as the place is deserted. It’s spooky to see the ghostly shadows of the GPO lanterns – the only photo I’ve ever seen of them. The Union Jack is flying proudly above too 🙂
And the width of the roadway unobstructed by any median makes you wonder just how an impressive a space this must have been compared with all the other city streets – literally just acres of empty (and filthy) space. It does serve to demonstrate though just how important decent paving was at the time. -
July 17, 2004 at 7:16 pm #728439
Morlan
ParticipantGraham, was sackville street just a dirt road or was there proper paving? Looks like a mud track in that picture.
-
July 17, 2004 at 8:07 pm #728440
asdasd
ParticipantThats just horseshit, Morlan.
-
July 19, 2004 at 1:50 pm #728441
Devin
ParticipantWhat is it about Liffey Street? There’s just no atmosphere. If you knocked everything down and started again it would probably be the same.
But there’s a nice new building in the mews lane Lotts. You get a slanting view of it as you’re walking along Liffey Street. The combination of white render and pre-patinated copper parts look good. I believe the building at the corner with the old handmade brick will be restored as part of the scheme. Wooden sash windows will replace the current aluminium ones.
-
July 19, 2004 at 9:12 pm #728442
GrahamH
ParticipantAlways to be welcomed!
The paving on this street is the best ever – its condition has to be a joke on the part of the CC, truly unbelievably bad (not that the Luas works helped). But think it’s the parapet level of the street that’s the main problem, in that – well, there isn’t one! There’s very little definition of space. Even a few trees at street level would help no end.
About O’Connell St Morlan, I’ve always wondered about the street surface – certainly by the 1890s the street was cobbled, or at least parts of it, but in countless earlier photos the road surface is burned out in the sun and impossible to identify. And all sketches, paintings and engravings I’ve seen just depict a muddy brown suface, probably cause their creators couldn’t be bothered drawing half a million cobble stones! Perhaps someone has an early pic of some kind that does show cobbles.
Here’s one from Google depicting the bridge and street in what looks like around 1893-1900. The bridge is blatently cobbled over anyway.
Interesting to see Eddie Rockets apparently under construction over to the left – certainly there’s something going on!
Anyone know who the statue is of at the botton of the pic? Always wondered why he faces that weird angle, is it to line up with D’Olier St? Also the bollards surrounding the statue are nearly identical to those near Parnell at the top end of the street. Was there a statue up there too originally? -
July 20, 2004 at 1:14 pm #728443
urbanisto
ParticipantThe statue is of John Gray (I think) its the same one that is now at the junction with Abbey Street.
Re the bicycle lanes: these were placed on alongside the median to prevent cycle traffic being interfered with by buses pulling in and out of stops. As a cyclist I dont think it works at all. Most people ignore it and I guess the fact that the lane is incomplete doesnt help.
Also we can now see just why the street will take another two years to complete…. just look at how long it is taking to pave that small median between the bridge and Abbey St. Its ridiculous. Part of the stage will be the constuction of three new kiosks – one on the centre median and two on the sidewalks. Could this be the reason for the removal of the two trees infront of Irish Permanent.
-
July 20, 2004 at 5:44 pm #728444
GrahamH
ParticipantWhat person in their right mind decided to plant those trees where they were, likewise regarding the matching specimens on the other side of the street. They served no purpose whatsoever, indeed they concealed the finest terrace on the street, and negated the impact of the median sweep of trees which had just been finally consolidated at the same time as their planting. And they were ugly!
It’ll be interesting to see how this lower section of the street is handled during construction, notably how the new double-width pavements somehow funnel pedestrians onto the single-width bridge pavements – people will end up in the middle of the road!(indeed it happens as it is)
Thanks for John Gray Stephen, I thought the plinth looked very similar – but then most of them are! Comparing the two it becomes evident:
-
July 20, 2004 at 6:46 pm #728445
GrahamH
ParticipantHang on – his folded arm is on the wrong side!
Either he had a transplant or it ain’t him! It’s almost identical though – weird. It’s not William M Murphy is it? -
July 21, 2004 at 12:19 am #728446
J. Seerski
Participantwell sorry to dissapoint everyone but is it not clear that the stretch from Abbey Street to O’Connell Bridge will NOT have widened footpaths?! They are laying new granite at junctions with abbey street – it is clear from this that the narrow paths will remain.
I have to be honest and now say the redevelopment of o’connell st is not wonderful – it is rather just about catching up with other streets in terms of design. Its an ok job- not a world beater. One way they could improve the street would be through the lighting up of all statues at night-time. Especially the O’Connell Monument – a magnificent monument in its own right.
As for the Savoy redeveloment, the inside is ok, but the plates of tin behind the new sign are rather shabby and crude (screws sticking out of plates, some plates are even crooked!) The Corpo (sorry, city council) should not allow such crap. Obviously the controls on O’Connell Street are either ineffective or unenforced…Then there’s Dr Quirkey’s… 🙁
Finally, one more rant (!) The collumns on the Eden Quay side of the Irish Nationwide Building are falling apart at ground level!! Some of the brass bases on the ground floor elevation are missing and some pillasters are collapsing!!! COUNCIL INTERVENE FOR GOD SAKE!!!
-
July 21, 2004 at 7:27 am #728447
Anonymous
InactiveI don’t know about knocking the design quality, but I wouldn’t call the other concerns ‘rant’ particularly Dr Quirkeys which is dire and also the Nationwide building which they can well afford to fix.
I also realised yesterday just how little of the Street is actually finished, All of Upper O’Connell St has seen minimal changes at best. The Section You are talking about to the Bridge needs wider paths as I watched a LUAS cut the Street yesterday there was not enough space for pedestrians to see LUAS safely.
This is not LUAS bashing but merely an observation that if it is to operate safely a wdider footpath is required at this point of the line, in contrast the other (wider) path provided more than enough vantage for people. It looked great in its new ‘restored’ surroundings.
-
July 21, 2004 at 1:27 pm #728448
anto
Participanthow does it compare to Cork’s main street makeover?
-
July 21, 2004 at 5:42 pm #728449
GrahamH
ParticipantWell it would be unfair to criticise the CC for the upper end at the moment in that the public domain works phase hasn’t started here yet, but yes on the properties side of things Dr Quirkey’s is terrible, although conversely I’d say the public at large would quite like it; as Devin memorably said – plastic window boxes and picket fences etc… But if this is the precedent for future development, the place is only going to go further down the tubes.
Surely there are going to be double pavements on the lower section – I haven’t been on the street for a couple of weeks now but what you describe J Seerski is worrying. This is the most congested part of the street and also features the busiest pedestrian crossing in the country, it is essential that a double width is used here, not least for the sake of conforming with the rest of the throughfare.
Indeed that’s a point that’s been irritating me for ages – seeing everything happening nearly every single day inevitably results in the novelty of the project wearing off a bit, but even so there is still something about the newly completed part that doesn’t quite click with the exciting plans first proposed. And it’s the consolidating of the street into a whole with trees as originally proposed that’s the issue. As it stands, I cannot see a grand sweep of timbers emerging from what has been planted to date. Of course the trees along the footpaths have to mature and fully form, and the IAP CGIs were a bit fanciful but even so, the effect is disapointing. Perhaps when the upper end, with few to no interruptions from sidestreets or plazas is completed, the unity will emerge.
Certainly I find the median a big let down – as delicate and architectural as the new wispy trees are, a marching terrace of limes could have looked so much better and striking, they could have defined O’ Cll St from the rest of the city. As beautiful as the new paving is and the lamposts etc, the median is very leggy and windswept, with poles and posts and trunks of trees poking up everywhere – instead of being a place of interest and a break away from the congested side pavements. Instead it feels like a big stepping stone to be used to get to the other side of the street as quickly as possible.Those brass plinths on the Irish Nationwide shop front are a lovely detail, and must be restored. This building was a jewellers when first opened, the owners took great pride in rebuilding their premises in this grand, modern manner after 1916 on such a prominent site in the city. As far as I can remember, the upper floors could do with a slap of paint too.
-
July 21, 2004 at 5:52 pm #728450
Anonymous
InactiveOriginally posted by J. Seerski
well sorry to dissapoint everyone but is it not clear that the stretch from Abbey Street to O’Connell Bridge will NOT have widened footpaths?! They are laying new granite at junctions with abbey street – it is clear from this that the narrow paths will remain.It would be a disappointment if these footpaths were not widened. It would take away from the unity of the street and as Graham Hickey points out it would not help elieviate the problem of the pedestrian crossing. If these paths were widened, I suppose the bridge paths would have to be widened aswell. This would be great for pedestrians, but would it cause more traffic chaos than is already there?
-
July 21, 2004 at 6:06 pm #728451
blue
ParticipantAs a cyclist who daily crosses O’Connell Bridge I doubt using the inside lanes on either side would have any difference to traffic flow. Certainly on the northbound side the inside lane is nearly always empty for some reason maybe because of the lay out ahead.
I wonder do they plan to have bus stops instead of widening the path on this section of the street! I hope not.
-
July 21, 2004 at 6:10 pm #728452
kefu
ParticipantFrankly, the O’C st makeover can’t even stand comparison to what’s happened on Patrick St.
Was in Cork at the weekend and thought it was absolutely terrible. Apart from a nice big wide section of paving on the West side of the street, don’t think there’s anything worthwhile in it.
Some of the lighting looks like half-assed floodlights the local GAA club would put up so they could train at night.
The paving stones are probably incredibly expensive but the pink hue of some of them just makes them look terribly cheap.
I had seen pictures of it and thought it was OK but being there, I thought it was dismal.
Also, I think if a city ever needed a decent monument, it’s Cork at the Dublin side of Patrick Street. The statue that is there is so underwhelming and it’s such a potentially great site. -
July 22, 2004 at 12:58 pm #728453
Anonymous
InactiveFrom what I know, the path IS to be widened at this point, tapered from the full widened width at the abbey street end, to being half-widened at the O’Connell Bridge end (so half as wide as existing path)…wasn’t possible to keep full extra width the whole way due to Daniel O’Connell statue, or traffic flows, or something…so the path tapers gradually wider from bridge end to Abbey st end…seems like a good compromise to me
-
July 22, 2004 at 2:28 pm #728454
d_d_dallas
ParticipantKefu – the statue at the Dublin Side was earmarked under the original plan to be moved from there and the local gutter press organised an outcry. So the design was compromised from day one.
Personally I think the Patrick St redevelopment is excellent – it has a bit of character while I feel the new O’Conn St has a dreary corporate clinical feel to it. The lights tend to polarise opinion – but at least they are a unique feature to this street and not something picked out of a catalogue. The paving is high quality – but as with most public areas in this country – it has been allowed to get filthy.
-
July 22, 2004 at 2:40 pm #728455
urbanisto
ParticipantYou can already see this tapering effect on the kerb line of the central median currently being constructed. I dont like it as it is ruining the uniformity and formality of the section completed to date. Having said that I suppose that the O’Connell Monument has to be passed by pedestrians otherwise the whole median here becomes redundant. If I remember rightly the median prior to the 1988 reconstruction did not allow you to walk around the stature which was also surrounded by railings.
I think that the lack of spotlighting for the various monuments on the street is pity. Also I would have liked some colour introduced as part of the lighting scheme. Blue can look particularly effective.
I am starting to rethink my opinion about the tree planting. I think a more consistent planting scheme would have been better, perhaps clipped trees throughout.
Also What? have the Savoy done to their frontage. It looks crap. I think they are trying for the Odeon Leicester Square look but the result is cheap and tack and bland in the extreme. I would have much prefered to see a return to the classic cinema canopy with lights and lettering. Shame.
-
July 22, 2004 at 3:03 pm #728456
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterOriginally posted by kefu
Some of the lighting looks like half-assed floodlights the local GAA club would put up so they could train at night.agreed, ass i said in feb 2003…. “I think these are f***ing awful. They look like crude lighting fixtures assembled by the local welder in Ballyhoo to floodlight the local catholic church.”
-
July 22, 2004 at 3:08 pm #728457
GregF
ParticipantThey look dreadful…………..level crossing barriers with lights
-
July 22, 2004 at 4:43 pm #728458
GrahamH
ParticipantThey’re terrible alright, esp how the pole continues on upward after the last light – they’re like giant fishing rods or something!
Just to confirm on O’ Cll St, the median is tapering from wide at O’ Cll Monument to narrow at Abbey St, and the side pavements are tapering the opposite way to end up narrow at the bridge?
The distinguished railings that used to encircle O’ Cll should be reinstated, the Monument gets vandalised and peed on regardless of how often it’s cleaned – the narrow strips of footpath at either side of it are where the railings used to be, on a stone plinth which is also gone.
The lack of consistancy of the paving is a shame, but pedestrians must be able to access the median here. And O’Cll Mon should certainly be lit – now here’s somewhere where something special could be carried out. Bit more difficult for the likes of John Gray & Co.Good to see soemeone’s thinking ahead in the CC, an access manhole has been provided in the middle of the plaza for the Christmas Tree electricity supply, unfortunate it happens to be slap bang in the middle lining up with the GPO but there you go.
I so shouldn’t have noticed that… -
July 22, 2004 at 6:16 pm #728459
Anonymous
InactiveI can’t believe my eyes…when I first saw Paul Clerkins photos of the lights, I thought it was a Photoshop job…My God…they’re actually real?…I have to say I can’t but laugh…this country :p …I was reading earlier some of the posts to do with the bookstall kiosks on Grattan Bridge…actually Capel Street Bridge – think the CC renamed it last year sometime…but I was thinking that the main prob that I have with the kiosks is that they’re just completely characterless and souless…the same goes for the boardwalk kiosks…BUT it’s very different to design ‘soul’ and character…as the O’Connell St lights show…I dunno, it’s easy to criticise, but they do look a bit OTT for what’s essentially supposed to be a ‘grand’ street…they look like those lights in Rotterdam (is it?) that the public can move by moving little adjoining joysticks…they fit in well…there’s 3 of them and they face onto the plaza…the O’C lights face across the street…is that whats wrong???
-
July 22, 2004 at 11:09 pm #728460
asdasd
ParticipantWell, 2 friends of mine who were in Dublin from the US were impressed by the new median and wish it to be completed ASAP, so when they can come back it’s done. The northern part of O’Connell street would in fact look better than the central median when finished , as there are less interruptions. I still like it. And I love to walk the median too, although it is true that very few people do it. Thats fine with me, though.
I do wish there were was no parking of bikes or motorcycles there, however.
They liked the city, we had good weather – one improvement which they mentioned was a boardwalk on both sides of the liffey all the way to Heuston. i told them that there were money issues with that:-)
-
July 22, 2004 at 11:55 pm #728461
Anonymous
InactiveI think most people do like the central median its width gives a feeling of quality the opposite of which is walking across College Green towards Westmoreland St on the BOI side.
What is best about the GPO plaza in my opinion is what can be done for special occaisions such as the Bloomsday Breakfast, the choice of road surface to go with the paving was excellent.
I also noticed a feature on the news one day promoting a forthcoming event (world monopoly championships) for media soundbites it is again excellent.The issue that you raise about bicycle parking is valid, the parking of same should be moved elsewhere as between statues and crossings there isn’t really a viable spot. I don’t think that any of the streets off O’Connell St are wide enough or quiet enough to do it. Is it possible that the corporation may need to look at incorporating a large bicycle park as an objective of the Carlton Cinema project.
-
July 23, 2004 at 3:16 pm #728462
GrahamH
ParticipantThese bikes have to be moved, even if there’s no option other than to assemble some sort of dedicated park on the median then at least have that. I know how frustrating it can be for cyclists to park, but the current situation is not sustainable, esp with the motorbikes – the clutter generated is not nice, on a practical and visual level.
I agree about walking along the median, it’s such a pleasant experience, nice and quiet. The paving can really be appreciated here and the symmetry of the trees is very striking, but I think broad clipped limes would have been much preferable, taking the best element of the old trees – creating an air of seclusion and relaxation – while not dominating the street and concealing the building stock. Combined with shady seating it could have been extra special.
-
July 23, 2004 at 5:37 pm #728463
Anonymous
Inactivedunno, think boxed limes the length of the street might be a bit much Graham, I think the bit of variation is nice, probably just because I really like silver birch !
-
July 23, 2004 at 5:55 pm #728464
lexington
ParticipantWell, I don’t think that Patrick’s Street picture is the most flattering – but that aside, I do believe the lights are unique, I mean, the fact that they have sparked up debate is what striking architecture should do. You don’t have to like it, but at least it gets noticed.
I have to say, I kinda like the revamp of O’Connell Street, maybe its the imposing figure of the Spire overlooking the thoroughfare, that makes the street look that bit better. Perhaps without the Spire’s presence the street would look much more dire. In contrast, I do feel (lights aside), the redevelopment of Patrick’s Street in Cork has a much warmer feel to it than O’Connell Street, it gives off a nice ‘city on the rise’ feel without compromising a sense of homeliness. I think the description of the lights as being ‘level crossing barriers’ is a good one, but ya can’t deny, the whole street has become a vibe of activity since the development. Pedestrian traffic has tripled and business is growing like never before according to retaillers on the street. Oliver Plunkett Street and Grand Parade are set for the same, with simlar plans for Grand Parade, but with more incorporation of plant-life and market vibrancy.
-
July 23, 2004 at 9:06 pm #728465
satanta99
ParticipantI agree with Lexington who says that the picture shown of the lights on Patricks st. is unflatering. Also the fact that it looks like a dull november day isn’t doing it any favours either.
Actually I really like the lights. Firstly they are unusual and their uniqueness befits the main street of the city. Secondly they provide a reference point to the herritage of the city. The architect Beth Gali spoke about the the images she encountered when she visited Cork, and the most striking aspect was the masts of the ships and boats in the docks. These lights are a reflection of this image. Living in a region with the second largest natural harbour in the world and where the sea has had such a major influence on the development of the city I commend the architect for including a reference to this in her design.
The change on Patricks St. has been drastic and it has been transformed from a stretch of traffic choked, cracked pavement to a fantastic public open space.
If the designers of the the O’ Connell st redevelopment achieve even half what Beth Gali has done to Patricks St. they will have done a very good job! -
July 23, 2004 at 9:20 pm #728466
Paul Clerkin
Keymasterthats because it was a dull feb day… you forget that architects can justify anything verbally….
-
July 23, 2004 at 10:37 pm #728467
Anonymous
InactiveOriginally posted by Paul Clerkin
thats because it was a dull feb day… you forget that architects can justify anything verbally….or THINK they can,
I’ve seen a few skinned at planning hearings over the years, trying to sell a project
I actually think that the lights in question would work better on a Quay, I am not sure that they work well in Patrick St,
They certainly wouldn’t work in O’Connell St where the only light that demands attention at night is the Spire.
-
July 23, 2004 at 11:54 pm #728468
Paul Clerkin
Keymastertrue, they suggest cranes more than ships
-
July 24, 2004 at 3:04 pm #728469
kefu
ParticipantWhile I’m posting these tenders, here’s another interesting one. Title: O’Connell Street Improvement Works Phase 2 Awarding Authority: Dublin City Council Publication date: 22-Jul-2004
Application Deadline: Tender Deadline Date: 30-Aug-2004
Tender Deadline Time: 12:00 Notice Type: Tenders
Has Documents: Yes Abstract: The contract will comprise lot 2 of the O’Connell Street Improvement Scheme and will require the construction of natural stone paved footways and asphalt surfaced carriageways at O’Connell Street, Dublin.
http://www.etenders.gov.ie/search/search_show.aspx?ID=JUL027162 -
July 25, 2004 at 2:00 pm #728470
urbanisto
ParticipantThere was an interesting discussion on 106Fm the other day with Paul Moloney (the North City Area Manager) and Cllr Dermot Lacey (former Lord Mayor) re the street. Apparently the next remainder of the street will completed over a period of 8 months from early next year. Also answered comments on the dificulty in discerning the path from roadwauy in the plaza area (no change – use pedestrian crossings) and the slippy surface of the plaza (it will be treated next week to create a more abrasive surface)
-
July 30, 2004 at 2:14 pm #728471
Anonymous
InactiveOriginally posted by StephenC
Apparently the next remainder of the street will completed over a period of 8 months from early next year.That is good news, although it is a pity that the Street will not be ready for the start of another Tourist season.
It is quite dangerous to cycle O’Connell St now, as the right hand sided cycle lane just ends and the traffic pushes you into plastic hoardings just before the taxi rank.
I also really like The Section of Lower Abbey St to O’Connell St, I would almost say it is one of the best pieces of urban renewal I have seen in Dublin. 😉
-
July 30, 2004 at 2:14 pm #728472
Anonymous
InactiveOriginally posted by StephenC
Apparently the next remainder of the street will completed over a period of 8 months from early next year.That is good news, although it is a pity that the Street will not be ready for the start of another Tourist season.
It is quite dangerous to cycle O’Connell St now, as the right hand sided cycle lane just ends and the traffic pushes you into plastic hoardings just before the taxi rank.
I also really like The Section of Lower Abbey St to O’Connell St, I would almost say it is one of the best pieces of urban renewal I have seen in Dublin. 😉
-
July 30, 2004 at 6:29 pm #728473
GrahamH
ParticipantDoes the remainder refer to the lower section or the northern end? Surely upper O’ Cll St cannot be totally done in just 8 months, would it not take about 2 years or so?
-
July 30, 2004 at 8:24 pm #728474
urbanisto
ParticipantWell the Project Manager seemed to suggest that it would be completed in 8 months… however, I always thought Abbey St to the Bridge was Phase 2 including the building of kiosks. However this work is already underway and I see no reason why it should not be completed by the years end. The final section, ie the northern end from Henry to Parnell I thought was Phase 3. But a tender notice was issued earlier in the week for Phase 2 works to commence later this year. I presume this is Phase 3 …. its all very confusing! Anyhow the point was that the works should be completed by Christmas of next year, which if the start in Feb 2005 and take 8-9 months takes us to Dec. Thats realisitic surely.
-
July 30, 2004 at 9:56 pm #728475
GrahamH
ParticipantI suppose – it just seems like a mammoth task, esp when the service laying is taken into account. It’s just that the Lower St works began before Christmas last year and are to be completed by Christmas of this year – lasting at least 13 months.
If they can fit the upper half into 8 – great 🙂 -
August 3, 2004 at 3:04 am #728476
Devin
ParticipantOriginally posted by StephenC
The final section, ie the northern end from Henry to Parnell I thought was Phase 3.I kind of like that bit of pebblestone landscaping around the base of the Parnell Monument. Will that be replaced as part of this phase? though I admit it’s of no great merit.
For the first 10 or 15 years after it was blown up, the Nelson Pillar site had a similar ‘pebble park’.
have a photo of itt somewhere if i can find it ill post it
-
August 3, 2004 at 3:47 am #728477
Devin
ParticipantOriginally posted by Graham Hickey
Interesting photograph of the street here from 1858 – one of the earliest photos of a street scene in the city. Must have been taken on a Sunday morning or something as the place is deserted.Only catching up on this now!
Very early photo. The reason why no people or other moving objects appear is that photography was very new in 1858 and camera film was very slow, very insensitive to light. The lens would have to be left open for a minute or more to get a proper exposure. The street was probably busy at the time, but moving things did record. The one coach that you can see near the Pillar must have been stationary during the exposure.
But the technology improved quickly and by the late 19th century camera film was much ‘quicker’ and it was possible to take a photograph in a fraction of a second, thus ‘freezing’ people or vehicles as they moved through a view.
Yes, I wonder if the dirt is the actual surface in the picture or are there stone setts or cobbles underneath?
-
August 3, 2004 at 7:59 pm #728478
GrahamH
ParticipantLoads of photos have ‘ghosts’ as a result of the long exposure time, but there’s absolutely nothing in this pic. Indeed in the first set of photos ever taken in Dublin in, I think 1848 (could have been 45), there are quite a few ghosts in the Hardwicke St pic.
This Sackville photo was definitely taken in the morning anyway, depending on winter or summer between 9.00 and 11.00am (I know the sun patterns here only too well from hanging around for the sun sun to fall on buildings!)
The Lumiere Brother’s footage of ‘People walking in Sackville Street’ and the bridge from around 1897, the first footage ever recorded in this country, is very spooky to watch.I like the cobbles around Parnell too, they used to be so common as a quick-fix solution in the 70s, but they still have appeal here, on an island of their own.
-
August 3, 2004 at 9:24 pm #728479
shaun
ParticipantI’ve just come back from a trip to Dublin and was up O’Connell str. way, a few years ago I wouldn’t have bothered ’cause of all the junkies and scumbags hanging around but it’s diferent now, isn’t it.
The spike is frikkin shock and awe, it’s like a center of gravity pulling people in from all over the city. Cleary’s is my favorite department store in town, I mean, it’s a real department store, a great O’Connell str. and Dublin institution.
A lot has been said about the state of the street from the spike to the Parnell monument, the fact is the quality of the buildings north of the spike is far superior to those that go to the river, particulary on the GPO side, they are bad. Just take a look at the block that includes the Gresham and the Savoy, worthy of a great street, real quality.
I’m a poshie from the south-side by the way, but for me O’Connell str. rules boring Grafton str. anyday.
-
August 4, 2004 at 2:13 am #728480
Devin
ParticipantYes, the 1858 foto of O’C St. was definitely taken early-ish in the morning as the sun is coming directly from the east, so it’s possible that the street was quiet.
The next foto (circa 1895) – taken from the Westmoreland St/D’Olier St corner – is also interesting because, while this view was (and is) endlessly photographed, you don’t normally see any foreground detail (John Gray (or whoever he is) statue and surrounding street furniture).
What I would love is if the plaza at the GPO could have been FLATTER. While the unity of the pavement and road surface is excellent (provided traffic is not pouring through), it still has the ‘road’-like quality of falling away at each side to an annoying degree. If they were serious about the “plaza” being a plaza, it should have been much flatter. You shouldn’t feel like you’re higher up on the median than the pavements at each side, which you do now.
But I still like it a lot and I think the work being done is great.
-
August 4, 2004 at 3:50 pm #728481
GrahamH
ParticipantThis was always going to be a problem – traffic running through the plaza. Suppose it highlights how uncomfortable such a feature is on what essentially is an avenue, or long stretch of street. Not that I think it doesn’t work; the presence of the GPO was always going to require special treatment, and the plaza does it justice.
But there is an issue at present with both the plaza and the Spire act as a termination point on the street, actually discouraging even more so people from going further up the street. From a pedestrian flow point of view, the site of the Parnell Monument would have been superior for the Spire, acting as a magnet pulling people and tourists right to the very top, and further into the proposed ‘cultural quarter’ and opening up new possibitities for Parnell St.
But the Nelson site has too much historical significance to be glossed over, and as a major nodal point in this area of the city, the Spire just belongs there. -
August 10, 2004 at 2:12 pm #728482
Anonymous
InactiveOriginally posted by shaun
Just take a look at the block that includes the Gresham and the Savoy, worthy of a great street, real quality.
There are some excellent buildings in that mostly early 20th Century Block most notably the Gresham, Hammam Buildings and Revenue Commissioners Building above burgerking, who put in a surprisingly sensitive shopfront. Well for a burgerking at least.
The savoy facade is great but what is with the new signage?
A comparison between it and the Carlton is depressing. 🙁
-
August 10, 2004 at 2:36 pm #728483
GregF
ParticipantBring back the Floozie in the Jacuzzi. Let’s have it remodelled and re-instated in this part of the street. It would help draw the crowds and add some life …….ahem!
-
August 17, 2004 at 5:02 pm #728484
emf
ParticipantA planning notice has gone up on the former Bank of Ireland beside Clery’s.
It is for a Bookies office with associated signage etc.
May be of interest to those of you who are usually so vocal on the quality of development on O’Connell St. (Doc Quirkey’s springs to mind)
The date on the notice was the 4th of August ’04 -
August 17, 2004 at 6:32 pm #728485
J. Seerski
Participantso we have a few weeks to object – hmm…might just do that…
-
August 17, 2004 at 7:36 pm #728486
GrahamH
ParticipantOn what grounds? One maybe sure the signage will be of the restrained gold relief variety or similar and works by and large will be sensitive.
Whereas most people would probably percieve the idea of a bookies on the street as unacceptable, would such a use be percieved as so incongruous by ABP? -
August 18, 2004 at 9:08 am #728487
Anonymous
InactiveThe material used in the signage will be critical to whether or not one objects I think. If its illuminated plastic I will be objecting on the basis of it being an inappropriate material in a conservation area.
Going down the Victorian moralistic route of condemning a bookies on usage grounds is not really a ground of complaint I think. The furore over the Anne Summers shop a couple of years ago baffled me, if like the bookies it is ‘so out of step’ then it will surely fail and that will be an end to it.
Personally I view the Findlater House property as the pne that can make the difference on O’Connell St, from the Savoy down on that side the Street has collapsed into a series of ‘Dead frontages’ however sensitively designed.
-
August 18, 2004 at 11:06 am #728488
-Donnacha-
ParticipantBookmakers intend to apply for planning permission for the change of use and works as outlined below to the protected structure at 28 Lower O”Connell St., Dublin 1. Ground Floor/Basement; the change of use of the existing banking hall into a betting office/sports cafe to include the internal fit out, refurbishment of existing plasterwork, timberwork, stone cladding and flooring and installation of 3 new satellite dishes to the roof to facilitate the betting office function, the cleaning of the existing facade and installation of new non-illuminated signage. First, second, third and fourth Floors; The change of use of the existing banking offices into a restaurant / cafe and associated ancillary services. Internal fit out includes the making of additional opes to existing internal partitions and the refurbishment of the existing plasterwork, skirting, architraves and timberwork.
-
August 18, 2004 at 2:39 pm #728489
d_d_dallas
ParticipantBookmakers are exactly the type of operation O’Connell St needs. It fits in with what is already there – adult entertainment, fast food, nasty arcardes…
-
August 18, 2004 at 8:47 pm #728490
GrahamH
ParticipantYou gotta love it, the conversion of a banking hall into a ‘sports cafe’ – now that’s a new one 🙂
-
August 19, 2004 at 2:58 am #728491
Anonymous
InactiveOriginally posted by Graham Hickey
You gotta love it, the conversion of a banking hall into a ‘sports cafe’ – now that’s a new one 🙂Graham please define ‘Sports Cafe’ :confused:
-
August 19, 2004 at 10:41 am #728492
kefu
ParticipantTitle: O’Connell Street Statues Conservation Works
Awarding Authority: Dublin City Council
Publication date: 18-Aug-2004
Application Deadline:
Tender Deadline Date: 17-Sep-2004
Tender Deadline Time: 17:00
Notice Type: Tenders
Has Documents: No
Abstract: O’CONNELL STREET MONUMENTSBRIEF FOR CONSERVATION WORKS
AUGUST 20041 INTRODUCTION
Dublin City Council wishes to commission the carrying out of conservation works for the monuments in the O’Connell Street Area. Proposals are sought from suitably qualified professionals for this project, which is being commissioned in association with:
– The Office of Public Works
– S.I.P.T.U.
– An Garda SÃochanaThe person(s) selected for the project will be expected to assemble a team of relevant professionals to assist in fulfilling the brief as outlined below. The successful applicant will also be expected to have the necessary skills to bring the project to implementation.
1.1 Objective
The objective of the programme is:
(1) to preserve the monuments in the best possible condition and arrest the cause of damage, by way of specialist cleaning
(2) to restore areas of loss with minimum intervention using the most suitable and effective materials
(3) to protect the monuments from long term damage1.2 The Site
The monuments in question are as follows:
1. Parnell Monument
2. Father Theobald Matthew
3. James Joyce
4. James Larkin
5. Sir John Gray
6. William Smith O’Brien
7. O’Connell Monument
8. Sheahan Monument
1-7 are situated on or in the vicinity of O’Connell Street
8 is located at junction of Hawkins Street and Burgh Quay1.3 The context
By their nature, these monuments occupy a central exposed position for maximum impact and view, they are therefore highly susceptible to water and wind erosion. For the monument to maintain its public memorial function then it must remain exposed, however, long term damage can be reduced by implementing a regular maintenance programme.
Rainwater is the primary agent of stone decay, with two main effects: mechanical erosion and chemical dissolution. In O¿Connell Street the concentration of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides is high, and when combined with rainwater, forms sulphuric acid, nitric acid and nitrogen oxides, leading to extreme acidification of the water. This `acid rain¿ is very aggressive and produces mineral corrosion and strong decay when it comes into contact with the monumental stone. One of the most destructive pollutants responsible for stone decay in the city is sulphur which causes stone sulphation and the development of gypsum crusts.
2 BACKGROUND RESEARCH
The attached schedule forms part of the historic report commissioned by Dublin City Council and carried out by Archive Consultants. It is a general overview of the condition of the monuments and it does not set out to describe a detailed maintenance programme, rather its function is as a briefing document to invite tenders for cleaning and conservation intervention.
Further study including
· A condition report on the O’Connell Monument, carried out by Paul Arnold Architects
· A structural engineers report on the Sheahan Monument at Hawkins Street, carried out by Barrett Mahony.
This information is also attached.For those accessing this brief on http://www.etenders.ie these documents are available from the heritage office by emailing heritage@dublincity.ie.
3 IMPLEMENTATION
A detailed implementation programme for Conservation Works must be set out by the appointed consultants This will require an outline of the responsible parties for the Monuments, an outline of formal protection for the monuments, the adoption of policies and the planning and implementation of conservation measures including repair and enhancement.
It is essential that a phased programme of works with a detailed timescale of each phase be proposed. This programme of works should prioritise monuments in order of the level of urgency of the works found to be required. A detailed cost breakdown for each phase of the proposed programme of works must also be provided. -
August 19, 2004 at 10:51 am #728493
GregF
ParticipantI can’t picture the Sheahan Monument at the mo…anyone enlighten me.
-
August 19, 2004 at 10:53 am #728494
GregF
ParticipantAye …it’s that Victorian ensemble in the middle of the road near the quayside
-
August 20, 2004 at 3:51 pm #728495
kefu
ParticipantThe Sheahan monument: “At the junction of Hawkins Street and Burgh Quay a memorial was unveiled on 3rd August 1906 to Patrick Sheahan, of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, who lost his life on 6th May 1905 in an heroic attempt to rescue the foreman and two workmen from the main sewer of the new Main Drainage Works in which they had been overcome by sewer gas. The monument, in Celtic Romanesque, is 20 feet in height, of Ballinasloe limestone, relieved by pillars of Galway and Donegal granite, and by an ingenious development of the Cross and Crown in its design conveys the idea of sacrifice and triumph (Source: http://indigo.ie/~kfinlay/).”
From my own information, I think it’s on the list because it is in urgent need of repair. The City Council report says it has “several fractures identified on all sides”.
Its architect was WP O’Neill and sculptor was W Harrison & Sons. Erected in 1906 by what was then the Dublin Metropolitan Police.
-
August 20, 2004 at 6:32 pm #728496
GrahamH
ParticipantWonder if the sewer gas victims survived – presumably they did. Nice little piece, textbook Irish Romanesque. Doesn’t it lean over to one side – might be mixing it up with something else though.
Good to see the monuments being tackled now, wonder if any of the railings will be reinstated around some of their bases, although – I think some of them look equally fine without them. Rubbish would probably fill up behind them if they were put back, but they would also largely prevent the graffitti brigade from attacking them – John Gray was notoriously bad till recently.
The black pen scribble is much worse than the spray paint.I haven’t the faintest as to what a ‘sports cafe’ is Diaspora – considering it’s likely no one else does either, it gives them a good deal of room to manoeuvre 🙂
-
August 21, 2004 at 1:39 pm #728497
Anonymous
InactiveOriginally posted by Graham Hickey
I haven’t the faintest as to what a ‘sports cafe’ is Diaspora – considering it’s likely no one else does either, it gives them a good deal of room to manoeuvre 🙂The only reference I can think of is ‘The All Sports Cafe’ that was on Fleet St and is now the Hard Rock Cafe
Not too much ambiguity there
I am also pleased to see the City Council investing in the Steets monuments, money well spent, any chance of having Big Jim’s hands recast to a realistic proportion?
-
August 21, 2004 at 11:14 pm #728498
chewy
Participantis he too big?
my fav statue that?
-
August 21, 2004 at 11:22 pm #728499
Anonymous
InactiveHis hands are almost bigger than his head, it might have more relevance if they were around William Martin Murpheys neck!!!!
-
August 21, 2004 at 11:52 pm #728500
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterLittle known fact: originally Big Jim was to have a large bronze beachball in his hands, due to the years he spent on Dollymount chasing the beachbunnies… however the GAA nixed this on the grounds that beachball was a foreign game….
-
August 22, 2004 at 10:04 am #728501
millennium
ParticipantHave you noticed that all the statues in O’Connell St. face South (including the floozie while she was there)? Consideration was given to erecting the O’Connell Monument facing up the Street to the North but was rejected because Daniel could not be seen to be looking up to Nelson on his Pillar!
-
August 23, 2004 at 12:22 am #728502
Devin
ParticipantWhich way does Larkin lean?
-
August 23, 2004 at 3:42 am #728503
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterSlightly to the left 😉
-
August 23, 2004 at 7:33 pm #728504
GrahamH
Participant😀
I’ve wondered this too, it was off centre on the ‘old’ median as well. It’s much more noticable now with the rigid symmetry of the trees and lamposts. Glad it wasn’t moved though, nice to have things in their original spots, even if slightly odd!
The base/plinth of this monument is as equally fine as the sculpture, often goes unremarked. The granite has a lovely rough texture which contrasts with the sharp lines of the overall profile.Are his hands purposely oversized so as to appear to-scale when seen from below, like the statue of David?
What a silly idea to have O’Connell facing up the street – suppose it woud have been just another of those things we did our own way that everyone else laughed at – like putting dado rails upside down, the amount of times you see it…:)
-
August 23, 2004 at 8:45 pm #728505
GrahamH
ParticipantHere’s Larkin – not the best pic to show the off-centre placement, but you can see it alright.
-
August 24, 2004 at 12:37 pm #728506
kefu
ParticipantI have a copy of the report into the condition of the monuments on O’Connell Street. It’s too long to type it in full.
Briefly in the form Problems/Recommendations
* Parnell Monument: extreme discolouration, leaching of mortar from joints/cleaning, one fractured granite block to be fixed.
* Father Theobald Mathew: Heavy gypsum encrustation, fingers falling off, graffiti/cleaning, replacement of fingers.
* James Joyce: Patinated, lightly soiled/nothing necessary.
* James Larkin: Heavily soiled, granite support discoloured/cleaning. Fixing of plate to head to prevent birds. Enlargement of the plaques and reduction of plinth optional.
* Sir John Gray: Heavy encrustation on figure and guana on head/cleaning, plate to stop birds.
* William Smith O’Brien: As above.
* Sheahan Monument: As I mentioned in above post. Problems with fractures.
* O’Connell Monument (subject of two reports – will post second one separately): Heavily soiled. O’Connell head at risk from ammonia due to pigeon guana. Graffiti. Granite dissolution. Bronze staining of stone/Cleaning recommended, re-fitting of bronze bases, fixing pin plate to head. -
August 24, 2004 at 12:45 pm #728507
kefu
ParticipantCondition
“The [O’Connell] Monument is primarily made of Ardbraccan limestone, with figures cast in bronze.
“In the hundred and thirty years since the monument was constructed – it has been exposed to the elements, gunfire, explosion, atmospheric pollution, bird droppings, graffiti, cleaning of graffiti. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the monument is in fair condition. Damage to stonework is generally superficial with only a couple of stones requiring indents as repairs. Some stone has been stained from copper oxide run-off from the bronze figures. The tooling to the surface of the stone has been eroded through zealous cleaning, giving the stonework an unsatisfactory waxy appearance.
“Although not usually recommended for historic buildings, it is felt that there is merit in considering the retooling of the stonework. Combed margins should be reinstated and the general surface finely tooled.
“Pointing to the stonework is generally required. This should be executed using a hydraulic lime based mortar.
“The bronze figures are in good condition. The sword of Patriotism is broken, and should be reinstated and there are numerous bullet holes through the figures, which can be left unrepaired.
“The winged figures stay in position under their own weight: while not verified, it is expected that the figure of O’Connell is anchored, as are the figures to the drum.
“The bronze figures merit cleaning and finishing with a patination oil, which should be applied regularly, possibly annually, care being taken not to allow oil onto the surface of the stone.Presentation of the Monument
“As originally conceived and presented, the monument was surrounded by a small area, which was contained by railings surmounting a small plinth. In addition, the monuments setting was enhanced by the positioning of lamps relating to the four corners of the area.
“Early photographs indicated the ‘chicane’ of the tramlines as they move to avoid the monument.
“Subsequent developments involved the removal of the railings, allowing people to use the plinth of the monument for sitting. THe raising of the street level has resulted in the bottom-most stone of the plinth being subsumed. The second from bottom step has been cut back to allow a path to be maintained around the monument, although this is a very narrow path.”* O’Connell Monument report requested by Dublin City Council. Written by Paul Arnold Architects. The previous report into all monuments was prepared by Archive Consultants.
-
August 24, 2004 at 5:03 pm #728508
chewy
Participant“plate to stop birds.”
whats meant by this ?
The sword of Patriotism is broken…. ?
oh dear
-
August 24, 2004 at 5:13 pm #728509
kefu
ParticipantNot exactly sure – it must be something sharp and not to obvious visually. Most likely designed to be uncomfortable for a bird to perch on.
Is there no chemical that could do this if smeared on the statue? -
August 24, 2004 at 5:23 pm #728510
Anonymous
InactiveIf you look at the cornices of various buildings you will notice that there are small spikes sticking up from them at close intervals. These are there to stop birds from sitting there. Examples which come to mind for me are: Front Arch in Trinity and the old railway station in Dun Laoghaire (Restaurant Na Mara). I assume that the plate referred to is a similar device to these spikes.
-
August 24, 2004 at 6:37 pm #728511
Devin
Participant.
-
August 25, 2004 at 3:22 pm #728512
urbanisto
ParticipantI wonder was it anything to do with the pre-1988 layout of the street. Remember the median used to be irregular and broken for use as a carpark. Its only since 1988 that a full broad median has been in place.
Work is taking ages on the central area between Abbey and the Bridge probably as a result of the summer hols. However the pace has noticeably increased the past few days so it should be ready soon. Then the construction of the kiosks starts and I supposed this is the reason for removing the newly planted trees further down the street.
It is unfortunate to see that the City Council’s prechant for erecting poles with no visible use is being repeated on OO’Connell St. At least these ones are stainless steel rather than the ugly galvinised steel everywhere else in the city (and I mean everywhere!)
I wonder if there is any chance that the monuments restoration work will be extended to the Moore, Grattan and Davitt monuments on College Green. I would love to see that fountain repaired and the whole island floodlit.
-
August 25, 2004 at 3:53 pm #728513
Devin
ParticipantThat could be it.
Dead right about bare poles everywhere in the city. Submitted a photographic visual clutter ‘gallery of rogues’ to them for the Development Plan review back in March.
They make reference to the need to reduce visual clutter in the city in the ‘Manager’s Report’ (the summary of submissions recieved), but no actual plans or strategies as to how to reduce and minimise the chronic pole and signage clutter in the city.
-
August 25, 2004 at 4:00 pm #728514
urbanisto
ParticipantThere is reference to a city legibility study as part of the new development plan. Perhaps this might tackle it. However i have commented on it as well on a number of occasions but nothing ever gets done. They just increase. It would be interesting to know the actual cost of these works and the amount that Sierra (the main contractors responsible) have made from them.
-
August 25, 2004 at 4:30 pm #728515
GregF
ParticipantI’m a bit sceptical of this O’Connell Street improvement/maintenance plan…..one only has to look, as I’ve said before, at the condition of Henry Street which got a 2 million pounds makeover only a few years back. Already it looks shoddy in places …the paving damaged and the original contemporary steel bins which were part of the makeover plan have been removed, only to be replaced with the old cast iron pastiche ones, adding inconsistency. Will O’Connell Streeet follow the same fate of half heartedness.
-
August 25, 2004 at 5:05 pm #728516
Devin
ParticipantTHIS POST IS BY DIASPORA (NOT DEVIN)
What really takes the biscuit is Liffey St,
at least 50% of the DCC specially paved surface was cut up by some utility contractor(s) and is now roughly tarred over.
-
August 25, 2004 at 5:32 pm #728517
Morlan
ParticipantOriginally posted by GregF
Will O’Connell Streeet follow the same fate of half heartedness.Unfortunately, yes. Once the EU stops the cash injection, we can forget about any city beautification or upkeep. Also, what has happened to Henry St. is to be expected from the council – a total lack of respect for the city.
I hate to be negative but the Council will put the absolute minimum amount of cash towards the maintenance of the street.. we’ve already seen the filthy Spire which was ignored by the council for months.
It’s gonna be alot of hard work to keep this street looking good.. think of the amount disrespectful of gum spitters and indelible-pen holders that hang ’round there.
-
August 25, 2004 at 6:21 pm #728518
Anonymous
Inactivethe ‘eu cash injection’ has already pretty much come to a stop …
-
August 26, 2004 at 4:36 pm #728519
urbanisto
ParticipantGreg – I noted you comments on Henry street as well and I agree. I wrote to the Council about it…. will keep you posted when I hear back from the Public Domain Manager. IMO maintaining the street surface should be the least of his tasks.
To be fair to O’Connell St there are teams out every night power washing the pavements. However, this is a private company comtracted in to do this and no doubt handsomely paid for their services. Why can’t the CC’s Cleansing Divison do the job!? And if they can powerwash this street why cant they do the Boardwalk and Liffey Bridges as well! They are a state.
-
September 1, 2004 at 1:43 pm #728520
Anonymous
InactiveDid anyone see the article in the Times yesterday about the final tree removals from Upper O’Connell St?
Personally I believe you need to prune a street every once in a while
-
September 1, 2004 at 3:25 pm #728521
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterAgreed Diaspora. Not as if they are giant Californian Redwoods or something exotic anyway.
-
September 1, 2004 at 4:15 pm #728522
notjim
Participanthey, that would be great, would one grow here, they grow in bc and that has a similar climate.
-
September 1, 2004 at 4:41 pm #728523
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterThere are some in Rossmore Park, Monaghan, five I think. Three on the main drive in and a couple more buried deep in the park.
-
September 2, 2004 at 2:39 pm #728524
urbanisto
ParticipantCheck out plans for the final phase of O’Connell St on the city council’s website or on view in Civic Offices. It will look great. Quite a large number of and variety of kiosks in the plan. However brace yourselves for the protests about those 10 trees.
Also worth looking at is a Study of the City Walls of the city. DCC are launching a strategy to protect and enhance the remaining sections (of which suprisingly there are quite a few sites).
-
September 2, 2004 at 3:50 pm #728525
Anonymous
InactiveStephenC, is the section relating to the City Walls on the Council Web-Page or is it on show within the Council Offices?
Thanks
Phil
-
September 2, 2004 at 4:48 pm #728526
kefu
ParticipantIt’s on the website. Go to http://www.dublincity.ie and click in to the news section. It’s fourth one down.
-
September 2, 2004 at 5:15 pm #728527
Anonymous
InactiveThanks for that Kefu. I just had a quick look. In the photos section there is a random one entitled ‘gateway’ of the two massive flagpoles outside U.L. I love those flagpoles, but I cannot think what they are doing on that site! Any ideas?
Thanks for the link.
-
September 2, 2004 at 6:08 pm #728528
kefu
ParticipantThis one is scandalous: Anybody know who owns this car park, is it belonging to state.
-
September 2, 2004 at 9:18 pm #728529
GrahamH
ParticipantThe hoardings look like they’re holding half of it up! It’s surprising how many sections are left alright – good to see action happening with them.
Just on Larkin again – thought of the traffic island explanation too, but all the Victorians were at the time were islands as well, if not even more isolated, but they got them centred!
On the Upper O’ Cll St proposal, the sweep of trees on the north-western side is going to look fanastic, but the eastern side is reduced to nothing with the parking bay of the Gresham and the bus stop further south breaking the tree line by a substantial 6 units. Don’t know what could be done to resolve this but the effect is going to be hugely reduced.
And the taxi rank appears to be staying, with another treeless space on the median. I really don’t think this cluster planting of the trees on the median works at all, it is inappropriate – directly opposing if not completely dissolving the linear nature of the median, its most appealing feature, and a feature that defines the very nature of O’ Connell Street. Everyone in Ireland knows the O’ Cll St median, every child in the country knows about and is impressed by the people of the past represented here and the general important nature of it, not least its scale, stretching as far as the eye can see. I think this grand impressive scale should have been reinforced with tree planting. Now it appears the regular marching boulevard look is dead and buried. What a crying shame. For me, this was always the most exciting aspect of the whole scheme.Perhaps it will turn out better than it looks on paper, and one should reserve judgement till finished, but if the trees either on the median or just on the pavements had regularity, that would be enough, but for the continuity of both to be continually hacked at as they progress up the street I find unacceptable.
It would be really great if the O’ Cll Monument lanterns were reinstated, even if there’s no room now for the railings. They had fairly short shafts but had classic big, almost awkward lamps atop, lightly lop-sided of course.
I always thought the ‘waxy’ appearance of the lower stone step was as a result of people sitting on it for the past 20 years rather than cleaning, the same with Fr Matthew – not that you’d sit on it now, not even going to mention what gets stuck to your pants or hands from it…
The monument restoration phase looks very comprehensive and is welcome. At least whenever the CC gets round to do these things, or its contractors, they’re usually excellent jobs. -
September 2, 2004 at 10:47 pm #728530
Anonymous
InactiveRe: The Gresham, it could be a case of moving the bus parking onto Cathal Brugha St, as the Hotel has a decent sized side entrance that with Joinery changes could be damn impressive whilst allowing for the un-interupted enhancement of Upper O’Connell St.
On the point of bike parking that you raised a few pages back, I knew there was a lot of bike parking that had disappeared, there was and it was the at the corner of Middle Abbey St outside the Oval Bar, a section of Street that was re-paved.
The clever bar owner has covered the spot where the former bike parking stands were with empty kegs ( 10 Kegs * 10 kegs) to prevent the stands being re-instated after the re-paving. I expect a planning application for tables and chairs on the spot to be lodged quite soon, it has had a very disruptive effect on the central median on O’Connell St.
Many of O’Connell St’s solutions have historically and will always involve the side Streets playing a supporting and subservient role.
-
September 3, 2004 at 9:53 am #728531
Anonymous
InactiveThat is a good point about Cathal Brugha Street Diaspora. I very much agree that the side streets should play a supporting role in the enhancement of O’Connell Street. It makes perfect sense.
-
September 10, 2004 at 6:42 pm #728532
NetEng
ParticipantIt doesn’t look like Dr. Quirkey’s Emporium have P.P. for the gold leaf.
______________________________________________Details for Planning application 4433/04
Application Reference 4433/04
Location Dr. Quirkey’s Emporium, 55-56, Upper O’ Connell Street, Dublin 1
Description I, Mr. Richard Quirke, of Dublin Pool & Jukebox Company Limited, hereby give notice of intention to apply to Dublin City Council for retention permission for shop front facade at Street Level at main entrance to Dr. Quirkeys Emporium No;s. 55-56 Upper O” Connell Street, Dublin 1.
Applicant Mr. Richard Quirke
Applicants address Dublin Pool & Juke Box Company Limited, 55-56, Upper O’ Connell Street, Dublin 1
Agent Mr. Victor Lowe, Brian O’ Connell & Ass.
Agents address 9, Fitzwilliam Place, Dublin 2
Registration Date 03-SEP-04
Submission type NON DOMESTIC APPLICATION
Decision Decision unknown
Decision Date
Final grant Date
Appeal type
Appeal decision
Area Area 3 – Central
Appeal decision Date -
September 10, 2004 at 7:22 pm #728533
Morlan
ParticipantOriginally posted by NetEng
Dr. Quirkey’s Emporium doesn’t have P.P. for the gold leaf.I though they already put up the gold leave stuff? Do they have to remove it now?
-
September 13, 2004 at 9:18 pm #728534
Anonymous
InactiveThey should it is quite frankly tacky, A can of nitro-mors and an angle grinder should do trick!!!!
On a more positive note there was a London based news crew on O’Connell St this evening doing a feature on the Spike in connection with its Stirling Prize nomination, so it is obviously being taken seriously and was not included just to make up the numbers.
-
September 14, 2004 at 8:48 pm #728535
GrahamH
ParticipantDoes the entire shopfront not have pp?
-
September 15, 2004 at 12:11 pm #728536
Anonymous
InactiveOn a more positive note there was a London based news crew on O’Connell St this evening doing a feature on the Spike in connection with its Stirling Prize nomination, so it is obviously being taken seriously and was not included just to make up the numbers.
I don’t see why it would be included to simply make up numbers…OK, there’s certainly a few things with the spire that could have been done better…but overall it does what it set out to do (landmark, rejuvinate O’C St, inspire confidence, replace the void left after nelson, etc, etc)…we’re just perhaps too involved with the whole scheme, and see the problems/mistakes too easily…and perhaps this is simply another case of the Irish beating themselves up.
-
September 23, 2004 at 1:20 pm #728537
GrahamH
ParticipantThe new Savoy sign is really awful, the contrast with the distinguished upper floors is cruel – it sticks out like big lump, tacked onto the front of the building. The large expanse of silver cladding, Connolly Station style, makes the overhang even more clunky than it was, and the use of this modern material certainly does not create the effect it intends – to contrast the old facade with sleek contemporary design. Rather it makes the overall appearance worse; at least the old unit was blatently dilapidated, itching with potential. This yoke is just second-rate, for everyone to appreciate for aother 20 years.
Saying that, the doors etc look well, as do the electronic displays.The new single-width paving J Seerski mentioned before at the Abbey St junction is thankfully just a temporary measure to accommodate the ped crossing. Work is now underway on creating the double-width side pavements on Lower O’Cll St as planned and there’s no doubt they are going to radically alter this stretch, for the better. Railings are lined along what will be the new kerb line and the huge expanse created in this congested area is very impressive and exciting.
One thing I thought about McDonalds here is that while they cannot be forced out of this fast-food belt, indeed not that it would even be preferable, but what could be possible is the opening of a ‘McCafe’ here, like Grafton St, which would help in lessing its negative impact on this stretch, and in fact it could improve it by creating an outside seated area for coffee drinkers.
As to the demand for it here I don’t know – not too many suits around. -
September 24, 2004 at 11:20 am #728538
J. Seerski
ParticipantClerys Door signs/plaques have gone missing – should I presume that they are gone for cleaning/refurbishment? They are wonderful works of art and shop design – Much more integral in the entire store design.
Surely these signs were/are protected?!
-
September 24, 2004 at 7:50 pm #728539
GrahamH
ParticipantThey must be off for a cleaning – they need it. Sitting on a wall for 80 years does no one any favours. They are lovely though, very grand & Edwardian. They are listed as part of the building as a whole.
-
September 26, 2004 at 4:43 pm #728540
Morlan
ParticipantWhat will happen to O’C bridge when the paths on O’C St. lower have been widened? If you look at this photo they appear to have changed the road markings on the bridge again. Will the footpaths on the bridge be widened to match the new width of O’C’s paths? Maybe the centre island will be widened too?
As far as I know, the bridge hasn’t been included in the O’C rejuvenation project.
-
September 27, 2004 at 11:56 am #728541
urbanisto
ParticipantWidened and repaved hopefully. It certainly needs it. I hate the tarmac. Get rid of the horrible stalls as well.
-
September 27, 2004 at 3:02 pm #728542
GrahamH
ParticipantYeah, they’re nasty – people might percieve removing them as an act to sanitise the city centre – who cares, they look awful and get in the way of the major pedestrian flow here.
The worst part of the bridge now is the balustrading, esp the eastern side – it is disgustingly dirty. The little section around the corner opposite O’Cll Bridge House was cleaned recently, perhaps as a test patch – the contrast is stark.
I can’t wait to see the lamposts in the centre sit on some decent modern paving – they’ll look fantastic when it happens.
Considering O’Cll Bridge was really the only major improving Victorian public project in the city centre, and one that was properly finished with commissioned furniture etc, it is worthy of decent restoration and paving treatment. -
September 27, 2004 at 4:17 pm #728543
Anonymous
InactiveOriginally posted by Graham Hickey
Yeah, they’re nasty – people might percieve removing them as an act to sanitise the city centre – who cares, they look awful and get in the way of the major pedestrian flow here.You are entitled to your point of view, but some might say that the sort of seating surrounded by hoarding that you favour for outside of McDonalds looks awful! It certainly gets in the way of pedestrian flow.
-
September 27, 2004 at 5:33 pm #728544
GrahamH
ParticipantBut it’s different on the bridge – people use it to rush to the other side of the river, using it as a corridor, whereas the street is more laid back with strollers etc. Although fair enough, with the bridge paving widened the stalls wouldn’t get in the way as much.
I don’t advocate hoarding round seated areas, in fact none at all is better, although simple chrome poles with that ribbon stuff or wire can look well. The sheets that are wrapped around the place on the Boardwalk are awful.
-
September 28, 2004 at 5:27 pm #728545
Anonymous
InactiveOriginally posted by Graham Hickey
The new Savoy sign is really awful, the contrast with the distinguished upper floors is cruel – it sticks out like big lump, tacked onto the front of the building. The large expanse of silver cladding, Connolly Station style, makes the overhang even more clunky than it was, and the use of this modern material certainly does not create the effect it intends – to contrast the old facade with sleek contemporary design. Rather it makes the overall appearance worse; at least the old unit was blatently dilapidated, itching with potential. This yoke is just second-rate, for everyone to appreciate for aother 20 years.
Saying that, the doors etc look well, as do the electronic displays.
Just saw this today. You are right Graham; it is really really terrible. I did not think much of the doors or the electronic displays. The only thing is that it does not look finished as of yet, so I think I might hold out on my final judgement yet!
Incidently, do you (or anyone else for that matter) have any photos of the way it was before it was changed? I am beginnning to forget, but I just remember quite liking it for some reason.
-
September 28, 2004 at 5:29 pm #728546
GregF
ParticipantI think maybe too if the building facade was given a bit of a cleaning, it might not look as bad.
-
September 29, 2004 at 2:04 pm #728547
J. Seerski
ParticipantThe old Savoy (pre-sixties) from old film reel had a projected central sign with sides projecting from the facade to the centre – by this you could see what was on in the cinema from quite a distance in spite of being parallell to the cinema on the same footpath. It looked Art-Deco in style.
Then it was replaced with that plastic fascia board in the seventies. Though ugly, it was of its time. Quite disappointed with its new replacement.
-
September 29, 2004 at 2:18 pm #728548
Anonymous
InactiveI suppose, as Graham hinted at, we will have to wait 20 years to actually like it! Because then it will be of this time. We seem to have a huge habit at present of not waiting for things to come around in cycles before we destroy them.
-
September 30, 2004 at 12:14 pm #728549
urbanisto
ParticipantIm disappointed with the new design as well. The actual street level facade is still a disgrace though. The two retail units are in bits and that tacky tiling looks old and dates and dirty. It certainly needs attention. The Savoy will soon benefit from dramatically increased footpath space so a little imagination is in order.
-
September 30, 2004 at 2:07 pm #728550
GrahamH
ParticipantAgreed – past those retail parts yesterday and they’re in a terrible state. The foyer inside though is magnificent, an bizarre contrast to the exterior and manky Upper O’Cll St.
A cleaned upper facade would be a great improvement, but would probably make the existance of the new canopy even more unfortunate! It does need to be cleaned though, it’s the centrepiece of this whole terrace, with the Gresham and Hammam Buildings forming the other two flanking ‘white bits’ either side.
Also, just seeing the footage of the Pope’s visit from 1979 last night reminded me that’s it is exactly 25 years today or yesterday since the building on the derelict site across the road collapsed after the fire. Suppose next month is the true anniversary of the creation of the dereliction though, when both buildings were demolished. And to think that after nearly 10 years of boomtime and supposed ‘urban enlightenment’ it is still there. What is state of affairs regarding the court case – is it in recess or something?
-
October 5, 2004 at 11:20 am #728551
samhraid
ParticipantHas the gunge from the grooves at the base of the spire been poked out yet? (And people sit on it.)
-
October 5, 2004 at 2:13 pm #728552
GrahamH
ParticipantNot sure – it always looks dirty so I don’t even bother looking at it anymore! It’s nice that people sit against the Spike, even if they do get in the way – suppose it’s that simple desire to be connected with with something so dominant and powerful.
Here’s a pic of the Savoy phil, knew I had one here somewhere.
It was taken a couple of years ago – so it’s contrasted here with the new sign. Irritatingly it doesn’t look too bad in the pic 🙂 -
October 5, 2004 at 2:14 pm #728553
GrahamH
Participant.
-
October 5, 2004 at 2:15 pm #728554
GrahamH
ParticipantHere’s one of the lovely facade too
-
October 5, 2004 at 2:17 pm #728555
GrahamH
ParticipantAnd for no particular reason the plaza yesterday – always looks fantastic in the sun:
-
October 5, 2004 at 2:38 pm #728556
Punchbowl
ParticipantI see the Plaza is beginning to ‘wear’ a little. Inevitable I suppose.
Is there a process to keep it clean? So that when the whole street is completed the bits already done won’t look out of place?? -
October 5, 2004 at 3:47 pm #728557
Anonymous
InactiveThanks for those photos Graham. Yeah, the new sign actually looks ok in the photo. I looked at it up close and thought it looked terrible. Maybe there is more work to be done to it before it is actually finished.
-
October 11, 2004 at 3:11 pm #728558
GrahamH
ParticipantI see the ‘is it pavement, is it roadway?’ problem is being addressed on the median with the installation of large steel studs along its kerbstones to delineate the edge of the raised area.
They look quite well, they’re about 3 inches in diameter and are lightly ribbed in a fashion similar to that of the Spire’s base plate. They’re only going down now so it’s difficult to see what the full impact will be. One thing that is evident though is that it’s a pity they’re not LEDs. -
October 14, 2004 at 2:01 pm #728559
GrahamH
ParticipantNow they’re nearly all in I think they’re an admirable solution:
-
October 14, 2004 at 3:04 pm #728560
Paul Clerkin
Keymasterthey look well…
-
October 18, 2004 at 10:49 am #728561
GregF
ParticipantSee the Stirling Prize programme on C4 on Sat? The best building won……pity it was’nt built in Dublin, what a great landmark.
See all the peasants decrying the Spire. We came across as really ignorant people, as the locals were asked what they thought of the Spire, all gave a negative response, especially too when the presenter mentioned that it was the IRA that blew up Nelson Pillar and the Baltic Exchange that paved the way for the Gherkin. Kinda Father Ted stuff!…..and I see that they have finally replaced the plonk of tar crater on Henry Street at the GPO arcade with the proper paving slabs. Wow!
-
October 19, 2004 at 1:40 pm #728562
GrahamH
Participant“It’s new so it’s gotta be crap” – brilliant!
-
October 20, 2004 at 6:50 pm #728563
Lorcan
Participantany news of the kiosks that they wanted to be out on o’connell street?
-
October 21, 2004 at 1:44 pm #728564
GrahamH
ParticipantIf there’s any space left – whether this is a temporary issue or not I don’t know but it has got to change – this was the median a few days ago:
-
October 21, 2004 at 2:05 pm #728565
GrahamH
ParticipantHere’s another madcap render-stripping scheme but what about the viability of returning the Georgians at the O’Cll St/Bachelors Walk junction to their former glory, by removing not only the Baileys sign, billboard and the rest of the county’s largest steelworks from these facades, but also the render from 3 of them that was applied as a quick-fix after 1916?
There’s some pics further down of their present condition, including one of them which still has the original brickwork exposed, some of it painted yellow. You can still see the nasty scars of 1916 on them, as well as what I think caused the damage on the shopfront at ground level too.These four don’t appear to have been hit by any shells in 1916, but were rained on with bullets from the river.
There’s a pic somewhere from the aftermath and every pane of glass is smashed and the brickwork pretty battered too.
What about restoring the brickwork properly this time – presumably something that wasn’t easily done then, and restoring what is now the only one remaining of the four O’Connell Bridge corners, or five if you include the ICS.
In all probability, the granite quoins are still lurking beneath the render on the corner building too.
This terrace could have such an impact on this most important nodal point in the city – and act as an impressive introduction to O’Connell Street -
October 21, 2004 at 2:07 pm #728566
GrahamH
ParticipantAnd another view:
-
October 21, 2004 at 2:09 pm #728567
GrahamH
ParticipantAnd here’s a view from around 1895 showing the corner building, as well as its neighbours on Eden Quay.
-
October 21, 2004 at 3:05 pm #728568
Anonymous
InactiveYes Graham, and there is also a billboard on the building at the corner of O’Connell Street and Batchelor’s Walk!
-
October 21, 2004 at 3:13 pm #728569
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterPlan by bookies for former O’Connell Street bank rejected
Paddy Power Bookmakers has been refused planning permission by Dublin City Council to refurbish the former Bank of Ireland premises at 28 Lower O’Connell Street and turn the protected building into a betting shop and sports café. The company’s proposal was to refurbish the plasterwork, timberwork and flooring and install three satellite dishes on the roof. It also intended to clean the facade and put up new signage. The first, second and third floors were to be converted from banking offices to a restaurant and café.
-
October 21, 2004 at 4:57 pm #728570
GrahamH
ParticipantAha – do you know the grounds for the refusal, presumably it was the use? Wonder what they’ll do with the property if they appeal and are refused…
Phil I just knew those signs would be pointed out by someone 🙂
However some enlighted owners had them removed cause by 1901 they’re gone! They died a death with Victoria, the end of an era 🙂 -
October 21, 2004 at 6:05 pm #728571
Anonymous
InactiveOriginally posted by Graham Hickey
Aha – do you know the grounds for the refusal, presumably it was the use? Wonder what they’ll do with the property if they appeal and are refused…Phil I just knew those signs would be pointed out by someone 🙂
However some enlighted owners had them removed cause by 1901 they’re gone! They died a death with Victoria, the end of an era 🙂You just don’t take me seriously anymore Graham! 🙂
You should have a look at the thing that comes up before programmes on RTE showing O’Connell Street. Guess what? No signs on that building. They have been airbrushed out!
-
October 21, 2004 at 10:04 pm #728572
GrahamH
ParticipantJust for you 🙂 :
-
October 21, 2004 at 10:06 pm #728573
GrahamH
ParticipantAnd as was pointed out before, Nelson’s looking decidedly decluttered without his 8 foot caging:
-
October 28, 2004 at 1:07 am #728574
GrahamH
ParticipantI do believe a McCafé is going into McDonalds 🙂
Lovely slate/limestone floors going in, the whole place is being refurbished with, amongst other things bizarrely, real moveable chairs – not a bolt in sight!
Very sharp dark wood effect partitions going in too, not quite Brazilian mahogany but a very welcome improvement 🙂
The muted lighting and swanky fittings will make a huge difference to the image and appearance of this premises from outside, and to this fast-food belt overall – hopefully with the shopfront being dumped too. There are many takers for pre-cut polished granite in this city.And what was Champion Sports next door is having a refit too so things are gathering pace round here, and it’s good to see it happening while the public domain works are also being carried out – short-term pain for long-term gain and all that.
-
October 28, 2004 at 9:26 am #728575
GregF
ParticipantThose RTE intros are great with the old landscape icons morphing into modern icons today.
What a great revamp for that part of O’Connell Street, good to see the shops are making an effort too….hope the new paving here is done before Chrimbo. -
October 28, 2004 at 10:31 am #728576
Anonymous
InactiveOriginally posted by Graham Hickey
I do believe a McCafé is going into McDonalds 🙂Lovely slate/limestone floors going in, the whole place is being refurbished with, amongst other things bizarrely, real moveable chairs – not a bolt in sight!
Very sharp dark wood effect partitions going in too, not quite Brazilian mahogany but a very welcome improvement 🙂
The muted lighting and swanky fittings will make a huge difference to the image and appearance of this premises from outside, and to this fast-food belt overall – hopefully with the shopfront being dumped too. There are many takers for pre-cut polished granite in this city.I hope I can still get a Big Mac there! 🙂
And what was Champion Sports next door is having a refit too so things are gathering pace round here, and it’s good to see it happening while the public domain works are also being carried out – short-term pain for long-term gain and all that. [/B]
As far as I know, Foot Locker have bought a whole load of Champions Sports outlets. I noticed that one of their Grafton Street outlets is also to be one, whilst their outlet that they converted into a trendy shoe/runners shop beside the McDonalds (Sorry I mean the McCafe/McDonalds segregated fast-food outlet) at the bottom of the street is also being atered – presumably for Foot Locker – after only being in existence for a few months.
-
October 30, 2004 at 5:08 pm #728577
Dubliner
ParticipantOriginally posted by sw101
i’ve always had pride in my country, travelling far and wide and stressing my southern accent when it suits to make new friends. i’ve lived in dublin for four years, always north of the river, and the only occassion i have to feel shame for my heritage is when i walks the streets of my capital. its disgusting. the ppl are dispicable, the authorities are out of all order, and improvements are blocked by anal members of a defunct state. bring on the next recession so i have an excuse to take my filthy degree and leave in a blaze of wake-induced vomit.and just so i’m not accused of leaving the topic of the thread: O’CONNELL STREET IS A BIG SMELLY KIP
It was never that bad at any stage
-
November 1, 2004 at 1:10 am #728578
Devin
ParticipantMc Donalds opening a Mc Cafe on O’C. St. is an interesting development; When you think of the Grafton Street Mc Donalds, the face to the street was transformed (positively) when the Mc Cafe opened.
Because McDonalds O’Cll. St. occupies two building frontages in the middle of the burger strip, if done right the Mc Cafe could have a turning-around effect on the whole strip.By far the worst on the strip is Supermacs, with its PVC & polished granite shpfront. I know fast food restaurants are an easy target but I hold particular DESPISE-ment for Supermacs (yes I know, great-Irish-sucess-story….) – once they open on any main street, they become the focal point of the town – just think of Nenagh, Carrickmacross, Athy, Claremorris & of course Eyre Square, as hilariously sketched by el architino on the ‘New Design for Eyre Square’ thread.
-
November 1, 2004 at 1:34 am #728579
Devin
ParticipantBack to Graham’s Four Georgians post for a minute:
Yes, it’s quite interesting to see that wrecked bit of exposed red brick at 1st floor level of 34 Bachelor’s Walk. I think that most of the damage to the brickwork you can see there is more recent than 1916 & was probably caused by various steelworks & mountings for billboards etc. The stone window sills have also been crudely shorn flush with the facade to acommodate advertising structures (no respect!!).
That said, photos of the group immediately after 1916 show them to be very pock-marked with machine gun fire alright, and I think one biggish hole about half way up the corner building on the south facade (can never find the photo I want!). The patch-up job just shows the mentality there was at the time of keeping anything that didn’t absolutely have to be replaced (whereas they were demolishing hundreds of perfectly good Georgian & Victorian buildings all the time here, there & everywhere in Dublin between the ’60s and the ’80s.
The bit of red brick also confirms (since there are no known colour photos of O’Connell Street prior to 1916) that the Georgians of Lower O’Connell Street were in red brick and not the yellowish-brown brick of the same-design-concept but slightly later D’Olier St. scheme, as seen in the Irish Times buildings (although one or two of the survivors on the opposite side of D’Olier Street seem to be in red brick :confused:.)
Sometimes I think it would be good to remove the render and restore the O’Cll. St./Bach. Wlk. group to their original appearance – with modern building conservation practices it wouldn’t be much trouble to repair damaged brickwork and tuck-point the facades with lime mortar – they would look very well.
The only thing is that by removing the render you would lose the sharp detailing on the corner building: the modillion cornice & window architraves, and there is a conservation argument or principle that you should respect later alterations in a building. I know the architraves are quite plain and simplified relative to a lot of similar Victorian/Edwardian embellishments, but I think they look kind of good, especially the one at the tripartite window on the first floor of the O’C. St. facade, and suit the 1920s plate glass sashes. These sashes were painted navy I think until recently but are now off-white which harmonises well with the sandy cement-render of the early 20th century. Still, overall it might be worth restoring them to brick, as a relic of the sublime streetscape that once was.
The Council do want to get this corner in shape, though. In the O’Connell Street IAP Special Planning Control Scheme (2003), all of the advertising structures here are “designated for removal” (exactly what the leverage is for doing this though, is not clear). The Special Planning Control Scheme is an interesting document & makes a good companion to the original IAP plan. It might be on their website (I haven’t looked cos they sent An Taisce a hard copy 🙂 .)
-
November 1, 2004 at 7:05 pm #728580
Jack White
ParticipantOriginally posted by Devin
Mc Donalds opening a Mc Cafe on O’C. St. is an interesting development; When you think of the Grafton Street Mc Donalds, the face to the street was transformed (positively) when the Mc Cafe opened.
Because McDonalds O’Cll. St. occupies two building frontages in the middle of the burger strip, if done right the Mc Cafe could have a turning-around effect on the whole strip.
They also do much better coffee than Bewleys, if only they would remove those horrible plastic signs.
-
November 2, 2004 at 4:33 pm #728581
urbanisto
ParticipantI cant believe that you are all seriously suggesting that a McCafe is a positive development for O’Connell St. I see no difference between a McDonalds proper and this McCafe format. It still amounts to cheap facades, litter and a move away from encouraging higher quality establishments onto our main streets. You may as well say that the fact Supermacs sell Italian gelati is a cultural step upwards for them!
‘
They also do much better coffee than Bewleys, if only they would remove those horrible plastic signs.
As for this…well I think it says it all when we have moved away from a cup of coffee being a civilised daily pleasure to a plastic cup of scalding hot water with a safety warning and ample opportunity for a lawsuit, to go!
-
November 2, 2004 at 4:34 pm #728582
Rory W
ParticipantAs for this…well I think it says it all when we have moved away from a cup of coffee being a civilised daily pleasure to a plastic cup of scalding hot water with a safety warning and ample opportunity for a lawsuit, to go!
That’ McDonalds not McCafe – they use proper mugs don’tyaknow
-
November 2, 2004 at 9:06 pm #728583
GrahamH
ParticipantI think (what I’m still assuming is) a McCafé has a positive contribution to make from the perspective of improving the street frontage of the premises. I don’t object to McDonalds being on O’Cll St, but rather it existing alongside three other similar establishments, right on the introductory terrace of the street.
Any decent improvement has to be welcomed – although the likelihood of the shopfront being replaced is not very high considering internal fittings have already been installed directly inside.
I think Supermacs is really the truly offensive one of the four, occupying a prime corner site, with its cheap nasty horrible, horrible white framed doors & windows, dated slanted profiles, posters pasted all over the windows, cheapo internal fixtures for the world to see though its picture windows, and not to mention the smell from the place. And the pink paint on the panels of the upper floors looks cheap and jarrs with the red brick further up.
Lovely windows upstairs though – ah the olden days, when everything was perfect 🙂I agree Devin re the corner building, there is a difficult toss-up there between retaining the lovely cornice and window dressings, esp the one facing into the street, and attempting to restore the brickwork and making the terrace work as a unit.
It’s terrible to see the cills sliced off in the way they are on the other building, and the paint slapped over the brickwork.
I think if preliminary findings suggested it would be possible to reveal the bricks on the rendered ones it should be done, as it would make a greater contribution to the whole, similar to the revealing of the ambulatory of City Hall (allbeit on a more modest scale :)) Either way, there is no way the corner building should be painted I think, just clean it and retain that sombre 20s look.It’s interesting you mention the brick colouring of D’Olier St & Westmoreland, I’ve always wondered which street won the battle to have ‘their colour’ displayed on the prestigious corner building facing onto the bridge at the apex of the two streets – was it Westmoreland’s red or the stock bricks of D’Olier?
It’s so frustrating as I’ve only ever seen black & white engravings of it 🙂 -
November 2, 2004 at 9:19 pm #728584
GrahamH
ParticipantAnd just on the plaza/road issue again, it is ironic that just after the studs have gone down that I saw someone tripping on the kerb for the first time yesterday. It was a woman walking off the raised area to cross over towards Clerys and didn’t see the step. Well she went head first right out onto the carriageway and slumped in a heap out on the road. Aside from it being very difficult not to snigger, it was clearly a very nasty fall indeed and she was lucky there was no traffic going by. She could very easily have broken an arm or wrist. (Her husband hauled her up again)
Still, it’s a difficult one to call, there are more than enough ped crossings on the street now – then again the nature of the design, the fact it’s a plaza lends itself not to indiscipline, but simply pedestrians being unaware of exactly what’s what round here.
-
November 3, 2004 at 6:54 pm #728585
Anonymous
InactiveI noticed Today that the section of median as far as the Savoy ha reopened albiet in its original format.
It really does make a difference as the Street is so much more open than it was, although the siting of large amounts of bicylce parking in the central median really appears to put people off using ths stretch on account of the obstruction.
DCC would be well advised to move the provision of bicycle parking to another location and ban all motorbikes and scooters completely from what is a footpath.
-
November 3, 2004 at 9:11 pm #728586
Devin
ParticipantOriginally posted by StephenC
I cant believe that you are all seriously suggesting that a McCafe is a positive development for O’Connell St. I see no difference between a McDonalds proper and this McCafe format.Much as we’d like them to, the fast food restaurants are not going to go away, so we may as well welcome any improvements in their appearance however slight. The long-awaited ‘higher order’ uses for O’Connell Street are only going to begin to happen on sites or in premises’ that are now vacant or house short-term concerns.
-
November 4, 2004 at 9:39 am #728587
Anonymous
InactiveOriginally posted by Graham Hickey
The new Savoy sign is really awful, the contrast with the distinguished upper floors is cruel – it sticks out like big lump, tacked onto the front of the building. The large expanse of silver cladding, Connolly Station style, makes the overhang even more clunky than it was, and the use of this modern material certainly does not create the effect it intends – to contrast the old facade with sleek contemporary design. Rather it makes the overall appearance worse; at least the old unit was blatently dilapidated, itching with potential. This yoke is just second-rate, for everyone to appreciate for aother 20 years.
Saying that, the doors etc look well, as do the electronic displays.I know we have discussed this before, but I was looking at it yesterday and I have come to the conclusion is that its main problem is the lack of symetry of the new entrance. I don’t think that the new sign would look as bad if everything underneath it was shifted to a more central location within the builiding. The fact that the newer bottom part of the building is off balance to the rest off the building takes away from it dramatically.
-
November 4, 2004 at 12:50 pm #728588
urbanisto
ParticipantDiaspora – the thinking behind the reduced median and wider footpaths is that pedestrian traffic will use the sides and the median will be reserved for services…such as bik stands, telephone kiosks, and the retail units (according to the architect who designed the scheme at DCC)
-
November 4, 2004 at 7:25 pm #728589
J. Seerski
ParticipantGreat News!
Acording to a friend who works in the Gresham, the Hotel is to close for four months in March in order for the hotel to be upgraded to five-star standard. This is a much needed boost if it goes ahead. Apparently the Hyatt group are posed to take over the hotel.
It was one of the greatest tragedies for O’Connell Street that the Gresham fell from being one of the worlds finest hotels (voted best hotel in the world in the mid-sixties – no other Irish hotel achieved such status). It is definitely the finest hotel facade in Dublin – restrained and elegant – and thankfully, in spite of attempts to demolish and replace with a shopping centre in the mid seventies, it remains stately in a part of the street that is otherwise neglected. The old Ryan group never did the hotel any justice, failing to invest in the hotel throughout the seventies and eighties while other Dublin hotels were opening or upgrading – though to their credit, they at least never destroyed the hotels exterior or lobby.Extending footpaths, palnting trees, and new streetlighting will only go so far in upgrading O’Connell Street. Developments, such as the possible upgrading of the Gresham, will play a crucial role in making the street a quality and pleasant destination.
At last a concrete example of the streets improving status is in the pipeline.:)
-
November 4, 2004 at 10:37 pm #728590
Anonymous
InactiveOriginally posted by StephenC
Diaspora – the thinking behind the reduced median and wider footpaths is that pedestrian traffic will use the sides and the median will be reserved for services…such as bik stands, telephone kiosks, and the retail units (according to the architect who designed the scheme at DCC)That is very flawed thinking and will only serve to discourage pedestrian movement due to the clutter. The problem is the bike stands are double or triple rows which when bikes are on them make it very difficult to pass around.
I have little doubt that the retail units will flop on the basis of poor access which is a pity, I really like the way the retail units are done on the Hauptwache in Frankfurt, they are very slender with tables lined up at either end, they do a great trade and are a great place to sit on a fine day and admire the surroundings.
The key to the success of the central plaza is its width and accessibility to not continue this would be a mistake, it would be easy to put the two wheeled parking onto the side streets and reduce the number of retail units to a managable level.The news about the Gresham is fantastic and I really believe that recent schemes both built and in the pipeline will make their investment viable. I hope that it is a sign of things to come on the Street.
-
November 5, 2004 at 3:09 pm #728591
GrahamH
ParticipantGood news indeed.
There was a row of eight large motorbikes parked in the middle of the plaza the other day – whatever about the issue of them being permitted, the cheek demonstrated by their owners if the real bone of contention. Do they think their size and expense justifies their display in the heart of the city for all its citizens to admire?
No bikes at all should be allowed on the median, if they stay it will further display the debasement of the median as a feature of the street as part of this plan.
-
November 6, 2004 at 6:22 pm #728592
Anonymous
InactiveWhen are the Kiosks due to come into being, I was down in one of the restaurants on North Wall Quay for lunch yesterday and it was just great the quantity of glazing gives a great view. I hope that something contemporary goes onto O’Connell St and nothing like the boxes on Capel St bridge either. Does anyone have any inside info on when we might expect to be having real coffee on O’Connell St?
-
November 8, 2004 at 12:14 am #728593
Devin
Participant
I think Supermacs is really the truly offensive one of the four, occupying a prime corner site, with its cheap nasty horrible, horrible white framed doors & windows, dated slanted profiles, posters pasted all over the windows, cheapo internal fixtures for the world to see though its picture windows……the pink paint on the panels of the upper floors looks cheap and jarrs with the red brick further up.
Lovely windows upstairs thoughThe vile ground floor of Supermac’s is certainly in stark contrast to the pretty upper floors. Interestingly, this building was the only one in the block between the Quays and Abbey Street that needed to be rebuilt after 1916 – as opposed to not needing to be rebuilt, i.e. the two nice originals (on the right in the picture) that were demolished in the ’70s to make way for the predecessor to Schuh 😡
[img]http://C:Documents%20and%20SettingsAdministratorMy%20DocumentsMy%20PicturesKevin’s%20PhotosJPGsz%20o’c%20st%201950s.jpg[/img]
-
November 8, 2004 at 12:21 am #728594
Devin
Participant[font=Tahoma:1fnnnw90]Image here:[/font:1fnnnw90]
-
November 8, 2004 at 10:42 am #728595
Anonymous
InactiveThe thing that really strikes me about that photo is the amount of signage on the buildings. I am particularly suprised by the one on the old ICS building between Westmoreland Street and D’Olier Street.
-
November 8, 2004 at 11:41 am #728596
GrahamH
ParticipantDublin, esp O’Cll St was littered with these signs from the 40s on – there was an exhibition a couple of years back in the Ntl Photographic Archive based on these very features. Probably the last to go was the Texaco sign with electronic clock (which subsequently turned into a billboard) on Manfield Chambers/Clarks on O’ Cll St, which was there as recently as the late 80s, if not into the 90s. That ICS sign is totally insensitive though, regardless of what one may think of the novelty value of these signs.
It’s interesting to see what is now the Foot Locker building, next to the now-demolished Georgians in the pic. You can appreciate it as a WSC building much better here. And just look at those great chimneys on the Ballast Office…
Have to laugh at the piles of bikes clustered around Smith O’Brien 🙂 Just on him, he was the statue that stood to the south of O’Cll Bridge, facing to the north-west as was suggested by someone earlier. He was moved like everything else, because he was a traffic hazard.Well the City Christmas Tree was delivered over the weekend, just in time for the festive season that is early November.
A particularly fine specimen this year, nice shape with dense foliage, it stands proud as being the first tree to be sited in the newly completed plaza. It’s surprising how much smaller it makes the plaza look, and looks kind of frumpy compared with the clipped limes and chiseled paving, but who cares. Looks great in front of the Spire. It’s just waiting now to be strangled with the vertical strings of lights every CC tree dreads.
I think it would be nice if the planes at the upper end were lit for the last time this Christmas, its a shame they haven’t been for a few years now on account of all the works. -
November 8, 2004 at 4:49 pm #728597
Devin
ParticipantThe ‘Happy Ring House’ sign is a relic from that era too. The funny thing is, if somebody put up a modern sign of equivalent impact today, there would be shock and horror, but the Happy Ring House is considered part of the character of O’Connell Street.
@Graham Hickey wrote:
It’s interesting you mention the brick colouring of D’Olier St & Westmoreland, I’ve always wondered which street won the battle to have ‘their colour’ displayed on the prestigious corner building facing onto the bridge at the apex of the two streets – was it Westmoreland’s red or the stock bricks of D’Olier?
It’s so frustrating as I’ve only ever seen black & white engravings of it 🙂I meant that there are two different brick colours on D’Olier Street itself : while the Irish Times buildings on the west side of the street are in the yellow-brown stock brick, a couple of the much-altered survivors on the east side (Cara Travel & Funny Biz) seem to be in red brick, which is surprising.
Here’s a photo of the original building at the apex (with Smith O’Brien in his original position in the foreground) – though I don’t think there are any clues as to the colour of the brickwork, texture wise. The fussy Victorians, not being able to handle the relentless order of the Wide Streets Commissioners’ plain, unified street-elevations, had already dickied up the building with cornices & balustrades etc. But that wasn’t enough, so they demolished it in 1894 & built the (unquestionably lovely) baronial gothic ICS building.
Probably the worst of O’Connell Bridge House’s numerous sins is that it destroys the primacy of the ICS building, which was so obviously built to be a central dominating landmark in the D’Olier/Westmoreland composition.
If a replacement building was going to be as good and as appropriate as the ICS building in that site, that’s one thing, but the way that the still-fairly-intact original WSC’s D’Olier/Westmoreland scheme was allowed to be whittled away – usually for crap new buildings – between 1960 and 1985 was disgraceful! It should have been recognised for the hugely significant piece of European city design that it was.
There was the Carlisle building and its replacement (say no more), then 4 more originals for D’Olier House in the late ’60s, then the pointless demolition of the Ballast Office in ’79 for a sterile fake, then the mirror glass building to each side of the Paradiso restaurant facade, which took 2 originals and a good quality 1920s replacement on the Fleet St corner, then 7 more originals behind the ICS building in the early ’80s; 3 on the Westmoreland side & 4 on the D’Olier side for a depressing pastiche.
-
November 13, 2004 at 8:11 pm #728598
Anonymous
InactiveThere appears to be some work going on in Findlater house where the old eircom store (3G) was does anyone know what the plans are?
A good quality occupier could really tilt things in the right direction.
-
November 14, 2004 at 10:08 pm #728599
urbanisto
ParticipantSupervalu are putting a new food store similar to that on Aston Quay. Exactly what the area needs.
-
November 17, 2004 at 8:16 pm #728600
Anonymous
Inactive@StephenC wrote:
Supervalu are putting a new food store similar to that on Aston Quay. Exactly what the area needs.
Supervlue is Aston Quay is great between the supermarket and the cafe sol and boots it really has transformed that stretch and the treatment of the building was so sympathetic, it really proves just how adaptable some buildings can be.
I imagine that Findlater House will be an easier prospect and between this and the Gresham things are really looking up for this end of the Street.
Which is in many ways something I never thought I would see considering the type of development this area was attracting only a decade ago.
-
November 18, 2004 at 12:56 pm #728601
GregF
ParticipantI see that the DCC have finally reinstated the missing paving slabs on Henry Street……and the street looks the better of it. Would be good too if they reinstated the shiney silver bins too, keeping the contemporary look to the street!
-
November 18, 2004 at 7:22 pm #728602
TLM
ParticipantI have’nt been in Dublin since September and am curious about developments on O’Cll St since then…or have things been moving at the same pace as before I left!?
I think the abandonment of a “La Ramblas style” continuous stream of trees down the street, preferably along the median, would be unfortunate. Is this plan dead and buried?
Finally, has anyone heard about the aqcuisition of the Royal Dublin Hotel by the Hyatt group and its proposed revamping as a four star? Hopefully that will mean the abandonment of the previous bland, block like facade that had been suggested as its facelift.
I’d be grateful if anyone could enlighten me!
Thanks….. t -
November 18, 2004 at 9:01 pm #728603
GrahamH
ParticipantIf you read back a bit, there’s lots of pics & stuff. As for the trees, apparently there’s quite a bit on them too…:)
The Royal Dublin works were due to get underway last April, perhaps this aquisition is why they are being held up.
Again there are pics of the proposal somewhere on the site or this thread if you reel back.On the double-to-single pavement issue at O’Cll Bridge, it is being deal with in a clever way with a semi-permanent curve round its corner, which forces pedestrians to stand in the place of the existing crossing, linking over to the single-width bridge.
-
November 18, 2004 at 9:22 pm #728604
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterI thought I read somewhere that the Royal Dublin makeover was being dropped….
-
November 19, 2004 at 12:32 am #728605
Jack White
ParticipantIt never began in the architectural sense, an understanding arose that not a cent had been put in in over 20 years so the grand plan was to maximise 41 and sell 42. CBRE should have a result on that quite soon 5m guide 4.75m bid, Who knows
-
November 19, 2004 at 10:24 am #728606
GregF
ParticipantWork is getting under way on the paving on O’Connell Street near O’Connell Bridge…….looks as if it will be continuous and in line with the rest of the previously paved area/foothpath. Who was saying that the paving here would be tapered or something?
-
November 19, 2004 at 12:20 pm #728607
GrahamH
ParticipantThink that was referring to the median which is apparently being mildly tapered to account for the width of O’Cll Monument.
The side pavement is also being lightly curved along its length.Is the hotel no 41? Is it expected that the makeover will take place under new ownership?
How exciting that the all the plaza limes are being fitted with new Christmas lights – they’re those new tiny little LEDs-type ones with black wires. It seems they’re being lined along the edges of the trees to highlight their square profiles.
Irritatingly though the plaza wasn’t hardwired for tree lights as one would have expected, so as we speak black wires are being draped down from the GPO… Not too noticable though. -
November 19, 2004 at 12:37 pm #728608
TLM
ParticipantThanks for the info… this site is an excellent resource to keep in touch with develpoments at home. I’m really looking forward to seeing in person developments on the street over Christmas….. Glad to see the trees have been generating some comments too!
-
November 19, 2004 at 5:14 pm #728609
TLM
ParticipantThis is the text of an Irish Times article in June of this year with details of the plans for RDH. An earlier article said the hotel had been acquired from the Fitzwilliam group by Park PLaza and was to become a 4 star hotel known as something like the Royal Park Plaza..
€8m revamp for Georgian townhouse
Refurbishment
Edel MorganThe Royal Dublin Hotel is to undertake the €8 million restoration of the last surviving Georgian townhouse on Upper O’Connell Street which it will eventually lease or dispose of as an office complex or corporate headquarters.
To make it suitable for modern office requirements, Number 42 will be separated from the hotel – it’s ground floor has been in use as part of the hotel foyer – and a glazed link to its rear will connect it to a third generation office block which, remarkably, will encase another historic protected building, O’Connell Hall.
Built in the mid 18th century, the four-storey over basement townhouse is the last surviving example, on what was originally a residential street, of the original Sackville Mall Mansion.
All of the other houses where either destroyed during the 1916 Rising or demolished in the 1960s, some to make way for the purpose-built Royal Dublin Hotel. The Fitzwilliam Group, which acquired the Royal Dublin in the early 1990s, has also secured planning permission from Dublin City Council for a €14 million revamp of the hotel which will get a new facade, the existing one being regarded as somewhat of an eyesore.
The group purchased the adjoining Aer Lingus ticket office two years ago for an estimated €1.9 million and Number 71 Parnell Square will be razed and replaced by a four-storey bedroom wing and ground floor retail unit. Another 24-bedroom wing over the hotel will front Moore Street and the fifth floor will be extended to give seven bedrooms.
It is envisaged the townhouse will principally act as a grand reception area for the office complex with board rooms and some office space and an assortment of buildings to the rear will be demolished to make way for a courtyard and a link to the 18,000 sq m (193,750 sq ft) five-storey block fronting Moore Lane.
The futuristic building will have a glass tube lift overlooking the courtyard. O’Connell Hall will be visible through the transparent skin of the building and will be enclosed in a double height floor.
It is believed the ornate Victorian assembly hall featuring gilded capitals was built by either the Irish Farmers Club or the Catholic Commercial Club somewhere between 1860 and 1880. The Fitzwilliam group has appointed agents Richard Ellis Gunne and Finnegan Menton to handle the sale/letting of the building. Number 42, which seems to have had nine lives, was reputedly hit by three shells during the 1916 Rising, was occupied during the civil war and went on to survive the 1960s cull. In recent years it has been languishing “in a state of advanced disrepair” according to a planning report.
Richard McLoughlin of Blackwood Associates conservation architects, who is involved in the project designed by Ashlin Coleman Heelan architects, says the lower floors of the townhouse are the most architecturally interesting. Designed by eminent 18th century architect Richard Castle, the high ceilings of the first floor salon are similar to those of houses on Henrietta Street and it features magnificent stucco work by Robert West, who worked on Leinster House, Carton House and Powerscourt House.
As it stands, the plasterwork on the first floor has been overpainted in a profusion of greens and gilts and will be painted white to highlight its fine detail. “For the moment, emergency work to the roof is keeping water out and the upper floors have in effect protected the lower ones,” says McLoughlin.
The townhouse will have complete independence from the hotel which will allow it to be appreciated in its full glory, says Albert Noonan, project architect of Ashlin Coleman Heelan. In recent decades it has been entered from the hotel “which means you don’t experience the full impact. You were never meant to enter those rooms from the side.”
The original grand staircase will be restored and extended to the basement where a nightclub was partially-built some years ago which will be removed. The restoration of the townhouse and upgrading of the hotel will form an important part of the rejuvenation of Upper O’Connell Street, where the redevelopment of the nearby Carlton Hotel has experienced a series of delays.
-
November 22, 2004 at 5:28 am #728610
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterO’Connell Street trees
Olivia KellyThe last 10 mature trees on O’Connell Street, Dublin, are almost certain to face destruction following a dramatic U-turn in public support for their preservation.
The results of the public consultation process, yet to be published, on the redevelopment of the street found a majority were in favour of the council’s plans to remove the trees, The Irish Times has learned.
This represents a marked change in public opinion from when the council began felling the London Plane trees, some more than 100-years-old, in November 2002.
Numerous representations were made to the council and public representatives demanding their retention. A number of Green Party TDs chained themselves to the trees in an attempt to stop the felling.
The council agreed to continue the first phase of the street improvement works without destroying any more trees, leaving 10 trees remaining at the northern end of the street.
While a number of city councillors, including the Lord Mayor, Mr Michael Conaghan have spoken against the council’s plans, public opinion seems to support the views of city management.
“The results of the public consultation would indicate that a majority, an healthy majority, are in favour of the new O’Connell Street plans,” the area manager for the project, Mr Paul Maloney, said.
Mr Maloney said he could not give exact details of the percentage in favour of the new plans, or the exact number of submissions to the public consultation process because the information had not yet been furnished to the councillors.
He said the city management was “extremely pleased” with the public’s response. The change in attitude was in part due to the positive reaction to the first phase of the redevelopment at the southern half the street and outside the GPO, he said.
By the time the improvement works are completed, the number of trees on the street will have risen from 62 to 156.
However, Mr Mooney stressed: “The removal of the trees would be the left to the very last stage, probably around February 2006, so there’s no need to make a decision on it yet. Nobody will be allowed to touch them until then.”
-
November 23, 2004 at 2:16 pm #728611
GrahamH
ParticipantInterestingly even out of the ten trees left up there, not even all of these are ‘original’ – as far as I can make out 7 of them are the older ones, with three specimens planted later (although still old) in between the 1900-03 ones.
-
November 24, 2004 at 9:58 pm #728612
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
Interestingly even out of the ten trees left up there, not even all of these are ‘original’ – as far as I can make out 7 of them are the older ones, with three specimens planted later (although still old) in between the 1900-03 ones.
I hope that they are removed and replanted to the Croppies Acre where all the visitors to the Early 20th Century History section of the National Museum can admire these ‘Witnesses to History’
I think that the visionary investment in the Gresham Hotel deserves an unimpeded flaunting
-
November 25, 2004 at 10:36 am #728613
GregF
ParticipantGas to think too that these wise and age old trees that bear witness to Irish history were only mere saplings in 1916. Cut them down and chop ’em up….Sure they’ll go towards warming the needy on these cold winters nights. Is’nt that right Ciaran Cuffe and Co…publicity stuntmen, politicians and mentalists masquerading as environmentalists.
-
November 25, 2004 at 2:09 pm #728614
urbanisto
ParticipantNew trees being put in on the median between Abbey and the Bridge today. This stretch should have been completed by now. Its good to see the City council winning the publicity battle over the remaining 10 now that the public have had a chance to see just how good the street will look. I think its vital for the street that replanting be allowed all along its length.
I agree as wll about hardwiring for the Christmas lights on the plaza. What a lack of foresight. I think they should have gotten Disney in to do the decorations though!
Also another premisies on the street is undergoing ronvations. The snooker hall, beside the Royal Dublin. Cant remember its name now they have taken down the sign. Anyway the owners have taken away all its 1930s style lighting…which is rather a shame i think.
-
November 25, 2004 at 3:13 pm #728615
GregF
ParticipantDespite the wonky wiring and the non lighting of the 4 trees on the median, but is’nt the plaza in front of the GPO looking really well with the Christmas tree, the crib, the lights, the Spire, etc…..What a great difference to past years!
-
November 25, 2004 at 3:13 pm #728616
GrahamH
ParticipantIt is looking great, there’s no doubt about that – just thinking back to the cracked concrete slabbed median with scrawny trees dotted about in front of the GPO, the difference is remarkable.
Is it Ned Kelly’s Stephen with the globed lamp standards outside? Always liked these.
Agreed about the median being finished by now – it should have been completed in time to help alleviate the pressures on the currently dug up side pavement.
The first of the new paving is going down now outside Burger King – as always the stone looks fantastic.The lime lights (excuse the pun) aren’t quite as spectacular as expected to say the least, and the limes in the middle of the street on the median having no lights at all because of the wiring issue is a clumsy error.
The CC Lighting Dept should learn from Eircom, if anyone’s seen the Ardilaun Centre recently 🙂 -
November 25, 2004 at 10:39 pm #728617
GrahamH
ParticipantJust to quickly drag up the corner building with Bachelor’s Walk again – the tripartite window on the first floor is an original WSC feature. I was trying to fnd out a bit more about this development and it turns out this Wyatt-like window was a feature used to terminate all of the WSC ‘blocks’ on O’Cll St – and sure enough looking at various photographs, they can be seen at every corner facing into the street. They have flat pediments with elegant classical corbels supporting them at the ends and on the mullions dividing the windows into three.
Similar features were to be used on Dame Street.And not only that, the second floor window directly above the tripartites on every corner has a little flat pediment to further terminate the simple ‘palace’ facade nature of the blocks. It would also appear that facing the river, the third window from the corner (the central one), on the first floor on both quays also has a little flat pediment to match those of the corners.
Just interesting I think, I often assumed the Sackville Mall development was even plainer than the streets south of the river – although it was from the perspective that none of the other windows had any stone dressings at all. -
November 27, 2004 at 6:27 pm #728618
Devin
ParticipantThe first-floor tripartite window to mark the ends of those 5-storey Lr. O’C. St. WSC’s blocks was a nice touch – very subtle, very less-is-more.
I presume the architraves were in granite, like the ones on the first floors of most of the surviving D’Olier/Westm. originals. I wonder if the granite architrave – or some of it – survives underneath the cement rendering on that window at the Bachelor’s Wlk/O’C St. cnr? (probably not)
-
November 29, 2004 at 3:39 pm #728619
GrahamH
ParticipantWas wondering this – it probably would have been easier to knock em off with a big hammer than try rendering over, esp with the corbels.
Presumably they were granite, suffice to say in the Victorian photos they’re painted white. so it’s impossible to tell from these anyway.Here’s a quick pic compliation showing the windows on the corner with Eden Quay – I have a detailed pic of the Clarks corner window before 1916 but it’s in a book and I can’t transfer.
It’s interesting too to note the later impact of the Bread Co building on the terrace – (apologies for resolution) -
December 1, 2004 at 9:32 am #728620
Anonymous
InactiveThe Dublin Bread Company building must be the most bizarre building ever seen in Ireland, I had never seen it in comparison with what was there before and I’d have to say I still like it for its sheer brass neck.
-
December 1, 2004 at 12:34 pm #728621
Rory W
Participant@Diaspora wrote:
The Dublin Bread Company building must be the most bizarre building ever seen in Ireland, I had never seen it in comparison with what was there before and I’d have to say I still like it for its sheer brass neck.
Never get built today – An Taisce would complain due to its bulk and being out of place on a Georgian Street 😉
-
December 1, 2004 at 2:34 pm #728622
Devin
ParticipantIt’s interesting in the 1890s photo the way you can see that, after about 100 years, the whole WSC’s block between Eden Quay and Lr. Abbey St. had had no alterations or demolitions, only minor decorations added.
Then came the Bread Company……. -
December 1, 2004 at 2:47 pm #728623
GrahamH
ParticipantAnd even those frills were only added after the WSC broke up and the Corporation took over. Wonder how the WSC would have coped with the ousting of classicism from favour if they had stayed together. Would they have allowed more uniform window additions or wholescale demolitions of terraces?
Some of the later pedimants etc are quite attractive, esp the scroll-like ones. Whatever about these additions, the rendering of the odd facade was totally inappropriate – the Bread Bldg kocked one down for its sins 🙂The Bread Co building surely must have been the tallest building ever built in Dublin till the 60s, excluding churches and domes.
-
December 1, 2004 at 2:59 pm #728624
Devin
ParticipantThe Bread company took two out actually. But it’s a good question; was there anybody to protest when those two were demolished & the Bread Co. began to go up? Was there anybody to say ‘this is an intact block of symmetrical, classically-proportioned street-architecture of 100 hundred years & deserves protection from demolitions & inappropriate new buildings’?
-
December 1, 2004 at 3:08 pm #728625
GrahamH
ParticipantIt’s surprising, considering the classical look came back into fashion just as the Bread Bldg went up. Suppose the Edwardians wanted new and shiny Georgiana – just like today really 🙂 Thank goodness they hadn’t discovered plastic yet 😀
I know the Bread was two-plot demoltion – now a single-width 8 storey building, that would be worth seeing! -
December 1, 2004 at 4:09 pm #728626
kefu
Participant“Rory W said: Never get built today – An Taisce would complain due to its bulk and being out of place on a Georgian Street.”
Don’t joke about things like that. We all know it’s true. And they would probably have sent in a cut and pasted objection.
-
December 1, 2004 at 4:41 pm #728627
Devin
ParticipantThere was no plaaning legislation as we know it back then, and no An Taisces – no need I suppose.
Generally everything built was nice & good quality, if boring sometimes
…then the odd freak like the Bread Company -
December 1, 2004 at 6:42 pm #728628
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterEven back then there was controversy – think of the fuss made by Irish architects when Sunlight Chamber was built in 1901
The building met with resistance from architects in Dublin at the time due to the fact that a foreign architect had been hired (Lutyens also had this problem). Upon its completion, ‘The Irish Builder’ referred to it as the ugliest building in Dublin, while a few years later the same journal called it ‘pretentious and mean’.
-
December 1, 2004 at 11:26 pm #728629
Anonymous
Inactive@kefu wrote:
Don’t joke about things like that. We all know it’s true. And they would probably have sent in a cut and pasted objection.
You sound so bitter Kefu,
ABP made a decision based on the facts and chose to overlook a couple of typos, I know the individual involved and I don’t know how she balances all the work she takes on between professional, family and voluntary work. The scheme you refered to last summer has thankfully passed through ABP as the architects addressed ABP’s concerns and I have no doubt the scheme will be highly sucessful. -
December 3, 2004 at 10:44 pm #728630
GrahamH
ParticipantOf course the Bread Building would be objected to and entirely with good reason – what a ridiculous thing to ever have happened.
If it was still there today of course, it would be wrapped up nice and comfy in fluffy nostalgia and would be untouchable as a monument to crazy Victoriana. The fact that its ‘oldness’ would be in character with its surroundings would also make it immune to any criticisim.
But of course it should never have been built in that location.Here’s a still from footage of Michael Collins’ funeral in 1922 in the newly wrecked Uppper O’Cll St.
The trees are pretty well established, but you can clearly see the newer ones amongst the older specimens.
To put some shape on the bomb site, the red lines indicate where Nth Earl St and Cathedral St are. -
December 4, 2004 at 10:12 pm #728631
Jack White
ParticipantThat is one depressing image Graham,
I’d gladly live with the Bread Co if the rest of the street had of survived
-
December 6, 2004 at 1:14 pm #728632
GregF
ParticipantWas’nt Cathal Brugha Street and Sean McDermot Street newly created here after the 1916 Uprising/Civil War blitz …or did they always exist. See the hole to the left in the photo, was’nt O’Connel Street continuous and unbroken here prior to the devastation?
-
December 6, 2004 at 6:47 pm #728633
rperse
Participantthere was a small laneway (greggs lane)leading off o’connell street at this point, following a line similar to the angle at which the academy hotel now fronts the steet. At this time sean mc dermott strett (glouchester street)terminated at a church located in the middle of what is now cathal brugha. The Gardners were originally buried in this church. Think the church was knocked about this time for structural reasons creating the new approach to o connell street.
-
December 6, 2004 at 6:51 pm #728634
GregF
Participant….Good one rperse
-
December 6, 2004 at 7:11 pm #728635
Devin
Participant…and the replacement ’20s church is pretty cute, an underrated gem I think.
Regarding the photo of O’C St. in ’22, you can see that all the buildings destroyed in 1916 on that side of the street – ie. from Eden Qy. up to Cathedral St. – had already been replaced (the Dunnes Stores redevelopment on Stephen’s St./Georges St. first lodged plans in 1997 and is still not finished 🙁 ). Then everything from Cathedral St. down to Cathal Brugha St. came down in ’22 – there doesn’t seem to have been any overlap in the destruction.
-
December 6, 2004 at 7:11 pm #728636
J. Seerski
ParticipantHi,
This Church used to be called St. Thomas’ Church and it was modelled similarly to that on Thomas Street – palladian in style. it was very long. The Church was demolished and Cathal Brugha Street drives through where it once stood on Marlborough Street. The Church on the Island replaced it, and is now the church of the combined parishes of St George and St Thomas.
It made sense to place an opening there as it was a vey long uninterrupted streetscape – it provides more access and commercial potential. Maybe thats the reasoning of the proposed strret that was to link Moore and O’Connell via the site adjacent the Carlton. I have to say that the breath-taking pace of development around that site makes the hapless Carlton stick out as more than ever – Parnell Street is finally coming together and it is becomming a major retail/leisure street. But as for the Parnell Sq. end of O’Connell Street, well, we wait, and wait, wand wait…..
-
December 7, 2004 at 2:56 pm #728637
GrahamH
ParticipantThe current church is lovely isn’t it, that wine-coloured 30s brickwork always looks so good.
The fact it’s on an island gives it a charming toytown-like quality too 🙂Greggs Lane can be seen on many 18th century maps, as can the predecessor of Cathedral St, Stable Lane, of which there were 50 million others in the city at the time.
I don’t necessarily agree about Cathal Brugha St being needed up there though – it’s very wide and dilutes the impact of the ‘mall effect’ on O’Cll St, stranding the Findlater House terrace between it and Parnell St, almost detaching it from the rest of the thoroughfare – perhaps if it was narrower and a bit further southIt’s interesting that apparently none of the post-1916 buildings were damaged in 1922, imagine if Clerys had been hit just after opening their doors the same year – it would have been like the completion of the 8 year refurbishment of the GPO 6 weeks before Easter Monday 1916…
Just on the Bread Co building again, it’s facinating to note that some vestiges of that mad structure still exist today – not original features as such, but the precedent set by it.
As one would expect, post-1916 the owners of the building would have wanted to rebuild their premises to the original floor area considering the height of their building previously. And sure enough, despite the new regular parapet height and pompous neo-classical frills, they still managed to squeeze and extra floor out of the building by plonking a flat-topped storey on the roof, just set back from the street. It’s funny to see it in contrast to the street facade, an ugly unadorned lump – true 20s Irish architecture. It is the only building in the terrace (now the BoI) that has this addition. I’ve a pic here of it somewhere to post. -
December 7, 2004 at 8:27 pm #728638
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
Of course the Bread Building would be objected to and entirely with good reason – what a ridiculous thing to ever have happened.
If it was still there today of course, it would be wrapped up nice and comfy in fluffy nostalgia and would be untouchable as a monument to crazy Victoriana. The fact that its ‘oldness’ would be in character with its surroundings would also make it immune to any criticisim.
But of course it should never have been built in that location.Here’s a still from footage of Michael Collins’ funeral in 1922 in the newly wrecked Uppper O’Cll St.
The trees are pretty well established, but you can clearly see the newer ones amongst the older specimens.
To put some shape on the bomb site, the red lines indicate where Nth Earl St and Cathedral St are.The backs of the houses in the centre of the image look suspiciously like a 1980’s office block
-
December 8, 2004 at 11:38 am #728639
GrahamH
ParticipantIt does have that look about it alright – I was thinking how strangely modern it looked too…
Here’s a pic of the Bread Co replacement – the Hibernian Bank, with upper storey (if not two) visible from O’Cll Bridge.
It looks like a 30s toilet extention to a national school 🙂 -
December 8, 2004 at 11:49 am #728640
GrahamH
ParticipantAlso here’s an interesting detail from the building next to the Gresham on Upper O’Cll St – a date of 1777, presumably referring to the business that established themselves there, which if the case, would be important as an indicator of the residential street turning commercial
Coincidentally, 1777 is the very year the WSC recieved the grant from Parliament to extend Sackville Mall to the river.Also thrown in Carroll’s ‘Irish Gifts’ first floor windows which have been fitted out with PVC, looking lovely facing out onto the plaza – and appear a heck of a lot newer than Beresford Place. These windows are certainly not more than 6/7 years old, if not much newer, yet this terrace has been protected since at least 1991.
They look horrendous next to the magnificent steel or sash windows of various neighbours. -
December 9, 2004 at 9:16 pm #728641
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
Also here’s an interesting detail from the building next to the Gresham on Upper O’Cll St – a date of 1777, presumably referring to the business that established themselves there, which if the case, would be important as an indicator of the residential street turning commercial
Coincidentally, 1777 is the very year the WSC recieved the grant from Parliament to extend Sackville Mall to the river.Also thrown in Carroll’s ‘Irish Gifts’ first floor windows which have been fitted out with PVC, looking lovely facing out onto the plaza – and appear a heck of a lot newer than Beresford Place. These windows are certainly not more than 6/7 years old, if not much newer, yet this terrace has been protected since at least 1991.
They look horrendous next to the magnificent steel or sash windows of various neighbours.I think that older buildings get away with set backs more because the building materials were generally unchanged in days gone by as illustrated by your photos particularly the granite front.
In more modern schemes there has been a tendency to put the airconditioning units on top which stick out terribly and are often bedecked in mobile phone antennae, one of the reasons I really like Georges Quay Plaza is the way they future proofed their services provision under the ‘pointy hats’ -
December 11, 2004 at 10:14 pm #728642
Jack White
ParticipantDid anyone see the carol singers on O’Connell St plaza lastnight?
I’m not normally a fan of this type of thing but between the tree and the refurbished setting it looked like something you wouldn’t have expected in Dublin only a few short years ago.
-
December 11, 2004 at 11:39 pm #728643
asdasd
ParticipantWalking around Dublin today as a non-Dubliner ( who has lived nevertheless in 5 foreign large cities) I have to say that Dublin is a great Christmas City. The only better I have been to ( and lived in for a time) is New York.
-
December 14, 2004 at 12:09 pm #728644
GrahamH
ParticipantThe flashing wreaths on Henry St are great fun, the latest addition. Still preferred the blue lights that used to make up the big stars here though – they were changed to red last year.
There’s lots of setbacks on O’Cll St, but by far the most distinguished is the Gresham terrace with the copper-clad mansard storey. The green adds a real splash of colour too to the otherwise deadpan facades.
An example of setbacks not working on modern buildings if not treated properly is right next to here – Findlater House.
Nuff said… -
December 14, 2004 at 1:47 pm #728645
urbanisto
ParticipantQuestion for 2005: How long does it take to pave a street?
-
December 17, 2004 at 12:29 pm #728646
GrahamH
ParticipantHow long is a piece of string? To be fair, it would appear things are running to schedule – then again one may argue the Iarnrod Eireann ploy, just timetable in an extra lump of time onto each journey to cover yourself.
Why was the western side, arguably the most congested pavement in the country, started first, considering whatever project carried out during this time would coincide with Christmas? Perhaps logistical reasons necessitated it.
Also, something that was bugging me at every ped crossing on the street was how close buses seemed to be passing by the kerb and pedestrians waiting at the crossings, but it was difficult to work out why. But just looking this morning, sure buses completely fill up the inside lane, literally from kerb to middle line there is nothing but the width of the 3 cobbles along the kerb free, not more than a few inches. The outside lane seems to be marignally larger.
Why are the lanes so narrow – by the nature of their width, wing mirrors and side space needed between vehicles, two buses simply cannot pass within their designated lanes without significantly over-riding the cycle lane – which as mentioned before is awkward to use in its current position.Wing-mirror clipping is now going to be a feature on the side pavement crossings on what is a supposedly tailor-made pedestrian environment. It is the only element on the refurbished parts of the street that is uncomfortable for pedestrians, but it’s a big one, as anyone who’s been whacked by a wing mirror will tell you.
-
December 17, 2004 at 1:20 pm #728647
Mob79
Participant@StephenC wrote:
Question for 2005: How long does it take to pave a street?
depends on the size of the street baddum chhhh
-
December 17, 2004 at 2:27 pm #728648
paul_moloney
ParticipantIt is the only element on the refurbished parts of the street that is uncomfortable for pedestrians, but it’s a big one, as anyone who’s been whacked by a wing mirror will tell you
More than uncomfortable, I imagine – years back I saw the aftermath of a pedestrian being whacked by a bus’s mirror on Nassau St, with a thick trail of blood leading into Trinity College….
P.
-
December 17, 2004 at 8:06 pm #728649
Anonymous
InactiveI was on O’Connell St today and the section of paving on the left going towards the GPO appears to be close to completion, this is a welcome development.
-
December 18, 2004 at 2:37 pm #728650
Anonymous
InactiveMcDonalds are rumoured to be considering a McCafe for their O’Connell St bridge outlet, I hope they change the shopfront as well
-
December 20, 2004 at 11:07 am #728651
GregF
ParticipantThe new make over that McDonalds here got recently is not too impressive…..all those partitions look quite awful.
-
December 20, 2004 at 5:52 pm #728652
GrahamH
ParticipantI think they’re alright, although not the way you walk in the door and are straight away confronted with them.
I went in there for a Christmas ‘treat’ the other day, if that’s the word – feeling thoroughly sick afterwards – but the views from upstairs are always impressive, the 1916 terrace across the road seems larger than life from up there, the Ulster Bank being particularly fine with its little ceremonial balcony beneath the columns and pediment and dome on top – a lovely piece of architecture.Here’s a couple of Christmassy pics of the street, one of the plaza limes and another of the Tree and GPO.
I think the lime lights are unimpressive, surely professional custom-made nets of lights are not beyond the means of the CC? And any time I’ve been on the street they’ve never all been working at once – the one’s that are off at night are on during the day and vice versa.The GPO’s uplighters have been fitted with white bulbs and look much better now. Hibernia’s looking well too:
-
December 20, 2004 at 5:55 pm #728653
GrahamH
ParticipantThe lime trees – sorry about how dark these images are:
-
December 20, 2004 at 5:56 pm #728654
GrahamH
ParticipantAnd some wider pics of the nightime street:
-
December 27, 2004 at 9:08 pm #728655
Anonymous
InactiveI agree Graham the lights on the lime trees don’t look good at all. The trees don’t have the bulk to accomodate so many of them, all in all though its a damn sight better than previous years and the wider footpaths towards O’Connell Bridge really have moved the pinch point further up
-
December 29, 2004 at 2:13 am #728656
GrahamH
ParticipantDefinitely. The plaza paving is the best part – I love that stone that turns black in the rain, and the way it contrasts with the lighter squares – it’s like a giant chess board!
The lights on the limes aren’t that effective cause they’re just strings that have been dumped on them, many of which only dangle half way down the sides – rather than custom-made sets that either create a scattered starlight effect, or highlight the profiles of the trees.
-
December 29, 2004 at 11:48 pm #728657
Anonymous
InactiveWhat I also really like on the Plaza are the new traffic lights, the design is so fresh and the number of them as well, if only College Green could get a similar treatment. There is growing evidence that the revamp has helped property values on the sections of the street close to the revamp.
There must now be a compelling case to extend the O’Connell St plan into Westmoreland St at least which is now exhibiting the worst symptoms experienced by O’Connell St before the plan was launched.
-
December 30, 2004 at 12:02 am #728658
GrahamH
ParticipantCollege Green has just recieved the traffic light treatment, and is a big improvement, including the sequencing being changed so you’ve enough time to cross in a semi-digified manner 🙂 But you still have to wait ages for the green man.
The new lights & sequencing at College St are esp welcome.The idea of revamping Westmoreland St I’ve always found more appealing than O’Cll, simply because it’s more compact and more obviously linear and clean-cut in layout. If they feck up the trees here I’ll uproot them myself!
Would have liked to see Westmoreland done at the same time as O’Connell St. I doubt in 1997/8 during the IAP writing it was even considered nearly (if not) a decade would pass before this neglected street would be tackled, let alone be finished. -
December 30, 2004 at 12:15 am #728659
Anonymous
InactiveThey changed the light sequences on the BOI side but not at the TCD/Westin crossing which is as bad as ever,
Regarding Westmoreland St I agree that it could be possible to execute it cleanly, it is a very short and entirely straight street. The difference it would make would be amazing, there is a story on http://www.rte/business today that Dublin has received its highest ever footfall averaging 660,000 per day,
It really displays the reality that if you make a cityscape more appealling that ‘they will come’ the City really needs to start expanding both the Southern and Northern Cores into each other, you can see this happening on Lower O’Connell St and at the end of Grafton St, the types of retail use down there couldn’t have been imagined a decade ago.
Westmoreland St really isn’t pulling its weight as is, at all.
-
December 30, 2004 at 12:29 am #728660
GrahamH
ParticipantNot always good having the place full of people – town was a flippin nightmare today!
Ah no – it’s really good to see people coming back – heard a number of people referring to Switzers over Christmas, don’t know if they were looking for it or what, but it’s great to have people making a conscious decision to come into town now. I’d certainly agree with Thursday being the busiest of the weekdays!Clery’s is really fulfilling its role now in attracting people to O’Connell St – everyone’s talking about it, the jewel in the street’s crown that was obliterated with muck for the past 40 years – it’s extraordinary to see it suddenly come into its own, no doubt the glossy telly ads are helping!
Have the Trinity lights not been tweaked on College St? Surely they have been at the College side of the island – you don’t have to wait for half an hour any more?!
-
December 30, 2004 at 12:34 am #728661
Anonymous
InactiveCleary’s really has dusted the cobwebs alright,
The product offering was surprising to someone whoi hasn’t been in there for quite a while, Bests menswear also has really good stuff and they really did an excellent revamp of their store. Rumour has it that Arnotts have acquired the Indo HQ and will shortly be submitting a planning application which really is fantastic news, I just hope that they open up the back of the building to provide a continuity of the GPO arcade which is one of my favourite places in Dublin particularly on a wet November day when Henry St is totally packed.
Maybe they have tweaked the lights on College St a little, but I was there over 5 minutes one cold evening before Christmas, I don’t want to sound like a whinger but I have delibretely selected other routes where possible since, it does the shops on that side no good, at all.
-
December 30, 2004 at 1:18 am #728662
GrahamH
ParticipantI know people who do the exact same thing! It’s so frustrating to get there and then suddenly remember – arrgh, why did I come this way again! Interesting to note how a simple signal issue can affect trade along here
Clery’s is really looking stunning now – those white columns are just magnificent (some still have 20’s electrial shafts attached!) The staircase is stunning, (and it’s inch-piled carpet) as are the oak Govt Bldgs-like doorcases at the top leading into the Tearooms – all impeccably tasteful 🙂
The dark wooden floors were a good choice over the more conventional sandy shades, and various other details are equally well thought-out.
The menswear dept in the basement (now there’s a surprise) is another hidden asset of Clery’s. The recently opened Discount Electrical down there is housed in what appears to be an old store or section of some kind, with what appears to be very fine original plasterwork – more worthy a look than the plasma screens beneath 🙂 -
December 31, 2004 at 8:27 pm #728663
Anonymous
Inactive@Thomond Park wrote:
Regarding Westmoreland St I agree that it could be possible to execute it cleanly, it is a very short and entirely straight street. The difference it would make would be amazing, there is a story on http://www.rte/business today that Dublin has received its highest ever footfall averaging 660,000 per day,
It really displays the reality that if you make a cityscape more appealling that ‘they will come’ the City really needs to start expanding both the Southern and Northern Cores into each other, you can see this happening on Lower O’Connell St and at the end of Grafton St, the types of retail use down there couldn’t have been imagined a decade ago.
Westmoreland St really isn’t pulling its weight as is, at all.
I’d love to know what basis those figures are on i.e. what Streets the information is taken from, are these genuine shoppers or are people simply passing to and from work also included? Regarding the theory of growing both cores into each other, would it not be better to try and take some of the pressure off Henry St and Grafton St by encouraging the growth of retail in places like Lower Abbey St and into Temple Bar?
-
January 3, 2005 at 5:16 pm #728664
Anonymous
InactiveO’Connell Street Improvement Works
18 Oct 2004O’Connell Street Improvement
O’Connell Street improvement works have been designed to upgrade the environment for pedestrians and shoppers by reducing rat run traffic flows, widening pavements and with new tree planting creating a spacious and elegant boulevard. The design incorporates natural granite paving for the central median and footpaths extended to approximately twice their previous width. A new public lighting scheme together with specialist street furniture will be provided. On completion of the scheme 145 semi-mature trees will have been planted – more than double the original number.At this time, work is complete in the area between Henry Street and Abbey Street including the Spire and the GPO Plaza. The Plaza as the centrepiece of the street, is formally enclosed on three sides by 27 clipped lime trees. Combined with ground and mast lighting this creates an important civic space for the city.
The area of the remaining works stretches northwards on Upper O’Connell Street from Henry Street/North Earl Street to Parnell Street and southwards on Lower O’Connell Street East from Middle Abbey Street to Eden Quay.
The widened footpaths and central median will be paved in granite and the carriageways will be surfaced in asphalt.
The works include the provision of a new public lighting scheme and street furniture, the planting of 84 trees – 42 on the footpaths and 42 on the median.
Since the completion of the major civic works including the Plaza, the Spire and the Luas shoppers have returned to O’Connell Street in great number.
Access to the 3,000 shoppers’ car spaces in the area has improved and the number of transactions in the retail till is up by around 5%.
-
January 5, 2005 at 4:37 pm #728665
GrahamH
Participant“On completion of the scheme 145 semi-mature trees will have been planted – more than double the original number”
That argument is akin to the health service logic of throwing more cash in – ‘it has to be better’
How the trees are used is what counts. (Promise not to mention trees again for at least 2 days :))Otherwise the Plaza is fantastic, and the use of black asphalt on the roadways I think works particularly well for O’Cll St. Although conventional, I think it is more appropriate than other paler colours that may have been considered, which would have led to a bland beigey overload on what is a very sombre, almost washed out street in places.
In contrast, I think a sandy shade would look particularly good on D’Olier St, matching the colours of the WSC shopfronts and general tones of the upper floors. -
January 6, 2005 at 10:26 pm #728666
Anonymous
InactiveA point has been made on http://www.platform11.org that the potential impact of a Luas line on O’Connell st could generate enough enough opposition to postpone its implementation. Looking at the Central Plaza and O’Connell monument I believe that there is a certain merit in that argument.
How do you think that a twin tracked Luas line would impact on the objectives of the O’Connell St IAP?
-
January 9, 2005 at 2:22 am #728667
Anonymous
InactivePower Leisure were refused permission for a change of use from Banking Hall to betting office and ‘sports cafe’ at no 12 Lower O’Connell St, I view this as a very positive development and a sign that the Street is really starting to attract a number of diverse shopping choices.
Also of interest is that Supermacs have opened a Juice Bar under the brand name ‘relish’ at their existing premises (removing some burger & chips capacity) and McDonalds are rumoured to be actively considering a McCafe similar to their successful Grafton St venture.
The reserved judgement on the Carlton Site seems to be taking an age, how difficult is it to make a decision, presumably there is ample precedent for a decision. Realistically this is a vital development for the main street in the City, how many other European Capitals have had a derelict site on their principal thoroughfare for a 20 year period?
-
January 9, 2005 at 4:55 pm #728668
GrahamH
ParticipantHas the betting office decision been appealed to ABP? On what grounds were they refused permission does anyone know – are use-specific guidelines set out for the O’Cll St/HARP area in the City Dev Plan?
Regarding McDonalds, as yet I fail to see how a McCafé is going to be integrated into this premises, what with the new fittings spread so broadly out across the place, and the lack of space for a specific counter etc – certainly not in the ‘intimate’ fashion of Grafton St anyway. Perhaps they’ll dig up what’s just gone down!
As for a juice bar on O’Connell St – did you ever think you’d see the day? 🙂Is the Carlton judgement not due shortly – think I heard late Jan/early Feb somewhere.
The CC must be so frustrated with this, it’s holding up so many things and it doesn’t reflect well on them either, even if it’s not their fault – they’re the fall guy in all this. -
January 11, 2005 at 12:14 am #728669
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
Is the Carlton judgement not due shortly – think I heard late Jan/early Feb somewhere. The CC must be so frustrated with this, it’s holding up so many things and it doesn’t reflect well on them either, even if it’s not their fault – they’re the fall guy in all this.
I hope your right, reserved judgements can go on for ever, I have a freind who is waiting for one since 1999, needless to say this is a much more important case (to the greater good), but it just goes to show how a six month ‘reserved judgement’ will shortly enter its 6th year.
Just on the subject of the derelict site, more particularly the hoarding across it, why was Dr Quirkey’s facade copied, of all the buildings on the Street, what were they thinking?
-
January 11, 2005 at 4:43 pm #728670
urbanisto
ParticipantI suppose the reason it was used Diaspora was because the original Millenium Mall envisaged a development with the Carlton at its centre. This clading was a kind of pre-advertisment fir the new building. Beats the gapping void I guess.
Why is the east-side stretch from Abbey to the Bridge being left until the end to complete. Anyone know. Seems such an odd thing to do. It means you wont realy appreciate the newly completed median and west side. Cant imagine that distruption to business is a problem. Do you think it is due to proposals to run the Luas up to O’Connell St. Are they waiting until this idea is put to bed before they ebing works.
-
January 11, 2005 at 7:09 pm #728671
GrahamH
ParticipantWhat do you mean being left to the end Stephen? Is it not just about to be tackled, now that the western side is nearing completion?
Whenever it is dealt with, the large cast iron pillar box there should not only be retained, but fully restored as well. And there’s at least another one way up near the Gresham that deserves the same treatment. To have them replaced with those terrible day-glo lumps of plastic they call modern design would be a great shame. The contrast between the new paving and old boxes should also look good. Indeed these are the closest items of furniture on the street to be in any way described as ‘original’.
-
January 12, 2005 at 12:11 pm #728672
urbanisto
ParticipantNo. The plan is to complete the north end of the street first and then finally this small stretch. I know – its bizzare. Thats why Im wondering what the rationale behind it is.
Theres a new contempary shopfront being added to the snnoker hall up near the Royal Dublin (still cant remember the name). Gone are the old decorative cast-iron style lighting,,,,in comes modern steel. Its not finished yet but it might work – particularly in light of new pavement and new RDH facade.
-
January 12, 2005 at 1:46 pm #728673
Rory W
Participant@StephenC wrote:
No. The plan is to complete the north end of the street first and then finally this small stretch. I know – its bizzare. Thats why Im wondering what the rationale behind it is.
Theres a new contempary shopfront being added to the snnoker hall up near the Royal Dublin (still cant remember the name). Gone are the old decorative cast-iron style lighting,,,,in comes modern steel. Its not finished yet but it might work – particularly in light of new pavement and new RDH facade.
Ned Kellys – or ned kelly’s sports club (all lower case) to give it it’s full title. Past it yesterday, looks quite good andlooks a million times better than the horrific Dr Quirkeys
-
January 12, 2005 at 3:29 pm #728674
GrahamH
ParticipantWhen Dr Quirkey’s was built – it’s a tricky building to date. It looks 1940s/early 50s but also has a kinda early 90s appearance too!
Where did you hear about the lower end being postponed Stephen? Pehaps as you say Luas proposals are holding it up.
-
January 14, 2005 at 7:07 pm #728675
GrahamH
ParticipantWell here’s the new Ned Kelly’s. I think it is an disimprovement. It is ironic that the only decent shopfront on the upper street is the very one to be replaced, while the other ones in dire need of work still languish up there.
This replacement did not need to be done – the stained glass and iron lamposts were attractive and entirely in keeping with the building regardless of whether or not they were original. It had some character, whereas now, although undoubtedly attractive, is hardly distinctive. The appeal stems more from its newness than its design.
-
January 14, 2005 at 7:43 pm #728676
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
Well here’s the new Ned Kelly’s. I think it is an disimprovement. It is ironic that the only decent shopfront on the upper street is the very one to be replaced, while the other ones in dire need of work still languish up there.
This replacement did not need to be done – the stained glass and iron lamposts were attractive and entirely in keeping with the building regardless of whether or not they were original. It had some character, whereas now, although undoubtedly attractive, is hardly distinctive. The appeal stems more from its newness than its design.
I must admit my bias on this one, I spent many an afternoon skiving off college to play snooker in Ned Kelly’s,
I am also happy enough with the new shop front and I particularly like the minimalist sign when it is iluminated. When you compare the shopfront of this arcade with all the others particularly the old funland or Dr Smirkeys it really is an improvement although I do take your point that what was there was not particularly offensive.
What does offend me along here is the plantroom that is visable rising over the rear of No 45, it destroys the vista from Cathal Brugha St completely dwarfing what is a very fine Georgian town house, no doubt it was thrown up without planning permission.
-
January 14, 2005 at 8:13 pm #728677
GrahamH
ParticipantYes it’s horrendous alright.
I do like the new signage – very sleek. The glazing’s a bit strange though, not quite modern, not quite traditional…
-
January 15, 2005 at 7:01 pm #728678
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
I do like the new signage – very sleek. The glazing’s a bit strange though, not quite modern, not quite traditional…
A bit like that end of the Street its very hard to put a discription on the mix of the good the bad and the ugly down there!!!!!!!
-
January 18, 2005 at 9:37 pm #728679
GrahamH
ParticipantPeople have probably heard already but a man died today on O’Connell St from injuries sustained in a very nasty fall from the second floor of the Lir Clock terrace on the street.
Apparently he was a window cleaner and something obviously went badly wrong.I wondered what had happened with the cordon etc at street level, and the poor man’s harness thing was lying on the ground. He pulled away part of the Chas F Ryan sign up there, bits of it lying on the street as well – whether he was tied to it or just grabbed hold in desperation. Horrible.
-
January 20, 2005 at 6:42 am #728680
timbo
Participantnow that the o connel street rejuvination project is well and truly up and running, has any plan been made for additional statues along the upper section of the street.
it is a national disgrace that people such as padraig pearse, de valera and michael collins (surely irelands most influential figures of the recent past are not represented on the very street where the nation was born of their toil). yet figures such as wellington (who publicly stated that he was ashamed of his irishness) have the largest monument in the state dedicated to them.
i am currently travelling around the world and have noticed that every country singles out and honours their heroes in an appropriate manner, so why is it ireland cannot do so. now is the perfect time to do so. it would also balance out the parade of statues on the street.
once i return home i fully intend lobbying my local t.d. (john o donoghue-minister), not that it wil likely do any good. any other ideas on how this situation might be improved.
p.s-archiseek is the best thing about the internet
-
January 20, 2005 at 7:55 am #728681
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterWellington does NOT have a monument on O’Connell Street….
otherwise your comment “archiseek is the best thing about the internet” is very true
-
January 20, 2005 at 11:06 am #728682
TLM
ParticipantI dont think everyone will agree with you Timbo but I do see your point. The current trend seems to be towards non-religious or political monuments/sculptures like the Spire. I like the Spire (for all its engineering faults) but i think it’s a pity that Pearse and the other 1916 signatories are’nt represented in anyway (that I know of at least) at the GPO. Regardless of how people judge the influence of such people, I dont think you can deny they had a hugely significant influence, and it seems unfortunate that they’re architecturally airbrushed out of our history at such a significant site.
-
January 20, 2005 at 12:05 pm #728683
kefu
ParticipantIrish heroes are often honoured by adding their names to the worst city council housing in Dublin.
For instance, the signatories of the declaration are all remembered in the various names of the towers of Ballymun: Patrick Pearse, James Connolly, Austin Clarke, McDonagh etc.
Pearse and Collins are remembered by their names being attached to street names, Pearse Street and Collins Avenue in Dublin. There’s a statue of Michael Collins in Clonakilty, Co Cork, and the memorial where he died. There’s also a statue of De Valera in Ennis, Co Clare.
I don’t think there’s any question of them being airbrushed from history but O’Connell Street already has too many statues, none of which are maintained very well. I would much rather see the O’Connell Monument cleared of bird crap and the Wellington Monument in the Park cleared of graffiti than more new statues. -
January 20, 2005 at 12:29 pm #728684
TLM
ParticipantI take your point Kefu about the many placenames etc relating to Irish historical figures, my issue is with the lack of such commemoration at the GPO. I also agree that cleaning up the street’s current statues would be worthwhile. The signatories could be remembered by a plaque, or even paving stone (like the orange order one on dawson street) or I’m sure in countless other ways without the need for more statues which, granted, the street might not need.
-
January 20, 2005 at 12:30 pm #728685
notjim
Participantanyway it isn’t true, there is that nice bronze cucullain and those wierd naive painting in the gpo and the garden of remberance on parnell square, oh and they are preserving the house on moore street the rebels fled to.
-
January 20, 2005 at 2:16 pm #728686
emf
ParticipantHas anyone had a game of table tennis yet at the new installation north of ‘The Spire’ yet. Bats are available in the tourist office down from The Savoy. Think its part of an art project looking at the positive side of Communism!!
-
January 20, 2005 at 8:37 pm #728687
GrahamH
ParticipantYes – was thinking of having a go!
“Dublin City Gallery the Hugh Lane has commissioned “Tisch Tennis Tisch”, a monument to leisure by artists Declan Clarke & Paul McDevitt which will be located north of the Spire, on O’Connell Street, Dublin City’s main thoroughfare.
Communism is curated by Grant Watson and while the primary site of the exhibition is the Project Arts Centre, “Tisch Tennis Tisch” is the exhibition’s sole outdoor artwork, the piece is also a particular Hugh Lane Off-Site project.
The piece is a concrete table tennis table which will be sited on the central median of the street. Table tennis matches and various events will be scheduled at the site to “activate” the sculpture during the exhibition. Dublin Tourism will facilitate the pick up and return of table tennis bats and balls from its nearby office. Fitzgeralds Table Tennis Shop, sponsors of the Irish Team, will sponsor the bats and balls for the duration of the exhibition of the Table on O’Connell Street.
For Communism ten contemporary artists have been invited to consider the word communism and ways in which this term can be materialised and have been commissioned to produce new work in response.”
On the statues on the street, I think it’s capable of absorbing a couple more at the northern end, esp just after the Spire.
On the whole though, it is surprising how few statues there are on the street considering its fame in this regard.
There’s only O’Connell, Smith O’Brien (who I used to think was Gladstone for some reason :confused: ), Sir John Gray, Larkin, Fr Matthew and Parnell.Indeed contrary to common belief, there has never been a concerted effort to line the street with memorials to leaders etc – it just happened organically, perhaps with the exception of Larkin,and even then his siting has an historical resonance anyway, whatever about taking the street into account.
It’s also interesting how there isn’t any explicitly ‘British’ ones left over from the past like in other places in the city, again in opposition to what’s commonly percieved.(Just to note the Chas F Ryan sign has since been completely removed from that building)
-
January 20, 2005 at 10:01 pm #728688
notjim
ParticipantThe Chas F Ryan sign was pulled down during the tragic fatal accident on the street during the week; a window cleaner fell and grabbed at the sign in a effort to break his fall.
-
January 20, 2005 at 11:21 pm #728689
J. Seerski
ParticipantSavoy and Gresham Planning Applications were submitted just at the end of December – massive alterations intended for both. The Savoy is going to gut the ground floor facade and make it more like it would have been – the windows are being restored. The interior at the moment is looking really well!
-
January 21, 2005 at 12:02 am #728690
GrahamH
ParticipantIt’s amazing – you’d never expect it given the impression offered outside.
It’s still a shame I think about the new canopy though – still find it inappropriate to the building and unattractive in its own right. And why was a box-like canopy even needed if they were going to use the LED screens anyway for film listings? If anything, the making of the old box sign redundant afforded them an even greater opportunity for a striking new slimline canopy and they ignored it.As part of the O’Connell Street Special Planning Control Scheme, all existing ‘offensive’ signage is designated for removal. Here’s the listing of all earmarked signage; whilst a bit long is interesting nonetheless. The incident on the street during the week reminded me, as the Chas F Ryan sign, despite being long-redundant, was such a designated sign yet was not removed. What a shame it finally came down in such tragic circumstances.
Signs Designated for Removal
Bailey’s – 3rd – 5th Floor Level – 34 Bachelor’s Walk/56 O’Connell Street Lower.
Internally illuminated group mounted plastic signs – no relationship to the
buildings or to the area. The scale and dimensions of the structure are
inconsistent with the character of the Architectural Conservation Area and the
proposed Area of Special Planning Control and almost totally obscure the upper
floors of the buildings. Its prominent location at the main entrance to O’Connell
Street from the south city seriously detracts from the visual character of the area.
Windsor Motor Hire – 3rd – 5th Floor Level – 33 Bachelor’s Walk – group mounted
neon tube lettering – no relationship to the buildings or area. The scale and
dimensions and design of advertisement structure are out of keeping with the
historic character of the area and its form significantly disrupts the composition of
the upper floors of the building on which it is mounted. Its prominent location at
the main entrance to O’Connell Street from the south city seriously detracts from
the visual character of the area.Canberra Trivision Advertising Hoarding – 1st Floor Level – 34 Bachelor’s Walk –
no relationship to the building or to the area. The advertisement structure
obscures part of the first-floor windows and detracts from the character of the
building. Its prominent location at the main entrance to O’Connell Street from the
south city seriously detracts from the visual character of the area.
Irish Nationwide – between 1st and 2nd floors and 4th and 5th floors – 1 Lower
O’Connell Street – internally illuminated and individually mounted lettering.
Although the structure has a clear relationship with the use of the building, the
size, position and materials and use of internally illuminated lettering detract from
this protected structure including the fenestration and stone finishes. Its
prominent location at the main entrance to O’Connell Street from the south city
seriously detracts from the visual character of the area.
20Trivision Advertisement Structure – 3rd Floor – 43/44 Lower O’Connell Street – (Manfield Chambers)
no relationship to building use. The advertisement structure obscures one of the
window openings on this building and interferes with its historic character.
Its prominent location at the junction of Abbey Street and O’Connell Street
seriously detracts from the visual character of the area.
(I said this had been removed before – it hasn’t)Jameson’s – 1st – 2nd floor – 108 Marlborough Street – projecting internally
illuminated plastic figure. This advertisement structure is displayed at a
prominent location at the junction of Marlborough Street and Abbey Street. Its
scale, dimensions, form, materials and illumination do not respect the
architectural character of the area. Its relation to the use of the building (a public
house) is considered marginal, as the sign advertises a brand rather than any
service or product specific to the area.Funland – between 1st and 2nd floor – 67 Upper O’Connell Street – mounted neon
lettering – advertisement structure related to use of building. The scale,
dimensions and location of the advertisement structure detract from the building
and adjoining structures and it is considered to be inappropriate and injurious to
the character of the area.Ambassador Cinema – fascia level – Parnell Street – plastic fascia board. The
plastic fascia board displayed on this building is not in keeping with the
architectural character of this very important protected structure and obscures the
stone parapet wall above the main entrance. Furthermore, due to the visual
prominence of this building that terminates the axial vista starting at O’Connell
Bridge, the display of such a large and insensitive structure is detrimental to the
visual and architectural character of the surrounding area.Savoy Cinema – fascia level – 17-18 Upper O’Connell Street – plastic fascia
panel. This structure is related to the use of the building. The depth of the fascia
panel, together with the extensive use of plastic, render this structure out of
character with the upper floor façade of this building which contributes to the
character of the area.Broadway Amusements – between 3rd and 4th Floor Levels – 8 Lower O’Connell
Street – mounted lettering on panel. This advertisement structure has been
poorly maintained, is in poor condition and a number of the individual letters are
missing. It detracts from the upper floors of this protected structure and from the
character of adjoining structures in the area.Chas F. Ryan – 32 Lower O’Connell Street – between 1st and 2nd floor levels.
Individual letters mounted on metal bar. The lettering mounted on this building
would appear to relate to a previous use. It detracts from the upper floors of this
protected structure and from the character of adjoining structures in the area.Two Advertisement Panels – gable wall – 145 Parnell Street (North Great
George’s Street) – no relationship to use of building. These advertisement
structures are displayed in a very prominent location at the entry point both to the
O’Connell Street Architectural Conservation Area and to North Great George’s
Street – one of the finest Georgian streets in the city. The presence of these two
panels at this very sensitive location detracts from the architectural character of
the two streets in question. -
January 21, 2005 at 12:11 am #728691
Anonymous
InactiveCould they add the RTV Rentals signage on North Earl St to that it looks like the worst excesses of Cecil St c 1985.
J.Seerski Ever one for the real exclusives 😀
-
January 21, 2005 at 1:15 pm #728692
urbanisto
ParticipantRegarding a couple of points here:
Signs – so much for the Planning Control Scheme. The Baileys sign was recently renovated, no chance of it disappearing it would seem.
Statues – a project to restore all the OConnellSt statues (and one on Hawkins St) was put out to tender last Autumn. I would imagine it will take place this year along side the kiosk construction and Phase II of the streetworks. -
January 21, 2005 at 5:33 pm #728693
GrahamH
ParticipantYes the Baileys job was done before Christmas with a guy up on a cherrypicker, and to make it more prominent they’ve re-clad the border which used to be a more reticent white, if that’s the word, in bright red! And yet as the plan rightly points out:
“The colours used on any advertisement structures or signs will be required to
respect the prevalence of tertiary colours established by the building materials on
the buildings in the area. Therefore substantial areas of bright or garish primary
or secondary colours will not be allowed as the background of any sign. More
prominent colours may be used in individual lettering on signage.”Even if this applies to new signs, surely it also does to alterations of older ones, especially when the most significant, not to mention most reviled sign in the city and the specimen the Plan almost singles out for particular attention?!
How can the CC enforce such plans – how can they possibly incentivise the removal of such a cash cow, it must be earning the owners a fortune. In the closing section of this plan it is stated that the removal of all specified signs will be achieved by “Secure[ing] the removal of all advertisement structures highlighted in the Scheme for the Area of Special Control” i.e it doesn’t say how! Anyone know?
-
January 22, 2005 at 6:07 pm #728694
Anonymous
InactiveI would have thought that the City Council could enforce changes like the Baileys sign quite easily as far as I’m aware any external changes require planning permission, if this weren’t the case then planning permission wouldn’t have been required by Jack & Jones on Henry St to retrospectively apply for permission to erect a plastic sign on the side of the GPO buildings and footlocker wouldn’t have site notices up on most of the Champion Sports branches they acquired.
Fair play to RTE for airbrushing the Bailey’s signs out they definitely detract from the setting
-
January 24, 2005 at 1:44 am #728695
Anonymous
InactiveI don’t know why the City Council write wish lists of signs they would like removed when they are giving permission for plastic signs such as the Jack & Jones sign on the side of the GPO, surely prevention is at least equal to cure.
-
January 24, 2005 at 2:25 am #728696
KarenS
ParticipantWhy do shops use plastic signs? Is it because they are cheaper to maintain? Brighter? It seems strange to pick the lowest grade of materials for the most prominent public part of your business. Can a bank not afford to use illuminated painted or stained signs in wood or stone when they have spent so much on impressive property and brand image consultancy. Can someone tell me?
-
January 24, 2005 at 3:06 am #728697
MT
ParticipantIt may have little to do with good design/architecture but instead the owners desire to have an eyecatching feature out front. Unfortunately, this approach usually results in a street littered with visual monstrosities.
Speaking of visual monstrosities, does anyone feel there’s an area in Dublin that might be set aside for the type of large scale electronic advertising you find in Picadilly Circus and Time sq. Just a one off as a unique feature in the cityscape.
-
January 24, 2005 at 8:24 am #728698
timbo
Participantwith regards to the placement of statues on o connell street, apologies if i gave the impression that there was a statue to wellington on o connell street. of course there is not and what i was referring to was the wellington monument in the phoenix park. i take the point that there are already quite a few statues on the street , but the upper section from the spire to the parnell monument has very little, and on the whole has an unbalanced feel to it.
as for the argument that there is a statue of collins in clonakilty and of de valera in clare, does this mean that there cannot be a statue of such fiigures also in o connell street? (i am currently travelling in australia and have seen more statues to queen victoria than i can count-including one which used to sit outside leinster house). many visitors to the country may not visit clare or clonakilty but i would wager that most will find there way down o connell street. it is a matter of national pride!
also why is it we do not honour other great irish men and women, would a statue of john p. holland, the inventor of the submarine not fit nicely somewhere in the docklands? when it comes to putting up statues of bill clinton, charlie chaplain or payne stewart (all to be seen in co.kerry) we seem to have no problem finding the effort or the funding. apologies for rambling on but the irish lack of pride really annoys me.
-
January 24, 2005 at 12:05 pm #728699
GregF
ParticipantI agree that the upper end of O Connell Street is rather bare with having just a statue of Father Matthew and the Sacred Heart adorning the street at the moment. A few new statues would be welcome, but I definitely would’nt have one of Dev nor maybe Collins. I think they are figures that relate to rather devisive and inconclusive times in Ireland’s history, who’s after effects remain to this day. (Dev was bit bit of an auld nerdish, religious, frugal, ultra conservative too. Hardly a figure of inspiration). But if one was to choose a political figure, how about Wolfe Tone, the father of Irish Republicanism and who was a Dub as well, or maybe Napper Dandy and the like of such Irish revolutionaries. Failures too, however, but having noble ideals as that of the French and Americans of the time. I love those equistrian staues that ye see abroad too. Would be great if one was added to O’Connell Street, although I don’t think there is an Irish historical figure noted for his equistrian skills; Brian Boru maybe, but Dev was not much good at the riding I’d say!
To keep our Unionists brothers and sisters happy, how about a statue of Edward Carson, a Dub born on Harcourt Street, or Thomas Barnardo, he of the childrens care fame, another Dub and Orangeman born/lived on Dame Street, (where they are erecting the new building beside City Hall at the moment).
Regarding the Arts, is there a statue of Sam Beckett in Dublin? Would he be worthy of a statue.
How about placing a remodelled version of Anna Livia fountain again. It would surely add a bit of life to this end of the street.
-
January 24, 2005 at 1:06 pm #728700
TLM
ParticipantNot wanting to turn this into a political debate but do you not think that Carson is a figure that relates “to rather devisive and inconclusive times in Ireland’s history, who’s after effects remain to this day”?
I agree Wolfe Tone, Brian Boru or Samuel Beckett would be worthy additions.
-
January 24, 2005 at 1:32 pm #728701
GregF
ParticipantOf course I think Carson is a figure that relates “to rather devisive and inconclusive times in Ireland’s history, who’s after effects remain to this day”? I was just kidding, or being a little sacastic that I mentioned such characters. I thought that would be understood and not taken seriously. (I mentioned Carson and Barnardo as a lot of people today don’t realise that they were Southern Irish Dubs, born at a time too when the country was one).
-
January 24, 2005 at 3:13 pm #728702
TLM
Participantok.. sarcasm, or tone in general, does’nt always travel well in text.
-
January 25, 2005 at 1:47 am #728703
GrahamH
Participant@MT wrote:
Speaking of visual monstrosities, does anyone feel there’s an area in Dublin that might be set aside for the type of large scale electronic advertising you find in Picadilly Circus and Time sq. Just a one off as a unique feature in the cityscape.
No
🙂
They tend to be features confined to the major cities of the world anyway rather than every capital. They’re only touristy things really, aren’t they?
RE the Baileys sign – RTE had to remove it regardless of its aesthetic qualities. Whereas it could have earned them a fortune from advertising, continuity graphics are about the only place the channel must maintain a neutral stance if that’s the term. Also to have the station’s identity impinged upon with a dirty big Bailey’s sign would hardly be appropriate 🙂
-
January 25, 2005 at 12:10 pm #728704
kefu
ParticipantIsn’t there some kind of monument to Mr Barnardo up at that little park beside Jury’s at Christchurch.
-
January 25, 2005 at 3:38 pm #728705
notjim
ParticipantNow Beckett needs something, a stutue of beckett himself seems inappropriate, but, during the centenary next year i hope something is done beyond the plaque on dun laoirghe pier.
collins and devalera are another matter, devalera is such difficult figure and as for collins, i was going to write that the best way to commerate collins would be to name collins barracks after him, but then i realised we already have. i suppose we put a picture of his mistress on our notes for 70 years and isn’t that spike in the leinster house car park a collins memorial?
btw do any of you have sean russel’s head?
-
January 25, 2005 at 3:50 pm #728706
notjim
Participantand i should say right now, no, beckett sitting on a bench on dun laoirghe pier would not be suitable.
-
January 25, 2005 at 9:24 pm #728707
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
No
RE the Baileys sign – RTE had to remove it regardless of its aesthetic qualities. Whereas it could have earned them a fortune from advertising, continuity graphics are about the only place the channel must maintain a neutral stance if that’s the term. Also to have the station’s identity impinged upon with a dirty big Bailey’s sign would hardly be appropriate 🙂
I’m not so sure,
the luas features in the same clip and it is a private concern albeit built with public funds
-
January 25, 2005 at 9:42 pm #728708
GrahamH
ParticipantAh you’re pushing it a bit there – bit of a difference between a comparitively detached everyday object like a tram and a blatent advertisment 🙂
-
January 26, 2005 at 12:07 am #728709
timbo
Participantwith regards to the elcetronic signage in dublin, what about the loop line bridge, especially on the docklands side.? i am not really in favour of the type of signage you encounter in leicester square or picadilly circus (flashing garish variety), but what about a sort of giant plasma screen effect that could run along the bridge.
i am aware that its placement would be in close proximity to the custom house, but ask yourself what is worse, plasma screen effect which could show multiple adverts or being stuck with “tile choice” and the likes. another point is that surely the revenue from a sign which can constantly change and thus advertise multiple brands would be far higher than one static dingy cardboard sign. it could also show live broadcasts – ie news runs from rte or even live sports( although this may be unsfe traffic wise)
-
January 26, 2005 at 10:47 am #728710
TLM
ParticipantWas’nt tile choice and the rest meant to be coming off the loopline? No progress on that front yet then i take it…
-
January 26, 2005 at 11:24 am #728711
Andrew Duffy
ParticipantLuas is not a private concern – Connex gets the same amount each year regardless of how much ticket revenue comes in. Connex is purely the operator; the state owns every bit of the infrastructure.
-
January 26, 2005 at 1:49 pm #728712
Rory W
ParticipantConsidering the price of airtime you don’t want to be giving free ads away + given the restrictions on advertising alcohol you could only use that promo in the evening when the audience are in the majority adult. Hence airbrushing, but it does look better as well.
-
January 26, 2005 at 2:16 pm #728713
KarenS
Participant@timbo wrote:
with regards to the elcetronic signage in dublin, what about the loop line bridge, especially on the docklands side.? i am not really in favour of the type of signage you encounter in leicester square or picadilly circus (flashing garish variety), but what about a sort of giant plasma screen effect that could run along the bridge.
i am aware that its placement would be in close proximity to the custom house, but ask yourself what is worse, plasma screen effect which could show multiple adverts or being stuck with “tile choice” and the likes. another point is that surely the revenue from a sign which can constantly change and thus advertise multiple brands would be far higher than one static dingy cardboard sign. it could also show live broadcasts – ie news runs from rte or even live sports( although this may be unsfe traffic wise)
What about covering the loopline bridge with screens that appear transparent during the day by showing an image of the custom house behind using a trompe l’oeil effect? It could be something semi intelligent that took the current sky colour into account. Then at night it could change to garish moving ads.
-
January 26, 2005 at 9:12 pm #728714
Anonymous
InactiveAndrew Duffy wrote:Luas is not a private concern – Connex gets the same amount each year regardless of how much ticket revenue comes in. Connex is purely the operator]Andrew, I don’t doubt what you are saying but can you describe the way that the revenue goes back to the government, presumably connex collect the cash from the machines retailers etc, do they then transfer it directly to the RPA? Presumably if there is a surplus the RPA would send a dividend to the government in the same way as the ESB or Aer Rianta.
-
January 27, 2005 at 10:20 am #728715
Andrew Duffy
ParticipantI don’t know. However, the RPA is a quango rather than a semi-state, so I imagine all of its funding is handled by central government. We should hear more about its funding soon anyway as the story about the money for electronic ticketing being spent already develops further.
-
January 27, 2005 at 11:58 am #728716
kefu
ParticipantConnex are paid a fixed contract every year, say of €40 million. If they collect €60 million in fares, the other €20 million goes to the Railway Procurement Agency. I think it’s structured in quite a similar way to the Dublin City Council clamping contract. I’d really like to see the full details though. For instance, who’s responsible for maintenance etc and is that part of the original fixed contract? If Connex are – would they be allowed to let the infrastructure get very run done or vandalised before they stepped in and fixed it. The structure of the contract is probably such that it guarantees the continued unnecessary existence of the RPA in that they must be there to oversee that Connex does its job properly.
I think the the RPA is just another tribunal waiting to happen. It’s just a complete waste of money. Some of its hiring and firing activity has been dubious to say the least. There is no planning, look at the unnecessary destruction of the Connolly Station ramp. Most importantly, they appear to know little or nothing about building light rail or Metro, thus we end up with their €5 billion figure, which has killed the Airport Metro project before it even got started. -
January 29, 2005 at 2:33 pm #728717
Anonymous
InactiveThe metro isn’t dead yet, I have heard whisperings that a shorter metro will be announced from Dublin Airport to Upper O’Connell St at a cost below 2bn and that the CIE plan for a central metro are also set to be announced. You are correct that the RPA made mistakes but they also delivered Luas which looks great and I like their plans to extend it to the point depot.
A metro terminating on Upper O’Connell St mightn’t be a perfect solution but it will breath a lot of life into that end of the Street, I am just a little unsure how a passenger will get from the Savoy end of O’Connell St to the rest of the rail network, particularly the national rail services to the South and West.
-
February 2, 2005 at 12:22 pm #728718
GrahamH
ParticipantNow that you mention the Savoy, I saw some of the details of their latest planning application mentioned before.
In relation to the windows, there’s a wooden one in the centre somwhere that’s to be replaced with an original design, presumably in steel.
The tatty ticket office in the centre of the ground facade is to be replaced with a Portland stone pillar/centrepiece.
The mosic and illuminated adertisment-lad piers to each end of the facade are also to be removed and replaced with Portland stone piers ‘in character with the upper floors’.
Also it has applied for ‘maintainance in situ’ of existing silver-clad canopy. Why are they appyling for maintainace?
Finally, the basement lightwell grids are to be removed and paved over with granite when the street itself is tackled.Also as J Seerski highlighted, the Gresham are upgrading and now have 2 vast applications in their windows.
One of the primary aims is to ‘remove all non-original windows in nos 20-23’ i.e. the whole facade of the hotel.
Presumably this means bye bye aluminum – hello double glazed steel… -
February 2, 2005 at 12:41 pm #728719
TLM
ParticipantThats interesting about the Gresham, getting rid of that ticket office could only be an improvement anyway! Has anything happened recently with the street paving? It seems things ground to a mjor halt / slow down once the GPO to O’Connell bridge area (excluding the lower west part) was done! Whats the story!?
-
February 2, 2005 at 11:10 pm #728720
GrahamH
ParticipantWhen you condider little else has been done since last summer except this southern corner and the median being finished things certianly seem slow.
Here’s the south-eastern strech today – just about finished now:
Also the Savoy – you can see the centre and left window on the 2nd floor are those that need replacing:
And finally these new banners on the lamposts – is this a message the CC really wants to be promoting?!
-
February 3, 2005 at 12:42 am #728721
Anonymous
InactiveThose ads are put up by the Dublin City Business association as opposed to the CC (Although there must be some sort of CC involvement in them). As far as I know, the Business Association are concerned at the potential loss of sales to suburban centres if cars are completely restricted from the City Centre. At least they have put a Smart Car in the ad! 🙂
-
February 3, 2005 at 1:02 am #728722
GrahamH
ParticipantYes – there is a growing perception, notable over last Christmas, that town is now too difficult to drive to with diversions, Luas and increasing one-way systems etc – some of which is true, and with good reason.
What with Dundrum about to throw open its doors it’s even being regarded where I am 60 miles away as ‘the’ event of 2005, No wonder the DCBA is a bit concerned; they’ve little reason to be though, town can hold its own. -
February 7, 2005 at 12:31 am #728723
Anonymous
InactiveDublin will survive but Dundrum will put quite a dent on Grafton St for a few months at least with Dundrum benefitting from a certain curiousity/novelty factor. But as experience has shown both Blanchardstown and Liffey Valley did little harm over the longer term. I’m sure sure Dundrum will equally suffer when the Carlton development is eventually built in 2025
-
February 7, 2005 at 1:53 am #728724
GrahamH
Participant2025’s a bit optimistic don’t you think? 🙂
Yes in the short term it’ll probably have an effect alright. Then again I’ve never quite understood why Grafton St is always spoken of in terms of being an attraction in itself. From what I’ve experienced over the years, esp in the past 5 or so from walking up it every day, is that it’s used in a fashion not dissimilar to O’Cll St – simply as a route to get elsewhere, certainly at lunchtime anyway.
Suppose even if it is only used as a route, it’s still the busiest in the country and that’s largely all that matters!
But from a personal perspective I’d never in a million years buy anything on Grafton St. -
February 9, 2005 at 11:38 pm #728725
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
2025’s a bit optimistic don’t you think? 🙂
Suppose even if it is only used as a route, it’s still the busiest in the country and that’s largely all that matters!
But from a personal perspective I’d never in a million years buy anything on Grafton St.I buy the odd piece of clothing on Grafton St, but I spend a lot of money in the Streets just off Grafton St such as South Anne St, Duke St, Chatham St, South William St etc
On the subject of expanding shopping definitions, did anyone see the news that H & M are to open a second store in Dublin this time at the soon to be revamped Ilac, they will open 155 across Europe this year.
I think more than ever that the Northside is becoming the place to locate and redeveloping the Carlton site is taking on more significance than ever, as the blocks from the Ilac up to Parnell Square are nearly complete, but once O’Connell St hits then the wasteland begins: Cathal Brugha St, Parnell St, Sackville Place
-
February 13, 2005 at 2:07 am #728726
GrahamH
ParticipantYou really do have to wonder at the shortage of retail space in Dublin city centre considering these vast tracts yet to be redeveloped. Especially regarding the amount of rubbish on O’Connell St; putting all historic reasons to one side, walking along the northern end the mind boggles at the hand-wringing of estate agents and major retailers over the past 5-10 years at the lack of space in the capital’s centre.
There is so much to be improved up there one would wonder if property owners are purposely waiting for the big guns to start sniffing around or waiting for values to go through the roof before flogging their buildings hence keeping them in poor condition.Despite what the primary aim of the IAP was – to generate the ‘knock-on effect’ rather than directly intervene for improvements, I think at this stage a greater effort should be made by the CC. It is now no less than exactly 7 years since the IAP was published and the northern end is in precisely the same state as it was way back then, save the Gresham’s and Savoy’s improvements which were executed for their own changing market conditions.
I know this is probably my fourth time mentioning the filth of the O’Cll Bridge balustrading but look at this picture of a test patch that was pressure washed the other day – WOW – even I didn’t think it was that manky 🙂
For some reason this eastern balustrade is more dirty than the west – perhaps the dirt of the traffic blowing up from the ‘tunnel’ of the quays.
It’s extraordinary how it changes from a horrible concrete appearace back to salubrious Portland stone; it’s going to look great in the evening sun that pierces up the quays, usually turns a warm golden colour. -
February 13, 2005 at 3:52 pm #728727
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
There is so much to be improved up there one would wonder if property owners are purposely waiting for the big guns to start sniffing around or waiting for values to go through the roof before flogging their buildings hence keeping them in poor condition.
The majority of buildings are held under lease which explains a lot as there is no incentive for the owners to invest money that would depreciate in favour of the shop or business, it is only the Corporation who have any motivation and that is sorely lacking.
Graham Hickey wrote:I know this is probably my fourth time mentioning the filth of the O’Cll Bridge balustrading but look at this picture of a test patch that was pressure washed the other day – WOW – even I didn’t think it was that manky 🙂
For some reason this eastern balustrade is more dirty than the west – perhaps the dirt of the traffic blowing up from the ‘tunnel’ of the quays.
It’s extraordinary how it changes from a horrible concrete appearace back to salubrious Portland stone]A lot of it is down to the prevailing wind direction I think and from a climatic point of view I’d prefer the East rather than the West to be the dirtier but from a civic point point of view it is a disgrace.
-
February 13, 2005 at 8:24 pm #728728
KarenS
Participant@Graham Hickey wrote:
And in the same photo how many other ways can you see that Dublin could be improved?
-pavement could be paved in stone flags rather than tarmacadam
-pavement could be cleared of chewing gum
-car transporter and other trucks removed from quays and sent down the tunnel (when it’s built)
-revolting smelly seaweed removed from sides of river –or river damned past the custom house so it stays high all the time.
-bus eireann vehicle in a bus lane (is there not one already?)
-horrible white plastic windows removed
-better weather! -
February 14, 2005 at 12:10 pm #728729
GrahamH
ParticipantWell that all goes without saying 🙂
You can chuck in Aviation House while you’re at it…@Thomond Park wrote:
From a climatic point of view I’d prefer the East rather than the West to be the dirtier.
What do you mean?
As mentioned before, pictures from the late 70s show these walls to be bone white so that seems to be the last time they were cleaned]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v219/Dublin1/OCllBridge-GasExplosion.jpg[/IMG]
-
February 14, 2005 at 12:27 pm #728730
KarenS
ParticipantThe bridge is square from overhead.
Has anyone got an image of the ‘Bowl of Light’? I’ve often heard of this failed artwork on O’C bridge that was eventually chucked into the river. I think it’s from the 50s.
Is Dublin the only city where unwelcome public art is often physically destroyed by the public? It’s democratic in one way but barbarous in another. At least the spire looks pretty durable.
-
February 14, 2005 at 11:51 pm #728731
Anonymous
Inactive@Thomond Park wrote:
A lot of it is down to the prevailing wind direction I think and from a climatic point of view I’d prefer the East rather than the West to be the dirtier .
@Graham Hickey wrote:
What do you mean
The prevailing wind being westerly hence more pollution on the western face of the eastern ballustrades, St Johns Newfoundland is quite a sight from the air at night around this time of the year.
-
February 15, 2005 at 1:58 pm #728732
GrahamH
ParticipantIt was just your unusual use of prefer that threw me 🙂
Well the entire length along here this side of the bridge was cleaned early this morning – it was still wet when I passed so it was very patchy. Even so you can now clearly make out the newer balusters that have been spliced in over the years and the patchiness of new and old sections. It’s also revealed quite a bit of deterioration in places.
Still, overall the difference is remarkable – the large river facades now need to be cleaned too.What was the ‘Bowl of Light’ Karen? I’ve an interesting still of the bridge from the 50s I think with spooky Christmas tree-like yokes down the centre – must post it.
Regarding the strange set of four bollards at the top end of O’Cll St opposite the Parnell Monument, it would appear that they are the bollards that originally guarded the statue of W Smith O’Brien on his island site at the O’Cll Bridge south junction. Often suspected this but it’s always been difficult to confirm.
Still can’t be 100% sure – the tops look slightly different but that could just be distortion in the original pic. Also hard to see if the originals are preferated like the current ones.
Anyone know what the modern-day trapdoor is for? Are the bollards being used for ventilation? -
February 15, 2005 at 2:12 pm #728733
GrahamH
ParticipantAnother pic from the olden days- the WSC corner just after the Rising.
Ironic that they sold gunpowder 🙂
You can see the arched WSC shopfronts too, as well as the tripartite feature window with corbels:You can also make out the little pediments on the 3rd window in on the river front as well as on the window above the feature one. The forerunner of Burger King had emerged by then too with the minor adaption of the upper floors.
I saw ‘Mise Eire’ there recently and there’s some great archive footage of post-1916. The opposite corner to that in the picture over on Eden Quay is completely destroyed:like someone took a massive bite out of the corner – extraordinary sight, not to mention that the one here survived virtually intact.
-
February 15, 2005 at 3:51 pm #728734
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterThe Tomb of the Unknown Gurrier
“In 1953, it was decorated with a flower bed and adorned with a Bowl of Light for An Tostal, the first cultural festival to be held In Ireland. These changes were not always greeted with universal acclaim and the flower bed was removed and the Bowl of Light was dispatched into the Liffey by a disgruntled university student.”
-
February 15, 2005 at 3:52 pm #728735
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterSymbolising the State— the iconography of O’Connell Street and environs after Independence (1922)
Yvonne Whelan, Academy for Irish Cultural Heritages,
University of Ulster, Magee Campus Derry -
February 16, 2005 at 11:17 am #728736
Telemachus
ParticipantDuplicate Post…see below
-
February 16, 2005 at 11:19 am #728737
Telemachus
ParticipantKaren,
According to Frederick O’Dwyer in ‘Lost Dublin’ the Bowl of Light (basically a plastic coal-effect fire set on tubular steel arches) was unveiled in April 1953 as part of a series of events to attract exiles home under the title of An Tostal. It was soon infamously dubbed ‘The Tomb Of The Unknown Gurrier’ by Jimmy O’Dea. It met it’s end when a group of undergraduates hurled it into the Liffey a fortnight later. The fountain was subsequently drained and turned into a flowerbed known as ‘The Thing’ until the Corpo reinstated the lantern sets in the mid-60’s
-
February 16, 2005 at 11:27 am #728738
Niall
Participanthttp://www.dublincity.ie/traffic/frame_c.htm
Is it just me? But, why are there three lanes of traffic only to merge to two when you reach O’Connell Street from the bridge??? No hint of what is coming and isn’t it dangerous that traffic is merging to avoid the newly extended pavement??
Arrows or chevrons??
(imagine driving on the very left lane on the bridge)
-
February 16, 2005 at 12:12 pm #728739
Lotts
ParticipantBut based on markings shown by the traffic cam you refer to, there’s 4 lanes on the bridge with 2 turning right (exclusively) and 2 going straight (exclusively) onto o’connell st. There shouldn’t be any merging.
-
February 16, 2005 at 2:00 pm #728740
TLM
ParticipantOn a related note, is private traffic from the south to be prevented travelling up O’Connell Street (the same way as traffic from the northside is?) Cheers
-
February 16, 2005 at 4:38 pm #728741
Frank Taylor
Participant@Telemachus wrote:
According to Frederick O’Dwyer in ‘Lost Dublin’ the Bowl of Light (basically a plastic coal-effect fire set on tubular steel arches) was unveiled in April 1953 as part of a series of events to attract exiles home under the title of An Tostal. It was soon infamously dubbed ‘The Tomb Of The Unknown Gurrier’ by Jimmy O’Dea. It met it’s end when a group of undergraduates hurled it into the Liffey a fortnight later. The fountain was subsequently drained and turned into a flowerbed known as ‘The Thing’ until the Corpo reinstated the lantern sets in the mid-60’s
I always wondered what it looked like.
-
February 16, 2005 at 5:12 pm #728742
kefu
ParticipantIn answer to TLM’s query. No.
-
February 16, 2005 at 6:33 pm #728743
geraghtyg
ParticipantHi Lotts
Just replying about the 3 lanes of traffic into 2. Only 2 lanes from O’Connell Bridge are for going straight ahead. The other two are right turns only.Graham
-
February 17, 2005 at 10:48 am #728744
urbanisto
ParticipantA well deserved spring clean for the ballustrades. Now lets tackle the appalling pavement. The works to install new signaling havent helped. If anythiung it looks worse than ever. Lets bite the bullet and have new granite paving. Perhaps all those old flags lifted from OConnell St. Also the phone kiosks on the corner of the bridge and Eden Quay should be removed. Its a very narrow stretch here. Probably the most inappropriate spot for 3 kiosks I can think of!
The Boardwalk extension is finally being completed. Some smart new bus shelters along this trech would be welcome as well. In fact getting rid of the bus stops full stop would be good.
-
February 17, 2005 at 4:47 pm #728745
ConK
Participantwhat are these things?
-
February 17, 2005 at 5:01 pm #728746
Anonymous
Inactive@ConK wrote:
what are these things?
Conk,
There is a small amount of discussion about these above. Graham Hickey is not sure as to whether or not they are the same ones that once surrounded the statue of Smith O’Brien, but they certainly look identical.
-
February 17, 2005 at 9:43 pm #728747
Anonymous
Inactive@ConK wrote:
what are these things?
They are standard eircom service ducting covers, fine specimens of 1990’s telecom engineering, sited perfectly to camoflage those horrible pieces of Victorian iron work.
I’m sure who ever put them there got a first in Street furniture design
-
February 17, 2005 at 9:59 pm #728748
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterI thought that was an escape hatch from the short stretch of underground that thet built under there in the late 1890s…..
-
February 18, 2005 at 1:59 am #728749
Anonymous
InactiveIf you hang around long enough the Rolls Royce sign appears out of the ground! Or maybe its Bertie 🙂
-
February 18, 2005 at 9:40 pm #728750
GrahamH
Participant😀
Often wondered what the Tomb of the Unknown Gurrier was – why was it given that name?
It’s funny about An Tostal, neither people today or of the 1950s seem to have the faintest idea what it was all about – was talking to some people of ‘the era’ about it recently and between all of them they couldn’t figure out what it was about 😀Yes O’Cll Bridge definitely needs improving on a host of levels. Regarding the telephone kiosks on Eden Quay – there’s always been a row of them there since at least the 50s if not earlier, so they’ve always just been replaced regardless of the changes in ped traffic at that corner. It is also exceptionally tight at the Bachelors Walk crossing; most times you can’t even get onto the quay with the crowd at the junction.
As for the balustrading, it really goes to show doesn’t it just how simple it can be to improve the street environment. It took a couple of hours on two early mornings to clean both sides of the bridge and yet they were left filthy for years on end. Likewise with the GPO column bases and countless other pieces of street furniture – just left filthy. By contrast the BoI, in the private sector, have their portico column bases washed down every couple of months on Westmoreland St, indeed so much so there’ll probably be impliations for the stonework…
Here’s the bridge now in all its glory (where you can also make out that the bridge is still slightly humpbacked):
And the side wall facing Ballast House:
Unfortunately the cleaning has revealed a number of problems (not that the one below and on Burgh Quay weren’t obvious anyway) that require attention when the bridge is finally tackled. There’s some dodgy repointing etc that needs attention elsewhere:
-
February 20, 2005 at 2:02 pm #728751
Anonymous
InactiveThere is a story in Today’s SBP that Joe O’Reilly is trying to acquire the holdings built up by Richard Quirke (DR Quirke-ies) and Paul Clinon?
Maybe a real scheme is starting to emerge for the Carlton Site?
-
February 20, 2005 at 11:59 pm #728752
Anonymous
InactiveMaybe a real scheme is starting to emerge for the Carlton Site?
Scheme is the word!
-
February 21, 2005 at 12:39 am #728753
Anonymous
Inactive@phil wrote:
Scheme is the word!
Plan, sceme, development call it what you like but nothing other than a significant private sector investment is going to turn Upper O’Connell St around. It is up to the planners to ensure that the City gets the architecture it deserves, at least with Joe O’Reilly you can be gauranteed that any development undertaken will have the financial clout to hire decent architects and won’t go bankraupt.
-
February 21, 2005 at 4:05 pm #728754
GrahamH
ParticipantWhere’s that judgement!
Nothing can happen til then…Here’s a spooky pic of the bridge from around the late 40s – what are those yokes? :confused:
-
February 21, 2005 at 5:24 pm #728755
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterChristmas trees?
-
February 21, 2005 at 5:53 pm #728756
Anonymous
Inactive@Thomond Park wrote:
Plan, sceme, development call it what you like but nothing other than a significant private sector investment is going to turn Upper O’Connell St around. It is up to the planners to ensure that the City gets the architecture it deserves, at least with Joe O’Reilly you can be gauranteed that any development undertaken will have the financial clout to hire decent architects and won’t go bankraupt.
What does he want to do with it?
-
February 21, 2005 at 9:21 pm #728757
Anonymous
Inactive@phil wrote:
What does he want to do with it?
I think the entire story appears to have been Neil Callanan flying a kite
-
February 23, 2005 at 3:17 am #728758
Devin
Participant(I was away & missed the conversation about O’Connell Bridge)
Those trees in the picture look a bit weird alright…maybe it’s just the lighting.
Regarding O’Connell Bridge being included in the O’Connell Street upgrading, there’s no word of it happening from the Council, but the bridge is so integral to O’Connell Street that it has got to be repaved etc. sooner or later. I suppose it is in a slightly different situation traffic-wise in that it carries traffic that is going to turn right onto Eden Quay as well as go into O’C St.
The ornate lamps standards were restored in Spain at (presumably) great expense a year or two back and look great, but now the ones on the median sit in messy uneven tarmac.
As was said already, the pavements on O’C Bridge have massive granite kerbstones – 2 feet thick (I’m pretty sure they date from the 1880s reconstruction of the bridge). Some of the other old bridges have these 2 feet thick antique kerbs as well – the two hump-back bridges flanking the Four Courts have them. And Grattan Bridge had them until the refurbishment a few years ago. But the kerbstones on the median of O’Connell Bridge are even bigger – 2 ½ feet thick and some as long as 6 feet. They are unique in Dublin and should definitely be kept when the bridge comes to be refurbished.
Regarding the 19th century iron bollards that surrounded Smith O’Brien when he was on the south of O’C Bridge, it’s quite likely that they are the ones that now stand near the Parnell Monument. But, given the profusion of ornate street furniture in Dublin at the time, it’s also likely that those bollards were found in other places as well (that might account for their apparently slightly different shape).
-
February 23, 2005 at 10:27 pm #728759
GrahamH
ParticipantYes – there were a great many. Indeed they reflect something of a different midset – a time when things were often just done by convention, such as surrounding monuments with railings and lampstandards and even putting bollards around just lampposts such as infront of O’Cll Monument or on St. Stephen’s Green and countless other places.
Kind of pointless in a way, although some probably did have defensive purposes.The trees in the pic probably are Christmas trees – interesting that there appears never to have been a Christmas tree on O’Cll St itself until 1966. Here’s an extract from the 2004 CC press release (they publish the same one every year, just juggle the words round a bit :)):
“Traditionally located opposite the GPO, a Christmas tree was erected for the first time on O’Connell Street in 1966. The tree this year was supplied by Coillte Teoranta,. It is a 60ft Norway Spruce, grown in Athy Co. Kildare and is the biggest Christmas tree ever erected in Ireland. It weighs 3 tonnes and is approximately 56 years old. In previous years trees were 25-30 feet. This year there are over 1,200 white lights decorating the tree.”
The kerbstones on the bridge median are extraordinarily large, easily the longest in the city: they must be original as they’d have been prohibitively expensive if put down in the 70s or so. The lanterns along here have always looked decidedly temporary on that tarmac since going back in – they don’t sit on it properly and even look a bit lopsided at times. The restoration in 2000/2001 was magnificent, with the ones on the balustrades done a bit earlier in 1999. As mentioned before, the median ones were pruned down to 3 arms and the wall ones chopped down to single lanterns in April of 1919 due to safety concerns, whatever they were. The new white bulbs used (read they’re 150 watt) are very effective. Pity they were dumped down on such a rubbish surface.
Have any more sites been acquired for the Carlton scheme since the court case began or was the site already fully assembled at that point?
-
February 25, 2005 at 11:49 am #728760
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
Have any more sites been acquired for the Carlton scheme since the court case began or was the site already fully assembled at that point?
I have been wondering about this recently. Is it still planned to build a shopping centre on this site?
-
February 26, 2005 at 8:08 pm #728761
Anonymous
Inactive@phil wrote:
I have been wondering about this recently. Is it still planned to build a shopping centre on this site?
That would all depend on how big a site could be put together, there is no way that the Carlton on its own could accommodate a serious shopping centre
-
March 1, 2005 at 11:42 pm #728762
Anonymous
InactiveI wonder what the City Council make of the renewed discussions between the Department of Arts and the DDDA? I would reckon they would love to get the Abbey into the Carlton site if they could get it.
-
March 2, 2005 at 5:38 pm #728763
TLM
ParticipantI agree… that Hight Court decision seems to have been due since forever. If the decision was made then at least they would know either way. Won’t the docklands have it’s landmark cultural anchor with the Liebeskind designed theatre now anyway?
-
March 2, 2005 at 8:22 pm #728764
urbanisto
ParticipantIts very odd how long this is taking. Its n ot that bloody complicated. What strikes me most about the whole Abbey lark is that how the Govt so obviously have no real idea what to do or where to put it. We have had the larking around with the present, blatantly unsuitable site. Then we went on to Hawkins, Infirmary Rd and Parnell Sq….all of which are have problems not least in that both Hawkins and Infirmary are promised to other parties – Hawkins to a developer in lieu of another site for the DoH and Infirmary Rd to be the new location for the Courts Service. Parnell was a fiasco…although a wlecome one. The DCC plans for the Square announced last week call for a hotel here! Finally there is the Carlton site. The most obvious and best site IMO. And that takes over a year to get through the Courts.
Incidently, adding to this theme. The Times announced last week that Hawkins House would be swapped with another development, most likely Connaught House on Burlington Road. Meanwhile the Indo announces Connaught House is the site for the new hq for Hibernian. Does anyone know whats going on…..
-
March 3, 2005 at 12:43 am #728765
GrahamH
ParticipantHmmm – I wonder who’s to believe 😉
Was the Hawkins deal done and dusted before the Abbey relocation even arose but was just announced recently, or is it just a recent development full stop?I’m still not sure the Carlton site is suitable for the Abbey – certainly it would be great from the image perspective; to have the national theatre on the main thoroughfare, but the Carlton is still only a lacklustre, mid-terrace location. If it was to be the focal point of the street like the GPO then fair enough, but it’s not.
I just find it somewhat unambitious, from use, prominence and architectural perspectives.
Also presumably some sort of plaza area outside would also be created, however minor, further detracting from the street’s layout.
A self-contained city centre site I’d still find the most suitable for the Abbey, Hawkins being almost perfect I think… -
March 3, 2005 at 12:31 pm #728766
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
A self-contained city centre site I’d still find the most suitable for the Abbey, Hawkins being almost perfect I think…
What ever way you look at the Hawkins site it has no profile, I had a good look at the apartments at the back of the corn exchange on burgh quay, they really are dreadful, a rendered finish with such profile all it needs is a touch of lemon or magnolia paint.
-
March 3, 2005 at 12:41 pm #728767
Anonymous
InactiveGraham Hickey wrote:I’m still not sure the Carlton site is suitable for the Abbey – certainly it would be great from the image perspective]I would say that it would become a focal point if given the chance. The location is certainly suitable. I also think it is fine quality piece of architecture. At least the front anyway! Speaking of which, does anyone know what the interior condition of this building is like? Has it been gutted?
-
March 3, 2005 at 2:20 pm #728768
Anonymous
InactiveThe biggest mistake made in relation to the Abbey has to be impossing a deadline for a decision, finding the site for a national theatre takes time. Unless you want to pay big bucks, if cost wasn’t an issue wouldn’t the corner of Burgh Quay and Hawkins St make a great location if Aviation House and the amusement arcade were removed and it would only be a 2minute walk using the proposed new bridge back to the old location
-
March 4, 2005 at 12:18 am #728769
GrahamH
ParticipantAnd front onto the river?
If using the Hawkins site, it goes without saying that An Post’s (do they still occupy it?) College House be demolished – to the extent that there would be little point in using this location unless that happened. It is this that would make the site workable and make the building impressive – a striking piece of architecture sited between D’Olier Chambers and Pearse St Station, also surrounded by Trinity’s accomodation block, the Lord’s portico, and the lovely stock of College St – what a setting, in the heart of the city.
@phil wrote:
Does anyone know what the interior condition of [the Carlton] building is like? Has it been gutted?
I’ve wondered this too – did it/does it have a decent interior? When was it closed does anyone know, and why? (or is that kinda obvious…)
It says on the link there that it was built in 1932, but in RTÉ’s ‘100 Years’ book it is claimed the cinema opened on the 16th of April 1938 and there’s an accompanying picture of the cinema based in the 3 bay Georgian townhouse it first opened in. I’ve a feeling it opened in it in 1932, but the new building in 1938 and the latter’s what the book refers to – with the wrong picture… -
March 4, 2005 at 11:03 am #728770
GregF
ParticipantI think work is really slowing down on the upgrading of O’Connell Street. It took ages to do that bit of paving near O’Connell Bridge, almost 6 months or more and there is still the opposite side of the street to be done. I bet the DCC will put the remaining upgrading of the street (the Gresham Hotel end) on the long finger. It will takes years and years in the long to complete like everything else. Read on the paper too, that the plan to upgrade the Garden of Rememberance, Parnell Square should be complete by the year 2016!
Anyone see the new infill on Eden Quay that was once the Laughter Lounge. At least it has windows, compared to what was there.
-
March 4, 2005 at 12:23 pm #728771
Anonymous
InactiveHas anyone seen the new lighting at the Bridge end of O’Connell St, they are rotten looking? Basic 1980’s suburban muck with the novelty of a second fitting, I am insulted by them.
-
March 4, 2005 at 1:35 pm #728772
adhoc
ParticipantHow can you find it anymore insulting than the lighting used in the earlier part of the scheme? Its EXACTLY the same as the lighting used in the initial phase.
-
March 4, 2005 at 4:09 pm #728773
Anonymous
InactiveAnyone got any photos of these?
-
March 4, 2005 at 4:50 pm #728774
Anonymous
InactiveThe Laughter Lounge replacement is dreadful, windows or no windows.
-
March 4, 2005 at 4:54 pm #728775
TLM
ParticipantI agree the Laughter Lounge replacement is a monotonous monstrosity.. Such a disgrace. I had hoped an effort might be made to improve the adjoining quays as part of the O’C st. IAP but does’nt look like it at this rate..
-
March 4, 2005 at 6:50 pm #728776
GrahamH
ParticipantYes the lampposts are the same as the first phase – these:
Hope to get some pics of the latest phase next week – I’ve wating for ages for the place to to be cleared up and lamppost heads to be attached etc. This phase really has taken too long considering the east side hasn’t been included. The median furniture is going in now, including some shiny bollards, not sure whats going on there…
I’m not a fan of the lampposts either, with the exception of the lamp heads themselves which are very nice with those large domes of glass. But the matt grey finish and band of black skirting at the base is so dull and mundane.
I just think it’s a pity a more distinctive profile and finish wasn’t chosen – something that’d stand out as the O’Connell Street lampposts rather than a design that could be in Barcelona or Berlin.
At least we don’t have black hoopy British High St yokes 🙂 -
March 4, 2005 at 7:04 pm #728777
GrahamH
ParticipantAlso, the new posts aren’t evenly spaced – there’s four in total but the central gap is much bigger than the others…maybe because of the ped crossing :confused:
-
March 4, 2005 at 7:42 pm #728778
Anonymous
InactiveSo the light fittings are the same, I saw them from first floor level and they looked totaly different from that angle, I do agree about the amount of time the works have taken, very slow.
-
March 4, 2005 at 9:02 pm #728779
Anonymous
Inactive@Thomond Park wrote:
I do agree about the amount of time the works have taken, very slow.
The unfortunate thing when a master plan takes so long to implement is that with changes in styles etc etc, one half of the street could end up looking completely different from the other. Hopefully this won’t happen here.
-
March 6, 2005 at 10:04 pm #728780
Anonymous
Inactive@phil wrote:
The unfortunate thing when a master plan takes so long to implement is that with changes in styles etc etc, one half of the street could end up looking completely different from the other. Hopefully this won’t happen here.
That is a good point phil, it is possible that some of the materials used may actually have gone out of manufacture if the current pace is maintained. 🙁
-
March 8, 2005 at 1:59 am #728781
GrahamH
ParticipantHere’s some pics of the latest phase. I’m somewhat reluctant to post them as it is far from finished yet, and I should have some ‘before and after’ pics later, so don’t want to use them all up yet 🙂
Apologies for exposure etc – the camera’s of the ‘point ‘n’ click’ variety…Here’s the wide new paving on the west (McDonald’s) side:
Also below, the kerb curves mentioned many times before, used to accommodate the width of O’Connell Monument.
They’re both on the side pavement and the median; even the lines on the road bend 🙂
Lovely river of juice on the O’Cll Mon plinth there…: -
March 8, 2005 at 2:06 am #728782
GrahamH
ParticipantTwo more pics:
. The new median paving and trees behind O’Cll Mon
. New bollards in front of William S O’Brien – surrounding a trapdoor :confused:
-
March 8, 2005 at 2:15 am #728783
GrahamH
ParticipantNo silver birch trees have been used in this phase of the project as can be seen.
A lot going on in this first pic below with the installation of bollards and foundations etc – presumably for the street’s first kiosk. I don’t know how the Luas sub station next door is going to be concealed – clad in wood or something?
Also the continuation of the lampposts as per Abbey-Princes Sts phase:
-
March 8, 2005 at 10:48 am #728784
TLM
ParticipantThanks for the pics Graham.. the new wider pavement at this end again looks much better than what was there..but it looks pretty barren in the first pic without any trees! Are these to be added later? Also was a design of kiosk decided on?
-
March 8, 2005 at 10:58 am #728785
GregF
ParticipantGood photos Graham.
But look at the stains already on the new paving….just as well we get so much rain to wash the filth away. -
March 8, 2005 at 11:16 am #728786
GrahamH
ParticipantAll of the paving on the sides and median is filthy with loads of stains, but only because it hasn’t been cleaned since construction – the place has yet to be fully furnished and polished off (the bleach suds in the first pic are from the daily McDonalds rinse down :))
This will include the installation of roadside trees, for which as you can see in the first pic provision has been made with large square holes, currently filled with tarmac.
Perhaps these holes are a bit big: their surface area on the Abbey phase is very large and the sandy gravel in them is contantly being worn down and kicked out a bit from people walking over them rather than around them. Are they so large just to accommodate their root balls during installation?Haven’t seen any kiosk designs TLM – maybe others have…
-
March 8, 2005 at 1:39 pm #728787
urbanisto
Participant6 months to pave a small stretch. Ridiculous eh. And considering that the CC are commiting to completing the paving by the end of 2005, and restoring all the statues adn starting on the Prnell St improvements. Nothing more will happen until after St Patricks Day. Perhaps a burst of activity can be expected then. Anyone hear anymore on the issue of the older trees on Upper OConnell St.
Kiosk can be viewed I think on the reflecting city website (recently revamped) at http://www.reflectingcity.com -
March 8, 2005 at 6:52 pm #728788
GrahamH
ParticipantI remember these now you mention it Stephen, thanks:
“The suite of furniture will include two cafes, a ticket and information offices, five retail units, two news stands, two self-cleaning WCs, twelve public telephone boxes and nine bus or taxi shelters”Gasp, a public toilet in the city centre – now there’s a novelty :). Although weren’t the ones on Burgh Quay closed from from lack of patrons….hardly the best position for them though.
The slatted wood looks very well on the kiosks, but the big concern is of course how bulky they will be sited on the median: -
March 8, 2005 at 7:27 pm #728789
Anonymous
InactiveThey are seriously cool, well they will be if they are ever built and look as good in reality
-
March 9, 2005 at 12:15 am #728790
DublinLimerick
ParticipantPhotos of Dublin (by people who simlply take ad hoc pictures) can be found on http://www.flickr.com. Just type in ‘Dublin’
in the search box on the homepage.
It’s updated daily. -
March 9, 2005 at 3:56 pm #728791
Anonymous
InactiveOr the best of all
-
March 9, 2005 at 7:06 pm #728792
Anonymous
Inactive@Thomond Park wrote:
Or the best of all
Agreed, and I just found his section entitled ‘Teddy goes to town’. It is a work of genius!
http://www.fantasyjackpalance.com/fjp/photos/teddy/index.html
-
March 9, 2005 at 11:36 pm #728793
GrahamH
ParticipantAh Teddy – a classic :). He looks much bigger on the bus seat than in the other pics…
I’ve been meaning to ask this for ages about Upper O’Cll St. It’s generally considered than the Royal Dublin Hotel townhouse is the last original facade remaining on the street, but is it possible that another exists in the form of Flanagan’s, next to McDonalds?
As is widely said, when Gardiner’s Mall was laid out in 1748, the western (GPO) side of the street was built of houses intended for professional people and merchants, while the eastern side was the preserve of the aristocracy, MPs and Lords etc. However, this only partially appears to be the case, as the smaller two-bay merchant houses only extended up to where Dublin Bus is now, which itself was the site of a large 5-bay house/s. Thereafter the houses generally turn into larger three-bay buildings with a scattering of smaller ones in the mix, the last example surviving of course being the RDH house built in 1752. There was a list somewhere on the internet of many of the Lords etc who lived on this side of the street and guess where they all lived – only in the larger houses from nos 40-60, i.e. Dublin Bus to Parnell St 🙂
As for the eastern side – were the remenants of Drogheda St ever demolished? Pics from the 19th century often show a jumble of buildings – although one of the Earls of Drogheda did rent out a newly built vast pile for himself on the present day site of Burger King 🙂
Anyway Flanagan’s is an example of one of the houses in the terrace of 2-bay merchant dwellings that stretched from the ‘Come in and Visit’ building :rolleyes: up to Dublin Bus. I wonder if the brickwork is original – it would be fantastic if it was, dating from 1749-50. As you can see in the first pic, the first floor windows have been shortened in height with the addition of the limestone dressings – the newer bricks underneath being the giveaway.
Also the windows above – what’s the likelihood of these 2nd floor sashes being original – no horns and in exceptionally poor condition. They also have small panes of glass and are virtually identical to the windows of the RDH 2nd floor… The top floor frames appear to be later. The top floor was also partially rebuilt in the 19th century as can be seen.
If only I could post Tudor’s engraving of Sackville Mall from 1750 – have a copy but no scanner 🙁
It really is fascinating, you caould look at it for hours, if you’re that way inclined….but there’s loads of misleading details too – loads – not least the fact that half of what’s in the picture doesn’t appear to have been built yet 😀 -
March 10, 2005 at 6:04 am #728794
Devin
ParticipantProportions and brickwork-wise, the Flanagan’s façade appears to be (if you mentally strip away the architraves and shortened 1st floor windows) of the 1790-1820 period, but it could be older again. When you’re talking about this long ago, 1800 brickwork doesn’t look much different to 1750 brickwork!
The 2nd floor windows are certainly of the 1800 period at least (but I think the glazing bars would be a bit fatter if they were as old as 1750) – they have that aged look, with the build up of paint, and of course the absence of sash horns.
Must go & have a look at the building in person tomorrow.
It’s funny the way the houses were more ‘bitty’ at the Henry St. end and grander at the Parnell St. end of Gardiner’s Mall…you might have expected a bit more uniformity. The latter were much closer in every way to the Parnell Square East/Cavendish Row houses (also of circa 1750). Rocque’s map of 1756 is also good for showing all this.
I read a report of that Georgian house (1752) beside the RDH once which said its 1st floor windows were lowered in the late 18th century – apparently this was the fashion at the time, to let more light in, because mid-18th cen. houses had quite small window proportions. I’ve noticed those old sashes on the 2nd floor of the facade as well, and I reckon what happened is, when the 1st floor windows were lowered in the late 18th cen., all the façade widows were replaced. Then when the RDH extended into part of the house in the ‘80s 🙁 , they put those crappy Victorian-horned sashes into the 1st & 2nd floors. Imagine, the late-18th cen. sashes had probably survived in the whole facade up until then!
I was in that house as part of my work a few years ago and the rear tri-partite arched staircase window is original, with heavy glazing bars.
What the RDH did on the ground floor was absolutely disgusting…all that cheap nasty off-the-peg plasterwork & joinery, and destroying what were probably two magnificent rooms. But the remaining original rooms in the house are a wow…very authentic & atmospheric.
I look forward to the restoration of the house…thank god there is a system in place now that requires a professional Conservation Architect to be engaged in the restoration of a Protected Structure like this. -
March 10, 2005 at 12:43 pm #728795
Anonymous
InactiveI think what is meant by last remaining Georgian facade is entire facade surviving as a townhouse of which No 46 is whilst Flannagans retains only the elevation from first floor upwards. I agree with Devin that the windows are a good giveaway
-
March 10, 2005 at 10:57 pm #728796
GrahamH
ParticipantWindows are always useless at keeping a secret 🙂
The first thing that springs to mind about the 2nd floor windows of Flanagan’s and the RDH as you say is the thickness of the glazing bars. The thing is is that they’re borderline – 1750-55 marking the introduction of fine glazing bars. That’s fascinating what you say Devin about the Venetian to the rear of the RDH – is it possible that finer glazing bars were used to the front and thicker to the rear?
As for Flanagan’s, the panes are so very tiny that they certainly give the appearance of dating from 1750, or rather they make you want to believe that! It is possible that new thin glazing bars were installed into the original frames, accounting for the lack of horns. It is also possible that sashes are entirely new but just date from prior to the introduction of horns, circa 1820. There appears to be no original glass in them thanks either to 1916, 1922, Nelson 1, Nelson 2 ;), or just to some good old-fashioned renovation.It is most surprising the windows don’t all appear to have been changed with the addition of the limestone window dressings. On first impressions it looks as if the 1st floor sashes went in when the dressings went on, the 2nd floor perhaps survived, and the 3rd floor ones went in in when the top floor was rebuilt – and now that I look at them again it looks like the top floor was shelled in 1916; the windows are of the standard 1910s/20s Edwardian design, so much of which can be seen on Henry St & Lwr O’Cll St.
The classical nature of the dressings may suggest around 1810-20, just prior to the horn invasion, and also would tie in with commercial occupiers creeping up into Upper Sackville St…As for the RDH, the 2nd floor windows do look suspiciously refined for 1750 – just a bit unusual for windows to be replaced so comparitively quickly; then again Dublin doesn’t have that much stock from that period anyway…
What you say about the lengthened 1st floor windows certainly explains their bizarre proportions – even if the Gardiners are renouned for their later developments’ narrow windows, even they wouldn’t have gone this far 🙂
The railings of the RDH House are replicas as well as the windows…good, but peeling apint and the expose of steel tend to give the game away.The stretch of houses up to Dublin Bus was actually the most uniform of the Mall; similar to housing developments even today, those with less money are stacked together in uniform ‘units’ whilst the wealther are given free reign. Think this is very evident with the Gardiners’ later schemes which are all very uniform and standardised, while the money of the more salubrious Merrion Squares of this city shot themselves in the foot with the mishmash of stuff they built – albeit charming in its own right.
And just as Cavedish Row is mentioned, the ‘stickey-outey’ railings with that bulge at the bottom so prevelant along this stretch (started around 1753?) are identical to those used by Gardiner on his Sackville Mall houses, a real connection with the past if ever there was one. The Mall lives on 🙂 -
March 10, 2005 at 11:03 pm #728797
GrahamH
ParticipantForgot – here’s the Royal Dublin Hotel house:
-
March 11, 2005 at 3:37 am #728798
Devin
Participant@Graham Hickey wrote:
The first thing that springs to mind about the 2nd floor windows of Flanagan’s and the RDH as you say is the thickness of the glazing bars. The thing is is that they’re borderline – 1750-55 marking the introduction of fine glazing bars.
Yes agreed, they’re borderline – they don’t look quite as slender as your average 1790s glazing bars – but maybe not quite as thick as what I would associate with 1750. As far as I knew, glazing bars went gradually from being very heavy at the middle of the 18th century (like the Venetian I refer to at the back of the RDH house – I’ll post a picture if I can) to being very slender at the end.
@Graham Hickey wrote:
That’s fascinating what you say Devin about the Venetian to the rear of the RDH – is it possible that finer glazing bars were used to the front and thicker to the rear?
I don’t think so. As far as I know the whole house would have had the same (thick) glazing bars.
That group of early 18th century houses on Fownes Street where ‘Flip’ & ‘The Real McCoy’ are had all their front windows restored to the original design some years ago (by the Georgian Society I think) from one original thick-barred window found in the back of one house.
-
March 11, 2005 at 3:51 am #728799
GrahamH
ParticipantYes – I know them well, really the only chunkies so prominently on display in the city centre. The lack of reveals is also interesting, as are their exposed frames.
You’re probably right regarding the front and back of the RDH house – unlike glass, it’d have been just as cheap to have quality thin bars at the front as at the back. Must take a wander down Moore Lane again – it is amazing how much Georgian remains around the back behind the jumble of facades creating the public face of these buildings.
It’s hard to have a good look without looking deeply suspicious – or being stabbed for that matter…:) -
March 11, 2005 at 4:57 pm #728800
Anonymous
InactiveCity Centre businesses predict strong year
March 11, 2005 11:29
The Dublin City Business Association has predicted a strong trading year for the city centre this year.Speaking at the Association’s AGM, its Chairman Paul McElearney said the city expects to experience parallel if not increased growth on 2004. 2004 saw a 4% improvement in performance on 2003.
‘The average footfall in the city centre is now over four million a week, thanks most significantly to the improved transport infrastructure, improved consumer confidence and completion of redevelopment works in the city centre,’ Mr McElearney said. The extensive redevelopment planned in the city centre over the next 12 month also demonstrates a significant show of confidence in the city’s future performance. ‘The announcements that H&M will open in Henry Street in November, the relocation of the Independent News & Media group to Talbot Street, the redevelopment of Arnotts on Abbey Street and the development of South Anne Street will all facilitate the every increasing numbers of visits to the city centre,’ the DCBA chairman said.
Established in 1970, the collective members of the DCBA employ over 25,000 people in Dublin 1 and 2. They have paid over €50m in rates each year to Dublin City Council and have invested over €300m in store redevelopment over the last number of years. Members include Arnotts, Clery’s, Easons, the Ilac, Jervis Street and Stephen’s Green shopping centres.
-
March 11, 2005 at 8:17 pm #728801
Devin
ParticipantThe DCBA have to put out that impression anyway. They’re actually shivering in their boots that the city centre will be deserted for the likes of Dundrum and the Blanchardstown centre.
Graham, you’ve got me thinking about early/mid 18th century sashes; Given that there are no original chunkies surviving on the main facade of any pre-1750 building in the city, how do we actually know that front & rear sashes in early/mid 18th century buildings would have always been the same? – maybe efforts were made to have more refined windows in the front like you say. There are a few original chunkies in the front basements of houses here and there around town – like No. 4 Henrietta Street, a 1730s house. But these original sashes are so chunky – almost crude – that you can’t really imagine that the whole façade would have had them (the rest of the façade has late 18th century sashes). And also a couple of early 18th century houses on St. Stephen’s Green East – between Merrion Row and Hume Street – have originals in the basement & later windows above.
The circa 1760 west front of Trinity College must be one of the earliest buildings in the city with original windows mostly survivng throughout – you can see that the glazing bars, while still thickish, are becoming more slender by this date.
-
March 11, 2005 at 10:21 pm #728802
GrahamH
ParticipantWhat about way outside the capital and Castletown – it has hugely thick glazing bars in its basement windows from the 1720/30s, Are the upper fine windows later – I presume so…?
There’s loads of buildings in Dublin with older exposed-frame windows in main facades but they all have fine/ish bars.
To lift a quote from Nessa Roche’s great book – (the notorious :)) “Mrs Delany…admired the new fashion and in 1759 ordered sashes ‘new made in the narrow way, which makes them much pleasanter’.”Ah yes, Trinity, that venerable and distinguished institution; home to the world’s most discerning Pepsi Max connoisseurs :rolleyes:
Trinity’s a good example of the transitional style, and not just in relation to windows.
I’m surprised the City only reigns in €50 million from ratepayers – thought it’d be much more…
-
March 12, 2005 at 12:51 pm #728803
Anonymous
InactiveGraham Hickey wrote:I’m surprised the City only reigns in €]The 50m figure only relates to their members who are the larger retailers a lot of whom would have availed of tax breaks during the mid 1990’s and will soon be making a larger contribution. All of the DCBA members would be strictly retailers and as such would pay quite a small proportion of the rates base, as the majority of which is paid by office occupiers. However without them the City would be a very dull place indeed. I am not so sure that they are quaking in their boots about Suburban Shopping Centres, Dundrum is a good centre but nothing can rival the choice offered by a City Centre, many non DCBA members stock product lines you wouldn’t find in any Mall type development.
-
March 14, 2005 at 12:11 pm #728804
GrahamH
ParticipantAgreed – the choice offered and the ‘experience’ of the city centre is unrivalled. And if the supposed uniqueness of the stores in Dundrum are its main attraction, well much of this will undoubtedly be diluted in the short to medium term with new schemes in the city centre coming on stream, some with the same much-vaunted outlets.
Anyway, it’s female fashion Dundrum thrives on & little else (okay even if it does make up 90% of the market :))
There is life outside H&M. Pity that couldn’t be better reflected on O’Cll St. -
March 14, 2005 at 2:17 pm #728805
Anonymous
InactiveSt Pat’s parade organisers in LUAS cable row
13 March 2005 13:49
Organisers of the St Patrick’s Day parade in Dublin are furious with the Department of Transport over its refusal to take down overhead LUAS cables that cross O’Connell Street.They say it is the department’s national duty to remove the lines for the celebration.
Last year parade floats reached heights of almost 12 metres but this year they need to be half that in order to safely pass under the LUAS cables running along Abbey Street.
Pageant companies have been forced to make adjustments to their floats following the refusal by LUAS to take down the cables. They say this impacts on the scale and spectacle of the parade.
The festival’s Chief Executive, Donal Shiels, says all Dublin transport agencies have facilitated the parade over the past 75 years, and he understands that it would take no more than five hours to take down the LUAS cables.
A spokesperson for the Department of Transport says power will be turned off in the overhead cables for the duration of the parade.
The department says organisers were told in 2003 that the cables could not be removed as it would cause major disruption and have safety implications for the service.
-
March 14, 2005 at 2:49 pm #728806
GrahamH
ParticipantThis is not a new issue – as is said at the end there, was first mooted in 2003 when it was projected to cost €60,000 to unhook the cables at O’Cll St and St. Stephen’s Green. I fail to see how the festival orgainsers are suddenly ‘furious’ as described by the article…
Still it is a pity – an RPA rep got a right rollicking from Aine Lawlor about this issue on Morning Ireland this morning – missed the start of it though. They argue that the parade went for many years without any tall floats and can do so again.
On the issue of Luas susposedly being suspended anyway on account of the parade, they say that it will only stop crossing O’Cll St for the 3 hours or so the parade runs – and before and after will be operating as normal.If the disruption to services is not significant, the lines should come down. Surely there are simple cost-effective methods of detachable cable systems in use elsewhere in Europe?
-
March 14, 2005 at 2:55 pm #728807
Anonymous
InactiveIt is a pity that the floats have to be reduced in size as you say, the Dublin Parade must be the best cold weather parade in the World and what really annoys me is that just when O’Connell St is coming good the parade must be played with. But on balance the RPA are right from what is being said over on platform11 it would be little hassle to take down the wires, it is the putting back up and all the necessary safety checks that could take anything up to three days to complete.
If only there was no loopline the parade could have continued down to the Custom House and IFSC, now that would have been a spectacle.
-
March 14, 2005 at 3:00 pm #728808
GrahamH
ParticipantThe big inflatable sun is always memorable 🙂
Maybe it can perch itself on O’Cll Bridge – brighten the place up a bit 🙂 -
March 14, 2005 at 3:02 pm #728809
Anonymous
InactiveIt would give a good counter balance to the O’Connell Monument 🙂
-
March 14, 2005 at 3:20 pm #728810
notjim
Participantof course the parade is going the other way this year, starting at the top of o’connell street and then continuing to patricks, couldn’t large floats assemble on eden quay and slot in as the parade progresses.
-
March 14, 2005 at 5:19 pm #728811
Anonymous
Inactive@notjim wrote:
of course the parade is going the other way this year, starting at the top of o’connell street and then continuing to patricks, couldn’t large floats assemble on eden quay and slot in as the parade progresses.
That must be the first time it has ever gone in that direction.
-
March 14, 2005 at 6:47 pm #728812
notjim
Participantit is, the idea, it seems, is to make it easier for the press to take photograph, the sun will be in peoples faces this way.
-
March 14, 2005 at 7:00 pm #728813
Anonymous
InactiveThat is interesting and quite telling. So the image of the spectacle is considered more important than people taking part in it?
-
March 14, 2005 at 7:17 pm #728814
adhoc
ParticipantI wasn’t aware that marching down O’Connell Street was in anyway less desirable or enjoyable than marching up it. How are the ‘people taking part in it’ in anyway slighted or made to be ‘less important’ than the ‘image of the spectacle’?
-
March 14, 2005 at 7:50 pm #728815
Anonymous
InactiveAdhoc, was merely commenting on the reasoning that was pointed out by Notjim. If that is the reason that it has been turned around it is infact placing the importance of images caught by cameras over and above those who are taking apart. If the reasons are unrelated to this, so be it.
-
March 15, 2005 at 12:38 am #728816
GrahamH
ParticipantWell it also makes sense from a viewing perspective – you’re not constantly looking into the sun at the floats coming towards you – makes it more pleasant for the spectators who are the most important.
Also from a broadcasting perspective it is hell on earth trying to expose all cameras for subjects that are in constant shadow, while everything else is burning out on you – much easier to have everyone bathed in sunshine.Better all round for the majority to have it come this way – let the participants burn 🙂 (and it is mid March we’re talking about here :))
-
March 15, 2005 at 12:47 am #728817
Anonymous
InactiveIn many ways it is quite symbolic the change of direction when one thinks of the large military presence in years gone by, I have to say I like the idea of the parade going towards the sun as opposed to the border and god knows St Patricks Park could do with being reoccupied by the forces of law and order. I like notjims idea of the larger floats filtering in from from Eden Quay it really would have ensured the perfect day
-
March 15, 2005 at 10:39 am #728818
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
Better all round for the majority to have it come this way – let the participants burn 🙂 (and it is mid March we’re talking about here :))
That is a fair point (apart from letting the participants burn! 😮 )
-
March 15, 2005 at 11:47 am #728819
Anonymous
Inactivehttp://www.reflectingcity.com/index.html?a=5&t=23&p=30
Architect: Dublin City Council Architects
Client: Dublin City CouncilThe first physical feature of the regeneration of O’Connell Street was put in place in January 2003. More than a thousand onlookers gathered on the street to see the final section of the Spire being lifted slowly into position by one of the world’s tallest cranes.
Following the construction of the Spire, work started on Phase 1 of the O’Connell Street Improvement Scheme. This phase, which incorporates the area between the Spire and Abbey Street, was completed in April 2004. The street works scheme was designed to upgrade the
environment for pedestrians and shoppers by reducing traffic flows, widening pavements and creating a spacious and elegant boulevard with new tree planting. The design incorporates new natural paving for the central median and footpaths approximately twice their present width. Carriageway widths are reduced to accommodate two lanes of traffic and one cycle lane north and south bound.The current phase involves the laying of a new central median between Abbey Street and O’Connell Bridge and a new northbound carriageway surface and widened footpath from the junction of Bachelor’s Walk and Lower O’Connell Street to the junction of Lower O’Connell Street and Middle Abbey Street. This work is scheduled for completion in February 2005.
The third and largest phase takes in the area between the Spire and the Parnell Monument and will start in early 2005. The final section of the street to be treated will be the footpath and carriageway at the eastern side of Lower O’Connell Street i.e. from Lower Abbey Street to Eden Quay.
With the exception of the granite carriageways in front of the GPO the design of the completed first phase represents the design template for the remainder of the street.
The centrepiece of the street is the granite-paved plaza at the General Post Office. The civic space is formally closed on three sides by a total of 27 clipped lime trees and, combined with the sculptured lighting, has created an important public space for the city. There will be 156 trees on O’Connell Street on completion of the project.
24 weeping birch and 38 ornamental ash will be planted throughout the length of the central median of the new O’Connell Street. These will offer a semi-natural planting scheme of flowering and fruiting mountain ash trees and gracefully weeping birch trees, the latter giving a sense of movement down the central median. These trees on the median will be illuminated from the ground up at night, thus strengthening their presence on the street and providing a different perspective to that available during daylight hours.
67 oriental plane trees will grace the new footpaths, double their original width and allowing the trees room to grow. These trees are long lived and in time will develop an impressive stature and an attractive dappled and flaking bark with olive green leaves.
Newly designed street lighting has been installed to complement and highlight the trees. Work is continuing on the design of the new kiosks for O’Connell Street. The scheme includes the design of a range of high quality retail kiosks designed to accommodate public toilets, cafés, newsagents and bus shelters. Planning permission has been granted for the first four and it is expected that these will appear on the street in 2005.
-
March 15, 2005 at 2:06 pm #728820
TLM
ParticipantThere are some great photos of the plaza on that link…the last one of the proposed upper end of the street shows a hell of a lot more tree planting along the median and sides than what has been placed on the southern end so far though!
-
March 15, 2005 at 3:01 pm #728821
Anonymous
InactiveThere are some excellent images on the page, one rarely sees such image rich pages on a local government web page, it is a credit to them. The one I find most interesting is image 7, the one with the six columns the effectof which will be to completely screen the Ann Summers shop as viewed from directly accross the GPO plaza and the entrance to Henry St, I wonder when these will be put in?
-
March 15, 2005 at 3:23 pm #728822
Anonymous
InactiveI remember there was a bit of discussion about these a while back on this thread. They are taken from the original IAP from 1998. I reckon they are not going to be put in at all. At this point nothing was really finalised, so I would say there was a certain amount of artistic lisence allowed. Interesting all the same though.
-
March 15, 2005 at 6:03 pm #728823
Anonymous
Inactive@phil wrote:
I remember there was a bit of discussion about these a while back on this thread. They are taken from the original IAP from 1998. I reckon they are not going to be put in at all. At this point nothing was really finalised, so I would say there was a certain amount of artistic lisence allowed. Interesting all the same though.
That really is a pity; I think they would have worked very well and not interfered with the GPO but in contrast would have added to the contemporary feel given to the plaza by the spire. 🙁
-
March 15, 2005 at 6:12 pm #728824
Anonymous
InactiveIn saying that, I think the perfect opportunity to find out about them would be at that lecture tonight (The Landscape Design one: https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?p=31705#post31705) I am annoyed that I am missing it. You would be able to find out about whether they will happen or not.
-
March 15, 2005 at 6:50 pm #728825
notjim
ParticipantCarlton Cinema CPO passes high court!
-
March 15, 2005 at 7:08 pm #728826
Anonymous
Inactive@notjim wrote:
High Court ruling over Carlton Cinema site
15 March 2005 15:00
A High Court decision today could clear the way for the development of the Carlton Cinema site on Dublin’s O’Connell Street.The court rejected a challenge to a Compulsory Purchase Order made by Dublin City Council on the site in 2001.
The challenge was taken by Paul Clinton, an architect and member of the Carlton Group, which had secured planning permission to develop the site in late 1999.
The council had made the purchase order after deciding that the Carlton Group had neither the finance nor the development expertise to advance the project.
Mr Clinton claimed it breached his constitutional right to property and was made without the council identifying how to develop the site. He argued that Carlton was never given a proper opportunity to progress its proposed development.
In his reserved judgement today, Mr Justice Joseph Finnegan said that the Integrated Area Plan considered O’Connell Street as important as the Champ Elysées in Paris.
He said it should be an attraction similar to the great streets of other major cities.
To achieve this required an integrated approach which was detailed in the plan. The Carlton site has been mentioned as a possible new site for the Abbey Theatre.That is a really encouraging judgement I’m sure that each of the main players will show their hand publicly quite soon, the real winner here is Dublin finally we can be sure that we will have at least one Street that mixes the new and the old in a way that is cutting edge. 🙂 😎
-
March 15, 2005 at 7:51 pm #728827
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterExcellent news….
-
March 15, 2005 at 7:55 pm #728828
Anonymous
Inactive -
March 15, 2005 at 8:05 pm #728829
Anonymous
InactiveAbbey Theatre????
-
March 15, 2005 at 8:09 pm #728830
Anonymous
Inactive@phil wrote:
Abbey Theatre????
It would be hard to find a better location
-
March 15, 2005 at 10:30 pm #728831
GrahamH
ParticipantFantastic news – oooh the possibilities (rub hands) 🙂
-
March 15, 2005 at 11:00 pm #728832
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
Fantastic news – oooh the possibilities (rub hands) 🙂
I thought you would have had more to say on the subject, whats next? The Abbey, A shopping Mall, A new urban quarter?
-
March 15, 2005 at 11:10 pm #728833
GrahamH
ParticipantThe lower median is just about to be finished in time for St. Patrick’s Day – the bigger of the two trapdoors pictured earlier is being paved over now. Fascinating to see inside it as there’s a substantial stairway that runs down from it westwards and then veers north and goes rightdown underneath the median. It’s fully fitted out, painted walls, with handrail and has fluorescent lighting etc – not a notion what it’s for though.
Thought at first that the kiosk would be going down on top of it and that it would serve as sanitary/storage for staff, but it appears to be remaining exposed.The side pavement’s trees don’t look like they’ll be down in time for the parade – probably for the best all considering 🙂
Also, the many tree sandpits on the street were topped up this morning – a lot of it kicked around the place by lunchtime…
The St. Stephen’s Green equivalents also badly need attention – their original striking white gravel has been missing for months. The practicality of such a landscaping practice in busy urban areas perhaps needs to be considered… -
March 15, 2005 at 11:21 pm #728834
GrahamH
ParticipantWell you know I personally don’t favour the Abbey going in here Thomond Park – but the idea of just a shopping mall is hardly an inspiring alternative either.
‘Mixed use’ is something of a buzzword I know but if a mall element could be successfully merged with a much-extended Moore St traditonal market this would be a good start. An enlarged market is essential I think to offer the place a unique identity, not to mention the variety and interest it would offer – maybe with a section like Cork’s famous and higly successful Food Market.A residential element would be essential; the IAP area is crying out for a larger permanent community. Also important would be a variety of services not traditionally associated with such malls – restaurants etc.
To advocate ‘cultural uses’ is equally a popular quip – exactly what these are now is a different matter… -
March 15, 2005 at 11:28 pm #728835
Anonymous
InactiveI’m also not so sure about this being the best theoretical site for the Abbey on the one hand but on the other hand it is available now and unfortunately for Mr Clinton he will get paid compensation for his holdings at the value when the CPO ‘notice (to treat)’ was served and not at the current (much higher) value. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that DCC could sell the site to a private developer less a site for the Abbey and still make a large profit. I do feel a certain sympathy for Clinton in this situation and I am absolutely positive that Shelbourne developments now wish that they had waited before developing Jurys on Parnell St.
-
March 15, 2005 at 11:36 pm #728836
GrahamH
ParticipantDon’t we all 😀
But what sort of a scheme were the CC promoting prior to all these problems with the various developers?
-
March 16, 2005 at 12:04 am #728837
DublinLimerick
ParticipantPlease…… let it be the Abbey – our National Theatre deserves the best possible site.
-
March 16, 2005 at 12:21 am #728838
Anonymous
InactiveOn the subject of the Abbey:
http://www.irish-architecture.com/news/2005/000051.html
Bring back the magic of the Abbey
Archiseek / Ireland / News / 2005 / March 9
The Irish IndependentThe old Abbey Theatre was nothing much to look at. A narrow entrance on an undistinguished street corner. Inside, a lack of comfort for the audience such as could hardly be imagined nowadays. But comfort is nothing compared with magic. And all theatres offer magic; offer the hidden, the mysterious, the religious, the sexual. They are deeply subversive. No wonder Catholic priests were once forbidden to attend. The Abbey had a special magic of its own. Its opening both marked the culmination of the Irish cultural renaissance and supplied it with a palpable, bricks-and-mortar monument. Before we had our own parliament and our own courts, we had our own theatre. It was exciting. People took it seriously. There were riots. Some wanted no deviation from a portrayal of a sedate Catholic society.
-
March 16, 2005 at 2:39 pm #728839
Anonymous
InactiveThis decision is good news for O’Connell St and as Graham has said there are now a number of options for the site, it must be remembered that this site was derelict on our main St for over 20 years.
-
March 17, 2005 at 7:21 pm #728840
JPD
ParticipantThe dirt in O’Connell Street today was terrible there was rubbish everywhere I am not happy about this, am I alone in thinking that it is unacceptable?
-
March 17, 2005 at 8:59 pm #728841
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
Thought at first that the kiosk would be going down on top of it and that it would serve as sanitary/storage for staff, but it appears to be remaining exposed.
Does anyone know when the kiosks are due to put onto O’Connell St?
-
March 17, 2005 at 9:10 pm #728842
GrahamH
ParticipantIt looks like they might be going down pretty shortly considering the works underway on the lower median. There’s reason now why this one at least cannot proceed. And on that trapdoor – the kiosk may still be going down on top as the lid doesn’t look like it can accommodate paving slabs….
As for O’Cll St being filthy today – wouldn’t mind that given the parade crowds – not that that in any way excuses the fact that so many thousands of people tossed their rubbish on the ground for someone else to clean up.
-
March 17, 2005 at 9:18 pm #728843
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
It looks like they might be going down pretty shortly considering the works underway on the lower median. There’s reason now why this one at least cannot proceed. And on that trapdoor – the kiosk may still be going down on top as the lid doesn’t look like it can accommodate paving slabs…..
There is always something in a design that gets overlooked although I’m sure the architect will find a solution, I really think that these kiosks could be the making of O’Connell St, well for six months (if we are lucky) of the year anyway.
@Graham Hickey wrote:
As for O’Cll St being filthy today – wouldn’t mind that given the parade crowds – not that that in any way excuses the fact that so many thousands of people tossed their rubbish on the ground for someone else to clean up.
I observed one of the street cleansers yesterday on Lower O’Connell St almost at the bridge and fair play to him his cart was completely full to overflowing; the section of the street beside him was completely litter free. But by the time I got down as far as supermacs the section was heavily littered again, I estimate that this accumulation of litter couldn’t have taken any longer than an hour to accumulate. 😮
-
March 18, 2005 at 4:01 am #728844
GrahamH
ParticipantYou must despair if you’re a CC cleaner – then again you must take some comfort from the fact that like that quip about undertakers, in Ireland you’ll never be out of a job clearing up after people :rolleyes:
Interested to note that for all the concern the anti-war protesters have for others, they leave enough crap around on the plaza after every gathering for the CC to clean up; whether they pay that fee or not is irrelevant.Just on something I came across quite recently having being suspicious for ages about it – there’s quite a significant piece of pastiche on O’Connell St (no not the GPO :)) that was carried out in comparitively recent times.
Anyone care to hazard a guess as to where/what it is?(it’s nothing exciting like Clery’s being rebuilt in 1978 or something, but interesting nonetheless :))
-
March 18, 2005 at 10:41 am #728845
notjim
Participanti know i know, one of the two mr quirkeys is actually pastiche built, remarkably, out of a large piece of painted canvas.
-
March 18, 2005 at 10:47 am #728846
Anonymous
InactiveWhen you say comparatively recent times, what sorts of dates are you talking about? Burger King near the Bridge looks dodgy (not to mention the bottom part of McDonalds in the upper area of the street).
-
March 18, 2005 at 11:11 am #728847
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
Just on something I came across quite recently having being suspicious for ages about it – there’s quite a significant piece of pastiche on O’Connell St (no not the GPO :)) that was carried out in comparitively recent times.
Anyone care to hazard a guess as to where/what it is?Fraziers bar and hotel between Cathal Brugha St & Parnell St was completed around the 2000 era it has significant frontage but is a little lower in the architectural quality stakes.
Re: Dr Quirkies does anyone remember the bamboo scaffolding that first plugged the gaping hole back in 1999, it was seriously cool.
-
March 18, 2005 at 11:11 am #728848
TLM
ParticipantBy the way is the trapdoor Graham is referring to an underground service station fro the Luas? i remember hearing something about that…
-
March 18, 2005 at 11:15 am #728849
notjim
Participantdan shipsides _bamboo support_:
-
March 18, 2005 at 11:38 am #728850
Anonymous
Inactive@notjim wrote:
dan shipsides _bamboo support_:
That article is really excellent and it really gives you such a laugh when you consider here we are almost five years later and we are probably further away now than the timetable for the scheme was then. A few pictures would be interesting to see, I wonder does anyone have any at the bottom of their collection?
-
March 18, 2005 at 5:10 pm #728851
GrahamH
ParticipantInnocent times 🙂
TLM, the trapdoor could well be for the Luas – indeed the utilitarian nature of the interior would suggest so…
As for the pastiche, no to all, esp Dr Quirkey’s 🙂
Yes McDonald’s lower floors are as false as a cardboard cut-out, and the brickwork is particularly nasty but it’s not it. Also Burger King, despite it’s dubious pink paint, has been with us since around 1920.
This is actually a full blown four-storey building extending from ground to parapet, and has every intention of fooling you into thinking it’s an old building.To give a clue – it used to be an individual building, but is now part of another….
-
March 19, 2005 at 7:36 pm #728852
urbanisto
ParticipantI read an interesting article yesterday buried in the Business pages of the Times. It concerned the use of the monuments on OConnell Street for advertising while they are being renovated. Apparently all monuments will go under the wraps next month for approx 3 months while they are restored. The space is being managed by Poster Pot I think….must do a google on that one. So an interesting couple of months ahead. Work starting on Upper OC st, the new kiosks (4 of them at least) and cleaned monuments.
-
March 19, 2005 at 8:07 pm #728853
Anonymous
InactiveStephenC, that is very interesting.
Thanks,
Phil
-
March 20, 2005 at 2:38 pm #728854
Anonymous
Inactive@StephenC wrote:
I read an interesting article yesterday buried in the Business pages of the Times. It concerned the use of the monuments on OConnell Street for advertising while they are being renovated. Apparently all monuments will go under the wraps next month for approx 3 months while they are restored. The space is being managed by Poster Pot I think….must do a google on that one. So an interesting couple of months ahead. Work starting on Upper OC st, the new kiosks (4 of them at least) and cleaned monuments.
Poster plan are the crowd that usually do it, I think it is a great way of getting short term revenue with minimum impact. I remember when BT was done in Grafton St it worked very well that a primarily retail street was able to retain its usual amount of colour. Where it doesn’t work quite so well I feel is in suburban architectural conservation areas, there is just something about a terrace of uniform period houses having a huge red hoarding advertising a mobile phone network inserted, it is like the wrong type of time warp or something. Definitely site specific and I think they got this one right. 😉
-
March 20, 2005 at 10:00 pm #728855
GrahamH
ParticipantYes this is good news – as is the timeframe of only 3 months. One would wonder if this includes O’Connell Monument….? – which people were clambering over on Patrick’s Day. Indeed one eejit quite impressively managed to get as high as Dan’s feet, somehow managing to climb up the broad expanse of the classical frieze barrel underneath :). How the heck he got down again I do not know…
Smith O’Brien is particularly grimey at the moment, moreso than the others for some reason, whatever about the condition of the stonework and structural issues.
-
March 20, 2005 at 10:13 pm #728856
Anonymous
InactiveThree months is very fast in the context of a single works tender or was the tender split in to a number of operators I wonder?
-
March 20, 2005 at 10:21 pm #728857
GrahamH
ParticipantThat’s what you’d wonder, esp as O’Cll Mon alone would nearly consume a firm’s capacity…
-
March 20, 2005 at 10:51 pm #728858
Anonymous
InactiveThat statue really does need a good clean, it will be interesting to see just how the Liberator looks when all the bird droppings are removed from him and the how much of the colour can be retained. I wonder could they have James Larkins hands remodled while they are at it, as was said on this thread before they must be the most out of scale component of any figure ever done in Bronze.
-
March 20, 2005 at 11:12 pm #728859
millennium
ParticipantThe William Smith O’Brien statue started it’s life at the intersection of D’Olier St and Westmoreland St., on the othe side of O’Connell Bridge (see the Lawrence Collection photographs). Another case of “moving statues”. A very Irish thing!
-
March 20, 2005 at 11:12 pm #728860
GrahamH
ParticipantThe statue was moved to its current position in 1929.
Great sweeping shot of Larkin outside Clery’s during the Parade coverage – including his hands 🙂
O’Connell’s cap of bird droppings also made an unsavoury (but funny) close-up appearance, as did the perfectly timed newly unveiled St George’s (Ronan Collins didn’t know what it was :)). Also the clocks of O’Cll St were featured, including Clery’s where it was rightly pointed out how slow it always is.Parnell’s monument is the finest I think, so iconic – even if it’s not on O’Cll St…
-
March 21, 2005 at 1:14 am #728861
Anonymous
InactiveI think his over-sized hands really add to it as a sculpture. I would hope they are not re-modelled. I particulalrly like that image of him with the Spire in the background, that I think I saw on this forum before.
-
March 21, 2005 at 1:57 pm #728862
Anonymous
Inactive@phil wrote:
I think his over-sized hands really add to it as a sculpture. I would hope they are not re-modelled. I particulalrly like that image of him with the Spire in the background, that I think I saw on this forum before.
It now appears that Paul Cinton who lost possession of the Carlton site in the High Court last week is to take Dublin City Council to court about an agreement it signed with Joe Reilly of Castlethorn concerning the site. So it appears that this one is far from finished….
-
March 21, 2005 at 3:43 pm #728863
urbanisto
ParticipantBit more on the advertising scheme here http://www.medialive.ie/
The OConnell and Parnell monuments will be under wraps for 10-12 weeks, all the others for 4 weeks
-
March 21, 2005 at 4:26 pm #728864
Anonymous
Inactive@StephenC wrote:
Bit more on the advertising scheme here http://www.medialive.ie/
The OConnell and Parnell monuments will be under wraps for 10-12 weeks, all the others for 4 weeks
That is refreshingly fast 😀
-
March 21, 2005 at 4:29 pm #728865
Anonymous
InactiveThomond Park, I am confused as to why you quoted one of my posts and made no comment regarding it?
-
March 21, 2005 at 4:59 pm #728866
Anonymous
InactiveI was going to say that I thought it was possible that the artist took a bit of poetic licence with James Larkins hands, i.e. he was a socialist with the hand out. I always thought it highly ironic that Larkin lost the lockout but got the prime pitch outside Murphy’s store.
-
March 21, 2005 at 5:01 pm #728867
Anonymous
InactiveI think you are right. There is definitely some meaning behind the over-sized hands.
-
March 21, 2005 at 8:52 pm #728868
GrahamH
ParticipantOr is there – do we tend to read too much into these things, and the large hands are just for dramatic emphasis on the whole ‘rising up’ theme?
As for the hoardings, I felt decidedly queasy at the idea of pieces of the state’s heritage being plastered with advertising slogans, but it seems from Medialive that a slightly more reticent scheme featuring just a narrow banner at the top of the hoardings, covering just 10% of the surface area is to be used..
Something inventive should still be come up with to let the public know, or at least guess at what’s going on – something like BT’s post fire/water damage scheme where they proclaimed ‘we let nothing dampen our spirits’ and that something even better awaits us etc…
A quirky quip relating the restoration of each monument to the history of the commemorated person would be good, rather than just lazily pasting advertising onto blue boards…Regarding that piece of pastiche on O’Connell St – admittedly it’s not exactly in a location that would ring in most peoples’ minds as being on O’Cll St, or at best wouldn’t be the first place you’d think of, but it is this – the AIB building, former Provincial Bank branch, and the very last building on Upper O’Cll St. Built of granite, with a Portland stone faced ground floor and dressings, it was probably built around 1925 and features a very fine cornice and magnificent Edwardian-style sash windows. The interior has to be one of the most remarkable on the street.
Still haven’t quite worked out what’s going on here though, but very clearly you can see that there are 3 different segments to this building. And here’s a photograph taken during the 1965 St. Patrick’s Day Parade which confirms that the 3 southernmost bays of the current building most certainly are pastiche as there’s a fine late Victorian building in their place!
However what I don’t get is that the central two bays also appear to be false, given the join evident and that the stone has a rather new appearance. Indeed if anything the false southern 3-bay section matches the original northern section perfectly, while it’s the central part that looks like the replica!
And what of this quote from The Destruction of Dublin – always wondered about these two buildings:
“…Parnell’s fine monument is insulted by a pair of new buildings which are the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of mediocrity. One is the work of Seán Coen, a Galway building contractor, who managed to squeeze a shop and four floors of offices out of his squalid little building, not to mention a penthouse flat, which comes complete with aluminium roller shutters.
The building next door, developed by Liam Lonergan of Club Travel, is a very poor imitation of a fine new office block in Dawson Street and its most notable feature is the use of projecting box windows in screaming day-glo green.â€Were these on the AIB site? Or is the little building refered to the small one that used to be on the Frazer’s site across the road, built of that late-70s orangey coloured brick? Certainly it was squalid 🙂
-
March 21, 2005 at 9:06 pm #728869
Anonymous
Inactive@phil wrote:
I think you are right. There is definitely some meaning behind the over-sized hands.
Whatever about the intention of the sculptor the resulting proportions are certainly a moot point and will continue to be as long as the physical symbols representing early 20th century social history are discussed.
@Sunday Business Post Property News Roundup 20/03/05 wrote:
Dublin’s Lord Mayor Michael Conaghan believes Dubliners should be polled on whether the Abbey Theatre should be sited on the Carlton cinema site on O’Connell St in the City Centre. “Now that a decision has finally been made by the High Court Regarding one of the Landmark buildings on O’Connell St, the Carlton Cinema site, it is time that we looked to this historic location for the Abbey Theatre” He said.
He made his comments after the High Court upheld a compulsory purchase order on the site made by Dublin City Council. The site is expected to be redeveloped as a shopping centre. The High Court decision could result in an early development of the site, which has been at the centre of litigation for some years. However, that is likely to be dependent on whether or not the High Court decision is appealed. The Council undertook the CPO proceedings after it decided that the Carlton Group, Which owned the site, had neither the finance nor the development expertise to advance the project.
Any thoughts on the Mayors idea of the City Council selling a portion of their land to the Department of O’Donaghue
-
March 22, 2005 at 2:39 pm #728870
Rory W
Participant@Graham Hickey wrote:
And what of this quote from The Destruction of Dublin – always wondered about these two buildings:
“…Parnell’s fine monument is insulted by a pair of new buildings which are the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of mediocrity. One is the work of Seán Coen, a Galway building contractor, who managed to squeeze a shop and four floors of offices out of his squalid little building, not to mention a penthouse flat, which comes complete with aluminium roller shutters.
The building next door, developed by Liam Lonergan of Club Travel, is a very poor imitation of a fine new office block in Dawson Street and its most notable feature is the use of projecting box windows in screaming day-glo green.â€Were these on the AIB site? Or is the little building refered to the small one that used to be on the Frazer’s site across the road, built of that late-70s orangey coloured brick? Certainly it was squalid 🙂
Was indeed Fraziers site – cack they were
-
March 22, 2005 at 2:53 pm #728871
burge_eye
ParticipantA lady letter writer in today’s Times (whilst extolling the Carlton Cinema site for the Abbey) suggests that O’Connell Street is as important to Dublin as the Champs Elysees in Paris and the Unter den Linden in Berlin. Hmmm. What think yis?
-
March 22, 2005 at 3:09 pm #728872
d_d_dallas
Participant“Dublin’s Lord Mayor Michael Conaghan believes Dubliners should be polled on whether the Abbey Theatre should be sited on the Carlton cinema site on O’Connell St in the City Centre.”
Em, sorry no! Is this not the national theatre we’re talking about – there are more than just ordinary Dubs as stakeholders on this one. Dublin City Council can make all the policy they want, and are well positioned to advise OPW, but local politics has no place in deciding the fate of a national project.
-
March 22, 2005 at 3:18 pm #728873
Anonymous
InactiveCertainly O’Connell St will never be as important as the Champs Elysees in a European context the Parisian masterpiece is quite simply the premier urban space in a cultural and architectural context thus far. But in a Dublin context it is I feel equally important as no other civic space exists on such a scale in terms of width and more importantly length of vista. The Street also has a rich diversity of buildings both heritage buildings such as no. 45 Upper O’Connell St and the GPO, it also has some culturally important buildings such as Clery’s and the Gresham Hotel.
O’Connell St also has the potential to change and reflect this era, looking at the here and now the Carlton Site is set for massive changes and there is the potential to use this now dead land to integrate a series of now not so hot blocks as far as Jervis St, there are also a few other buildings that have very good redevelopment potential on the Street not least Findlater House and the dreadful Fraziers that replaced from what Rory said even worse structures.
But the most important function O’Connell St could yet provide is to return its function under the vision of the ‘Wide Streets Commission’ as the central Spine of Dublin therebye providing a grand boulevard to link the Parnell Square Civic Space with the South Inner City. In time a grand central boulevard could be extended to Westmoreland St, College Green, Central Bank, City Hall as far as Christchurch.
-
March 22, 2005 at 3:45 pm #728874
Anonymous
Inactive@d_d_dallas wrote:
“Dublin’s Lord Mayor Michael Conaghan believes Dubliners should be polled on whether the Abbey Theatre should be sited on the Carlton cinema site on O’Connell St in the City Centre.”
Em, sorry no! Is this not the national theatre we’re talking about – there are more than just ordinary Dubs as stakeholders on this one. Dublin City Council can make all the policy they want, and are well positioned to advise OPW, but local politics has no place in deciding the fate of a national project.
Sorry I missed this while I was writing the other post,
that is a fair point that you make it is the National Theatre I haven’t been inspired by any of the mooted sites particularly Military Rd or the Back gardens of Parnell Square, what is your own view?
-
March 22, 2005 at 4:39 pm #728875
d_d_dallas
ParticipantThe Liebeskind project mooted for the Grand Canal Basin seems to be a case of cart before the horse – i.e. build a “cultural institution” then decide what to put there. It may end up there yet, which would not be the worst thing to happen. Ultimately I would prefer somewhere closer to city centre. The much discussed (on another thread) Hawkins House proposal would be my favoured option.
-
March 22, 2005 at 4:44 pm #728876
Anonymous
Inactive@d_d_dallas wrote:
The Liebeskind project mooted for the Grand Canal Basin seems to be a case of cart before the horse – i.e. build a “cultural institution” then decide what to put there. It may end up there yet, which would not be the worst thing to happen. Ultimately I would prefer somewhere closer to city centre. The much discussed (on another thread) Hawkins House proposal would be my favoured option.
I like that part of town but I feel that Hawkins St in itself has very little profile but as someone else pointed out the Screen Cinema/College House site would have buckets of profile from College Green, the only problem is that the owners of College House will not sell. Which is a pity that part of town reminds me of the old town area of Edinburgh that was ruined by similar dross in the early 1960’s. Do you think there is any chance that a decision will be made on the Abbey before 2007?
-
March 23, 2005 at 2:25 am #728877
GrahamH
ParticipantCertainly this is a national issue, but I don’t necessarily agree that the location ought not be decided by the capital.
The Abbey is to remain in Dublin, so from that perspective at least the debate about relocation is localised (although also including those who know the city well).Whereas it is a national institution, physically it is in the city’s ownership, and by and large it is up to the city to decide where it goes in the best interests of the institution, and the city of Dublin.
Just as if it were to be moved to Cork, I would want to leave it up to authorities there to decide what would be the best location; they know the city best, and what location would work, look and feel the most suited for the Abbey and Cork city.
As for letting the public decide, now that is a different issue altogether – something I wouldn’t favour – only cause it’d immediately come down in favour of the Carlton 🙂
The only way to do it properly would be to have extensive proposals drawn up, put on display, and only those that viewed them would be allowed vote – it simply wouldn’t be fair otherwise.As for O’Connell Street being as important to Dublin as the Champs-Elysées, well it would have been had the 19th century not ravaged the place architecturally but conversely had the quality traders that period spawned stayed on to this day.
Certainly then it would be one of the great streets of Europe.
In terms of scale, it is as important to Dublin as the Champs-Elysées or the Unter den Linden, and in historical terms probably even more so. It depends on what level you view it.But it is the layers of history so unabashedly evident all around on the street that makes it so important to Dublin. The architecture, for all its glories and not-so-glorious points, tells so much of what happened in this country – socially, politically, aesthetically……and any other allys you want to want to add to the list 🙂
It is a unique place – albeit until recent times for all the wrong reasons.
-
March 23, 2005 at 10:19 am #728878
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
Certainly this is a national issue, but I don’t necessarily agree that the location ought not be decided by the capital.
The Abbey is to remain in Dublin, so from that perspective at least the debate about relocation is localised (although also including those who know the city well).Whereas it is a national institution, physically it is in the city’s ownership, and by and large it is up to the city to decide where it goes in the best interests of the institution, and the city of Dublin.
Just as if it were to be moved to Cork, I would want to leave it up to authorities there to decide what would be the best location]That is an interesting way of looking at it Graham although as you say how do you select who has a say in the matter and who doesn’t.
@Graham Hickey wrote:
As for O’Connell Street being as important to Dublin as the Champs-Elysées, well it would have been had the 19th century not ravaged the place architecturally but conversely had the quality traders that period spawned stayed on to this day.
Certainly then it would be one of the great streets of Europe.
In terms of scale, it is as important to Dublin as the Champs-Elysées or the Unter den Linden, and in historical terms probably even more so. It depends on what level you view it.But it is the layers of history so unabashedly evident all around on the street that makes it so important to Dublin. The architecture, for all its glories and not-so-glorious points, tells so much of what happened in this country – socially, politically, aesthetically……and any other allys you want to want to add to the list 🙂
It is a unique place – albeit until recent times for all the wrong reasons.
It does reflect many different phases which has left a rich tapestry of buildings from the early 18th century onwards, the critical point for me is not where O’Connell Street now sits in the hieracrchy of grand European Streetscapes but rather what can be done to make it one of better livable streetscapes in Europe.
-
March 23, 2005 at 7:08 pm #728879
Anonymous
Inactive@Archiseek news wrote:
The former Carlton cinema site is back in contention as a possible location for the new Abbey Theatre. And the Dublin Docklands Development Authority has offered the State a site at George’s Quay, Minister for Arts John O’Donoghue told the Dáil. He said he viewed the Carlton site on Dublin’s O’Connell Street “as a real option” which he intended to explore further as soon as issues around the compulsory purchase order of the site had been resolved. The Carlton site has re-emerged as an option following a High Court judgment last week on a compulsory purchase order. …..
Pressed by Jimmy Deenihan about when a final decision would be made, Mr O’Donaghue sadi he believed it would be made during the lifetime of the Govenment. Copyright Irish Times March 2005
Any thoughts?
-
March 23, 2005 at 11:17 pm #728880
GrahamH
ParticipantIs there any space left on George’s Quay?
As for the Carlton site – it’s not over yet as the IT highlighted last week:
“…another case about the site is still before the courts.
This relates to the decision by the council to choose a new developer for the site, builder Joe O’Reilly, who built the Dundrum Centre.
The challenge is being taken by architect Paul Clinton of the Carlton Group, the original developers of the site who took yesterday’s [15th March] failed action.
“I would be very hopeful that we can dispose of this piece of litigation in a short time, and we will be seeking a hearing as early as possible,” Mr Fitzgerald [Dublin City Manager] said.”Copyright: The Irish Times
Wonder if this affects planning for the site to the extent of the original action – and for how long?
Just on another issue – it seems the William Smith O’Brien Bollard Theory 🙂 has been blown out of the water thanks to this picture.
Stupid Laurence Collection – always manages to spoil everything…mutter…mutter…This would appear to date from the 1870s given the lamppost (and also cause it’s part of the Eblana Collection in the Laurence which dates from this period). The bollards, if not similar bollards, are clearly evident – and during the very period when WSO’B was gracing the entrance to D’Olier St, complete with bollards.
Suppose it’s possible that WSO’Brien’s ones were added at the same time as these were in the 1870s, considering he was erected in the year 1870. Still doesn’t explain the reason why these in Upper Sackville St were placed here though – although there is a small lamppost in the middle in the Victorian tradition…
-
March 23, 2005 at 11:35 pm #728881
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
Is there any space left on George’s Quay?
Where on Georges Quay were you thinking?
-
March 23, 2005 at 11:44 pm #728882
GrahamH
ParticipantThe IT article mentions a George’s Quay site as being offered by the DDDA…?
-
March 23, 2005 at 11:49 pm #728883
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
The IT article mentions a George’s Quay site as being offered by the DDDA…?
That must be a mistake, there are only two sites that haven’t been redeveloped recently on Georges Quay and both have multi-storey permissions (CIE beside Kennedys Tara St) + ( The back of Mulligans) and will probably go back in again and try their luck. Possibly the author meant the City Arts Centre, and there have been a few small site sales down there recently or perhaps they are trying to punt on something much further down and are trying to bring people around to the idea of the Abbey going to any waterfront location. Physically I can’t see a site for the Abbey on that stretch of the Quay.
-
March 24, 2005 at 12:04 am #728884
GrahamH
ParticipantOr it mistakenly assumes that George’s Quay runs all the way down to the Grand Canal Basin, and it is that proposed site it refers to.
-
March 24, 2005 at 12:06 am #728885
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
Or it mistakenly assumes that George’s Quay runs all the way down to the Grand Canal Basin, and it is that proposed site it refers to.
😀
Doesn’t it?
Those are nice photos from the Eblana collection.
-
March 24, 2005 at 12:11 am #728886
GrahamH
ParticipantWell it’s an excusable error given that the dashingly imaginatively titled City Quay is hardly memorable, and the other’s just a mouthful 🙂
-
March 24, 2005 at 12:17 am #728887
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
Well it’s an excusable error given that the dashingly imaginatively titled City Quay is hardly memorable, and the other’s just a mouthful 🙂
Excluding the Seamans Church the architecture has little more appeal.
-
March 24, 2005 at 4:34 am #728888
GrahamH
ParticipantIs there anything but the Seaman’s Church? 🙂
Really ought to give these bollards a rest but I hope to have the final answer at last.
I found another Laurence pic, probably taken on the same day as the previous one, but from street level. It has a better resolution and look at what you can make out:…a very substantial 3-arm lamp-standard sited right in the middle of the quadrangle of bollards. It looked much smaller in the first pic, but this pretty much confirms it – the bollards were installed round this significant piece of street furniture for protective and decorative purposes.
It has to be noted that this island is standing in the middle of an undefined street layout where there’s no footpath or kerbstones in the centre. It appears this part of Upper O’Cll St (that is now the median) was used as a Victorian taxi-rank, where all cabs & horses lined up. Hence it was also important to highlight exactly where O’Cll St ended and where the cab line ended, not to mention to define the road-layout of the wide O’Cll St for those entering from the north.
This pic from around 1900 from a bit further down outside the Gresham also shows the cabs, or maybe it was just a parking space:
Admittedly this doesn’t solve the trapdoor mystery though – unless it is an Underground access shaft…
-
March 24, 2005 at 10:44 am #728889
GregF
ParticipantThe railings around the Ambassador makes it look better than the way it is today. How did they get it into their heads to remove them. Another botch job again by the meddling maulers.
-
March 24, 2005 at 10:57 am #728890
Anonymous
InactiveAlso the setting of the Rotunda has been destroyed by the extensions built in its garden, that really was a superb vista at one time.
-
March 24, 2005 at 11:01 am #728891
GregF
Participant….and the Garden of Remembrance is a hideous concoction at the other end of the square as well.
-
March 24, 2005 at 11:05 am #728892
Anonymous
Inactive@GregF wrote:
….and the Garden of Remembrance is a hideous concoction at the other end of the square as well.
The thing I hate about the garden of rememberance most is that it only has one entrance/exit, and this is not a district that you want to be pinned down.
-
March 24, 2005 at 12:35 pm #728893
Dubliner
Participant@Graham Hickey wrote:
The IT article mentions a George’s Quay site as being offered by the DDDA…?
Definitely an error or trojan horse only the smallest site possible for derevelopment exists on Georges Quay within the DDDA area between the train station and Tara St, the remainder of Georges Quay is the Ulster Bank complex to the East and the area West of Tara St is solely with the DCC area.
http://www.ddda.ie/uploads/pdfs/Map%20A.pdfIt is zoned objective 5 ‘to consolidate and facilitate the development of the Central area… ‘
-
March 24, 2005 at 6:18 pm #728894
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
Admittedly this doesn’t solve the trapdoor mystery though – unless it is an Underground access shaft…
I’d say that the image you posted a while ago was simply that of an access cover for underground telecom cables.
-
March 25, 2005 at 2:40 am #728895
GrahamH
ParticipantNo doubt :rolleyes:
Good point about access to the Garden of Rememberance: the single-entrance layout is quite intimidating in the area of the city it’s in, but especially because you’re stepping down out of sight of others at street level which leaves you feeling quite vunerable.
Having to come back the rather boring way you came doesn’t really help matters either.But I wouldn’t say it’s as awful as you make out Greg, but if the whole or most of the square was to be redeveloped then it’d be open to some changes.
It’s direct connection with the nationalist nature of O’Connell St’s statuary and its history still makes it a suitable location for a Garden either way. -
March 25, 2005 at 2:46 am #728896
Anonymous
InactiveIn many ways the garden of rememberance is about the only major civic design product remaining from its era in Central Dublin, while it wouldn’t be to my own taste maybe removing it may be airbrushing out a piece of design history? Those naff tiles in the water feature you would never see anything quite as crass today.
I can see the point of the single access being critical as it is as you say below street level which makes a single entry exit a safety hazard given that most police patrols are done in cars. Any thoughts on retaining some of the garden as is and extending it and providing new access?
-
March 25, 2005 at 3:03 am #728897
GrahamH
ParticipantWidening the sunken section I’d see as important for security and ease of movement reasons; it’s too cramped getting by people sitting along the benches & kinda awkward too passing them all like you’re on a catwalk – although this would alter the crucifix formation…
Despite the security concerns regarding how low it is, it nonetheless creates an impressive drama when you ascend from below up the flight of steps to the sculpture. Likewise when leaving and going back up to re-enter the ‘real world’ again at the eastern side.
As you say, most of the 60s landscaping is worth retaining. -
March 26, 2005 at 12:54 pm #728898
Anonymous
InactiveI spent a great afternoon there yesterday, the seating is kind of cool and as you say Graham the landscaping is impressive, 40 years of growth would be difficult to replace. I really think that we should think again before dumping a lot of the elements of what is quite a unique environment, what would really set this place off would be to extend it and use modern design to contrast with what exists.
-
March 26, 2005 at 7:54 pm #728899
GrahamH
ParticipantIt can be a real suntrap during the day alright – the heat emitted from the walls is something of a unique experience during the summer 🙂
Forgot to post this link about the Carlton from Art Deco Ireland – some details of its interior (although no pics) and exterior:
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Salon/6941/carlton.htm
It’s a pity there’s no large capacity cinemas around anymore; extraordinary to think that the Carlton held 2000 people while the Savoy just across the road held a further 3000.
-
March 27, 2005 at 11:24 pm #728900
Anonymous
InactiveIt is a pity that no-one got pics from the interior of the Carlton before it closed, I’m sure that the Interior would have been the most interesting part of the building given the restraint that was forced upon contemporary facades on O’Connell St at that time.
On a completely unrelated topic, I noticed a long list of alterations being sought by Anne Summers including a new shop front, personally I thought they had a minimalist enough image as it was, but their advisors Lisney Chartered Surveyors obviously know better. That was a signiture I did not expect to see in that context
-
March 27, 2005 at 11:51 pm #728901
GrahamH
ParticipantAnd did you read about this or just ‘happen’ to notice the application in the window eh? 😉
That is interesting news – the shopfront is grand as it is but any change from that pukey green will be more than welcome.Our bollard friends have certainly been round the block – here they are in 1969 desperately trying to get in with the ‘it’ crowd, pictured slinking up alongside a fashionable young lady – alas she’s not interested 🙁
😀
Image copyright: The National Library of Ireland
-
March 27, 2005 at 11:58 pm #728902
Anonymous
InactivePicture of the Month
It is amazing just how insignificant the bank looks on the corner of Parnell St without its warm colour.
Regarding the application I had a quick nose at it yesterday but got dragged away by the better half before I could digest it properly, if it were Cleary’s I’d probably have been allowed read it properly.
On the subject of the bank, it has now been on the market for two years which surprises me, I really thought someone like Louis Fitzgerald would have moved on it for conversion to bar/restaurant in the same vein as Grand Central even if the interior is plainer.
-
March 28, 2005 at 12:09 am #728903
GrahamH
ParticipantIt’s a lovely building alright – the terracotta panels on it have unusual Eygptian-style urns on them as well as other interesting detail. It looks at its best in the evening sun when it comes round the corner from behind the AIB opposite and it glows red with the sun flaring up the windows.
Yes it’s a pity its not in use and that it hasn’t been sold – probably because the same money would get you a similar building in a much better location than there. Even if it’s only a hop across the road from O’Cll St – with the Parnell St junction there it might as well be a mile away.
Hopefully things will change with the Parnell Square phase coming on stream shortly. -
March 28, 2005 at 12:16 am #728904
Anonymous
InactiveIt was sold Graham but to an investor who put it back on the market to let, I’d say it should go this year given the general improvement in the area due to projects such as the Ilac Centre revamp and Cosgraves scheme on the former Waldons Garage site these combined with the upgrade of Upper O’Connell St to a boulevard type layout do make the equation 50% solved. But it does however have to be said that the only reason this fine building is empty is because of the poor condition that section of Parnell St towards Gardiner St is still in. This section is like stepping back to 1980’s Dublin with the level of retail offering and the spots of actual dereliction.
Parnell Square will be interesting I’m sure although it is still a few years away and by the time that the usual funding delays emerge I’d say you are probably looking at 2010 before it is completed.
-
March 28, 2005 at 12:31 am #728905
TLM
ParticipantI think 2016 was actually the target year for finishing the upgrade of parnell square! On the garden of remembrance, plans for the square include a new entrance to the garden opposite the hugh lane gallery. Also the pool is to be raised up so the garden wont be as sunken anymore. I’d say that will improve footfall through the garden but will detract from the oasis feel of the place. I think it was designed to be sort of detached from the rest of the city, a sort of quiet place for refelection. Overall plans for the square look like they would bring about a big improvement though!
-
March 28, 2005 at 12:36 am #728906
GrahamH
ParticipantThese are on display in the Civic Offices TLM?
When you say the garden won’t be as sunken anymore – to what level roughly is it to be raised? -
March 28, 2005 at 1:02 am #728907
Anonymous
InactiveThe framework plan is available on line http://www.dublincity.ie/Images/Parnell%20Square%20bookletc_tcm35-11289.pdf
The introductory article is below
“New Plan announced for Parnell Square
“With the completion of O’ Connell Street next year, we are turning our attention to Parnell Square which has great potential to become a significant and attractive cultural destination for Dubliners and tourists” said John Fitzgerald, City Manager.A Framework Plan for Parnell Square has been completed by Howley Harrington Architects on behalf of Dublin City Council in association with the Office of Public Works, the Rotunda Hospital, The Gate and Academy Theatres, The Dublin Writers museum and the Abbey Presbyterian Church. The plan, which was presented today to the Central Area Committee of Dublin City Council, aims to transform a square which “is undervalued, underused and under performing” and which also suffers from poor public perception.
Parnell Square will, during the lifetime of the plan, benefit from over €200 million of public and private investment. Dublin City Council has already begun the €12 million extension to Dublin City Gallery- the Hugh Lane Gallery which will open early next year. “This Framework plan is ambitious and visionary – but most of all it is achievable” said John Fitzgerald.
The Plan recommends the following
Upgrading the Public Domain on all sides of the Square- Footpaths, lighting, trees and bus lay-bys to be upgraded to the same standards as those prevailing in O’Connell Street and on-street parking and bus lay-bys to be re-organised.
An Urban Pergola and Sculpture Promenade on Parnell Square East to stretch from the Gate to the Abbey Presbyterian Church containing outdoor sculpture.
Rejuvenating The Ambassador Theatre which could become a cabaret type theatre with restaurant café and bars.
Making the Garden of Remembrance more welcoming and accessible with:
– The entrance to the Garden to be improved.
– A new gate from Parnell Square North
– Improved accessibility for all within the parkAbbey Presbyterian Church (Findlaters’) to be accentuated by extended pavements and floodlighting
National Museum of Literature:
– Improve and expand the existing Dublin Writers Museum to become a National Museum of LiteratureNew anchor use for the Coláiste Mhuire Site possibly a luxury hotel
New City Childrens Garden and crèche on the Northwest Corner very appropriately situated beside the Rotunda and Garden of Remembrance.
There will be a new contemporary “Cabbies” shelter built on the location of former facilities.
Rotunda:
A new masterplan for the Rotunda hospital to facilitate the consolidations, expansion and improvement of clinical facilities while contributing positively to urban design.There was broad agreement with the Rotunda on the following:
– New four story buildings facing on the Parnell Square east and west with increased car park facilities. The ground floors to have appropriate commercial and public uses.
– A new public garden, recreating the original garden designed for the centre of the Square. This garden would be linked to all surrounding streets and to the Garden of Remembrance. This would create a possible new North South pedestrian route from the Hugh Lane Gallery, across the Garden of Remembrance, through the new Rotunda garden and through the historic hospital building onto Parnell Street.
The Plan is to be implemented in three phases.
Phase one, which will take eighteen months, will include improvements to pavements, roads, parking as well as installing decorative street lighting and planting trees. This phase also includes the flood lighting of the Church and the commencement of the improvements to the Garden of Remembrance entrance. This work will cost €25.6 million including the €12 million already being spent on the extension to the Hugh Lane Gallery due to open next year.
The second and third phases have longer timescales
Michael Colgan, Director of the Gate Theatre said “Parnell Square was once an epicentre of cultural life in Dublin because of the vision of one man, The Rotunda Hospital founder, Dr. Bartholomew Mosse. He developed the area from nothing to one of the most sophisticated neighbourhoods in the city where nobility, gentry and ordinary people alike came to enjoy some of the best music Europe had to offer as well as a civic area devoted to the patronage of fine arts. Nearly 250 years later, we now have an opportunity for Parnell Square to be restored to its former purpose and glory”.
Master of the Rotunda , Dr Michael Geary said: “The building of new modern clinical facilities around the perimeter of the Square will allow the restoration of the Rotunda Pleasure Gardens in the centre of the Square. This will enable the Rotunda Hospital to continue its proud tradition of excellent maternity care throughout the 21st century and beyond and place it as the central axis of an exciting and improved cultural quarter”.
Klaus Unger, Assistant Principal Architect Office of Public Works said: “We aim to make the Garden of Remembrance more welcoming and universally accessible.”
Sean Harrington of Howley Harrington, author of the plan said “Parnell Square is Dublin’s lost Georgian square. At the end of the great axis running from St Stephen’s Green through the rejuvenated O’Connell Street northwards the square has the potential to be the jewel of the north side of Dublin City.
“Ends
-
March 28, 2005 at 1:25 am #728908
GrahamH
ParticipantThanks for that.
Just had a glance through – particularly like the idea of focusing attention on the Panell Monument, using it as a central feature at that crazy junction.
Not sure about the ‘urban pergola’ (excuse me) on the east side and how that’s going to work out in the context of reassembling the square.The proposed entrance to the Garden of Rememberance looks great – why that wasn’t done in the first place I do not know.
And the wooded corner behind has always been a wasted space – good to see it being put to a good use at last. -
March 28, 2005 at 1:33 am #728909
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
Thanks for that.
The proposed entrance to the Garden of Rememberance looks great – why that wasn’t done in the first place I do not know.
And the wooded corner behind has always been a wasted space – good to see it being put to a good use at last.I suppose that the idea was simply to make the monument the dominent feature and little attention was given the subordinate details at the time. The wooded corner like everywhere else has been well thought out, I’m sure on closer examination I’ll find a few things I’m iffy on but on the whole it is a great piece of work.
I really like the idea of Collaiste Mhuire having a Merrion Hotel type job done on it (just hoping that the ancilliary buildings would be done to a higher standard), thinking about it logically it would have a much more impressive context than its southside role model in architectural terms.
-
March 28, 2005 at 1:37 am #728910
GrahamH
ParticipantThink of the views from the top floor over the square – I wonder if you can see down O’Connell St from up there…
Ironic that the servants in all the Palace Row houses had the best views 🙂 -
March 28, 2005 at 1:49 am #728911
Anonymous
InactiveI’d say you would probably be high enough up to see over the former Dublin County Council Offices giving a prime view of the O’Connell St boulevard.
As for the servants quarters they might have had the best views but they also lived in the era before lifts, what a colleague of mine once referred to as ‘The joys of a Georgian’
-
March 28, 2005 at 2:04 am #728912
GrahamH
ParticipantDesmond Guinness had a few choice phrases too…
-
March 28, 2005 at 2:21 am #728913
Anonymous
InactiveFew have more experience of Georgian Architecture than Desmond Guinness, he has made some sacrifices over the years and I’m sure that his generation will be delighted to see that at least some of the remananets of what they fought to preserve will be put to such high end uses.
I would like to see more details of the upgrading of the writers museum to a national institution, in this context it would make sense to have the Abbey sited close by.
-
March 28, 2005 at 2:29 am #728914
GrahamH
ParticipantThis was really the only reason why Parnell Square was considered in the first place. Having them close to each other, whether it be on the square or O’Cll St would be nice from a ‘cultural quarter’ perspective, but not absolutely necessary.
Either way, people who come to the city move all over the place anyway – going to the Docklands is perhaps too far but another site within the existing city centre is just as accessible.
Again Hawkins – if only – is only at the other end of O’Cll St. -
March 28, 2005 at 2:42 am #728915
Anonymous
InactiveI totally agree that Hawkins House is a superior location and as I have said before the Screen Cinema with a little of the College House site would be perfect it would have excellent profile from College Green, the tourist trail from TCD up to the site of the new Abbey then accross the planned new bridge to the site of the original Abbey and up to Parnell Square. As a route it would be a convenient grid no question.
But two things work against it, firstly a lack of profile because we are talking about Hawkins House not College House and secondly land values, this area is in the circles of the DEGW tall buildings survey, I fully expect to see the ‘central gang of three’ come down over the next five years, but they are likely to be replaced a new gang of three equally commercially designed office towers or slabs. All of which would serve to fossilise the New Abbey. It would in effect be like taking Ghery’s disney hall in LA and putting the Gherkin and LLodds of London behind it. The effect of the Abbey would be lost.
-
March 28, 2005 at 2:53 am #728916
GrahamH
ParticipantNever thought of that – good point, unfotunately.
At least the Abbey would be consuming one of them though, to clutch at straws. -
March 28, 2005 at 2:57 am #728917
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
Never thought of that – good point, unfotunately.
At least the Abbey would be consuming one of them though, to clutch at straws.There is a site that hasn’t been considered and it is also on Hawkins St, it is the Irish Aviation Offices which would if combined with the 1980’s brown brick Amusement arcade which is next door provide the necessary scale. This site would have river frontage of 5-6 plots and it would also have views of the existing/original Abbey site. :rolleyes:
-
March 28, 2005 at 9:13 pm #728918
GrahamH
ParticipantOr the O’Connell Bridge House site – if only we could get round the irritating snag of there being an 12 storey ship moored on it 🙂
Well from a landmark building to a landmark streetscape, here’s O’Connell Street’s most pompous terrace being shown up for what it is – under construction. It is the block between Eden Quay and Abbey Street, which was started in around 1918 and finished in 1923. The construction was the foil to public demonstrations during the Treaty years, and poignantly formed the backdrop to Collins’ funeral in 1922 – he never saw it completed, not to mention half of Upper O’Cll St which was in ruins at the time of his death.
Interesting to note the absence of Clery’s parapet in the distance the first 1920-21 picture, as well as the lack of the distinctive now Ulster Bank copper dome in the second. Eden quay is also being rebuilt.
(They’re all a bit grainy)
-
March 28, 2005 at 10:01 pm #728919
Paul Clerkin
Keymaster@Thomond Park wrote:
There is a site that hasn’t been considered and it is also on Hawkins St, it is the Irish Aviation Offices which would if combined with the 1980’s brown brick Amusement arcade which is next door provide the necessary scale. This site would have river frontage of 5-6 plots and it would also have views of the existing/original Abbey site. :rolleyes:
nowhere near deep enough though
-
March 28, 2005 at 10:30 pm #728920
Anonymous
InactiveIts deeper than you would think, it goes almost as far back as the archway that leads to D’olier St (Leinster Market) but looking at again on the OS map it is only about 20% larger than the existing Abbey plot.
There are not a lot of options for them to choose from given the competition any perfect site would face from speculative commercial developments.
-
March 29, 2005 at 9:49 pm #728921
GrahamH
ParticipantWho owns College House, and why are they not willing to sell?
Is Screen part of the same development? -
March 29, 2005 at 10:01 pm #728922
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
Who owns College House, and why are they not willing to sell?
Is Screen part of the same development?I’m not sure which pension fund owns it but it is owned institutionally I believe, they have no incentive to sell a building let on long lease to a government tenant who even though they have vacated the building are srtill paying an above market rent; so it is worth more to simply collect the rent and wait for the tenant to pay them a few million to surrender their lease obligations before it is either refurbished or sold on for redevelopment. The Screen is in seperate ownership as far as I know.
On the Abbey subject I have been thinking after another look at the OS maps and have come up with an interesting question. Why was the acquisition of that dreadful health club behind the buildings on Eden Quay never considered? This site along with the closure of a section Abbey St Old could provide a substantial site. Access to Abbey St Old could still be provided from Beresford Place between Liberty Hall and Beresford Court. Abeey St Old is hardly an inviting place in fact I’d be surprised if too many people have ever been down the entire length of it. 🙁
-
March 29, 2005 at 10:09 pm #728923
GrahamH
ParticipantThe VHI section?
Where’s this health club? -
March 29, 2005 at 10:15 pm #728924
Anonymous
InactiveThe Health Club is on Marlborough St between the corner building on Eden Quay opposite the Samaritans and the laneway (Abbey St Old) it would provide roughly the equivelent to a five or six bay building. Which combined with the width of the Laneway would provide quite a decent site
Sorry I don’t have a scanner on this computer
-
March 29, 2005 at 10:30 pm #728925
GrahamH
ParticipantAh right, I know the lane, although not the building – just down here 🙂
…never knew it went out to that archway on Beresford Place! – always looks dodgy anyway…
Presumably they couldn’t even get their hands on that building for whatever reason – although wasn’t it the cost rather than the logistics/availabitity of properties that caused the problems here?
-
March 29, 2005 at 11:04 pm #728926
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterDublin Steam Packet Building
Nice wsc (or wsc inspired) shopfronts at ground level….Potential for nice front of house entrance
-
March 29, 2005 at 11:10 pm #728927
Anonymous
InactiveYou can just about catch a glimpse of the two storey height structure I’m talking about in that image if you look very carefully at shadows of the tree in Pauls picture.
-
March 30, 2005 at 12:20 am #728928
GrahamH
ParticipantCan just see it alright – presumably all options for extending the existing site were considered…
The allure of the Carlton site can be really appreciated when you consider the difficulties so many sites pose – it’s a ready-made package in comparison…But just on that corner building – presumably it is WSC structure given its context in the picture below, located at the exact point where the quay becomes regularised.
What I don’t understand is why the WSC layed out Lower O’Connell St with apparent disregard to the narrowness of the resulting junction with Eden Quay.
Was it layed out in this fashion because the Bachelor’s Walk junction is already very wide, and moving O’Cll St back any further to accommodate Eden Quay would result in an excessively wide Bachelor’s Walk?This FJP aerial picture highlights the nature of the quay very well – alas the building you mention Thomond Park is just out of shot, but you can just make out the plot width.
The impressive Abbey St junction corner building composition is also strikingly evident:http://fantasyjackpalance.com/fjp/photos/kf/aerial/002/oconnell-street-aerial.jpg
-
March 30, 2005 at 12:37 am #728929
Anonymous
InactiveYes it would have been a much more impressive vista if No1 were omitted and the initial plots of Eden Quay set back one half plot like Bachelors Walk, No 1 O’Connell St is basically only a half plot anyway. FJP never ceases to amaze in the depth of his collection, that particular image gives a unique perspective on the Ulster Bank Chambers at Numbers 2, 3 and 4 the identical treatment at ground level is interesting when one compares the totally different upper floor elevations. As for the Cuppolla that is just downright cheeky although probably less monumental than the Dublin Bread Company image that was posted here before.
-
March 30, 2005 at 12:42 am #728930
adhoc
ParticipantRe: College House. It looks like An Post still own College House even though they vacated it in 2002. According to the letting agents, it still hasn’t found any takers for the remaining life of the lease (expires 2014).
From Quinn Agnew site (today):
http://www.quinnagnew.ie/search_results.asp?type=office
College House
Dublin 2Status
To Let (By Assignment)
Location
College House is situated in the heart of Dublin city at the junction of Townsend Street with DOlier Street/Hawkins Street, within 200 yards of OConnell Bridge and adjacent to Trinity College.
The central location places it literally within minutes from business, retail, financial, educational and government centres of the city.Description
This high profile building consists of a mezzanine floor and 7 floors of office space with ground floor entrance and reception area.
Service and plant accommodation is at basement and roof levels.The upper floors of the building offer views over the city.
Accommodation
Typical Floor
7 @ 550.9 sq.m. = 3,856.3 (41,510 sq.ft.)
Mezzanine Floor
1 @ 188.0 sq.m. = 188.0 sq.m. (2,024 sq.ft.)
Total: 4,044.3 sq.m. (43,534 sq.ft.)
51 car spacesLease Details
Lease Date – 19th July 1972
Lease Term – 42 years from 10th April 1972
Current Rent – €1,231,646
Rent Review Pattern – 7 year
Rent Review Date – 10th April 2007
Unexpired Lease Term – 12 years
User – Office and car parking
Rent Review Clause – StandardNoel Quinn/John Kirwan
Map/Other ImagesFrom Irish Independent in 2002:
College House, Dublin comes to market
ADVERTISEMENT
COLLEGE House, Dublin 2 has been brought to the market by Quinn Agnew on behalf of An Post who intend vacating the premises in September. The landmark city building is located within 200 yards of O’Connell Bridge and adjacent to Trinity College. It is located to the front of Hawkins House where the Office of Public Works is well advanced with plans for the major refurbishment of this complex.
The seven storey and mezzanine office building extends to 4044 sq.m. and has the benefit of 51 on site car spaces.
There are twelve years left on the lease. The current rent is £1.23m per annum, reflecting a very competitive market level. Let under a seven year rent pattern, the next rent review is in April 2007 (unexpired lease term twelve years).
“Few opportunities arise in the market to acquire centre city office space of this size with such an attractive car parking ratio at a very competitive rental level,” Noel Quinn of agents Quinn Agnew said.
“Potential occupiers will be adjacent to all major transport facilities including Tara St Dart Station, Busaras and termini for most of Dublin’s suburban bus routes.”
A premium of €200,000 is being quoted for the leasehold interest. The shortage of city centre office accommodation has pushed Dublin 2 right to the top of the rental pecking order and buildings in this prime precinct are much sought after.
Built around 1970 and typical of its era, the building can accommodate some 300 persons. Existing An Post staff are understood to be relocating to various centres operated by the postal authority.
-
March 30, 2005 at 12:47 am #728931
Anonymous
Inactive300 per square meter for second generation accomodation of that scale and quality (low ceiling heights and no airconditioning) would definitely require significant tenant inducements in Todays market.
-
March 30, 2005 at 1:06 am #728932
GrahamH
ParticipantTo say the least – who the hell’s going to take that on in this office market climate, albeit improving quite fast. Any of its competition outshines it. Interesting that the state still has a semi-interest in it though….
Keep meaning to mention that Ulster Bank shopfront – if there’s one that should’ve been included in the IAP for alteration but wasn’t, it is this one.
It’s passable enough because it’s granite, but the way it crudely cuts across the individual buildings is unacceptable, not to mention its design which is as flat as a pancake compared with the upper floors; it doesn’t ‘support’ them properly either.Also these bizarre concrete units installed in the larger building must be removed – they look awful next to the elegant neo-classical motifs alongside:
The fjp image is fanatsic, it shows so much, from the intrusion of the former Burgerland, now Schuh building to the rear, to the amount of Georgians still lurking behind the neighbouring street facades (although some of the chimneys have been removed since this pic was taken in the 80s), to the vast nature of the Royal Hibernian Bank across the road who had occupied the Bread Co Building just a few years before it was destroyed – this being their landmark new branch. It originally had a large projecting portico similar to the Olympia – though I think it looks better without it 🙂
It also shows up one puzzling thing – why was a cupola never built on the top of Manfield Chambers (Clarks)? Especially when you consider how grand it it, you’d think the effort would’ve been made – perhaps costs mounted. It has impressive chimneys which can be seen from the street too.
The slightly skewed roof of the Victorian gabled building is also interesting 🙂 -
March 30, 2005 at 1:21 am #728933
Anonymous
InactiveThe front elevation of the bank at shopfront level is poor in comparison with the quality of the upper floors, although when I think of that stretch of O’Connell St I don’t think that pre-boulevardisation I would have noticed too much as the space is so congested that one merely negotiates a path without bumping into other people. Certainly some inducements should be offered for a change of shopfront now that the Street is being laid out a new.
The Mansfield chambers is interesting and I suppose no-one really noticed that building too much with the huge Texaco neon that was on it for years, there is a lot to be said for banks holdind pivotal properties given their conservative taste in terms of signage. But now thats its clear the ommission is noticable and I suppose it could be likened to the railway end of Croke Park, its plainer but at least it is different.
-
March 30, 2005 at 1:36 am #728934
GrahamH
ParticipantCould still build one – wonder if it was intended and if plans are still kicking around…
The shopfront of the Ulster Bank was put in around 1980-5 I think – or glued on, whatever way you want to look at it 🙂
I love that balcony above, how utterly pompous – you’d expect the Queen to step out at any moment 🙂
Interesting to note that the panes of plate glass probably aren’t original anywhere on the facade given the multi-pane sashes in the window to the right of the balcony there…
This building could look spectacular floodlit properly – as it is it’s pretty much the only building on the street that makes a decent effort… -
March 30, 2005 at 1:40 am #728935
Anonymous
InactiveIt would make a fantastic spot to grant the freedom of the City if you could get out onto the balcony which unfortunately doesn’t look deep enough to accomodate even a couple of people, you are right many buildings of far less quality are floodlit. The motifs are pretty eerie though
-
March 30, 2005 at 1:45 am #728936
GrahamH
ParticipantProblem is that you’d have to force the dignitaries and Esteemed Citizen to crawl out on their hands and knees through the lower central sash 😀
But then again it’d be an Irish solution to an Irish problem – ‘ah sure it takes them down a peg or two anyway – good enough for them, up on their high horses’…
-
March 30, 2005 at 4:25 pm #728937
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
Problem is that you’d have to force the dignitaries and Esteemed Citizen to crawl out on their hands and knees through the lower central sash 😀
But then again it’d be an Irish solution to an Irish problem – ‘ah sure it takes them down a peg or two anyway – good enough for them, up on their high horses’…
Certainly would be a typical begrudgers mentaility all right.
I had a look at the building this morning and I’d have to say that the granite inserted in the 1980’s really hasn’t aged in as well as it should, the windows are also an abberation when one looks at the generous proportions of the upper storeys. 😡
-
March 31, 2005 at 12:10 am #728938
GrahamH
ParticipantAbsolutely – the windows are the worst element. They are far too small and bear no connection at all to the upper floors. It’s like part of a facade has been cut off a different building and stuck onto these two unfortunates.
Having the interior hidden from view is also not pleasant – something of a two-fingers mentality directed at the passer-by the second they step onto the street.
It’s interesting – if you asked most people to list the outlets on any part of the street, this would probably be the stretch they’d identify as being the least memorable – maybe along with the Hammam Buildings terrace.
Certainly this lower part still is for me – even now I couldn’t list all the occupiers along there, a jewellers, amusments, candyfloss/donut PVC cabin…..
The Ulster Bank is a major contributer to the stagnant nature of this important part of the street. Look what a difference the new Bank of Ireland along here has made alone in recent months. -
March 31, 2005 at 12:17 am #728939
Anonymous
InactiveDefinitely this section the door case and doors of the Hammam buildings are fantastic I love 1920’s bronze joinery, there are few timbers that can communicate oppulence as easily particularly when the rest of the building is so forgetable. I wonder how the stretch of O’Connell St around the Hammam buildings will work after the makeover, I have a feeling that Upper O’Connell Street will prove even more successful.
-
March 31, 2005 at 12:43 am #728940
GrahamH
ParticipantThey’re impressive alright – here’s another fjp picture of the rear of that terrace.
Interesting to note that the copper mansard roof of the Savoy is just a charade to maintain continuity along the terrace – presumably the cinema has been extended since this was taken.
The nature of early modern construction from the 1920s is also evident to the rear of all the buildings.Also excellent at showing the extent of the Carlton site, and how all of the Georgian gardens have been consumed:
http://www.fantasyjackpalance.com/fjp/photos/kf/aerial/002/oconnell-carlton.jpg
-
March 31, 2005 at 12:55 am #728941
Anonymous
InactiveThe Savoy front roof elevation deception works very well and tricks like that are what seperate good from bad architecture, realistically how many of us would ever have known or cared if no intrusion to the streetscape were made?
The asbestos roof is going to cost a fortune to decommission on the Carlton, it is a very interesting point that you make about the gradual consumption of backland in the retail district. I was in an office on the third floor above pen corner on College Green a few years ago and the windows of adjoining extension extension were literally inches away, with rear elevations with no prospects its not so important particularly in tight blocks such as here. One place where it doesn’t work so well is the BT multi-storey carpark on Clarendon/South William Streets, a new bar called ‘rush’ has opened on South William St complete with a nice rear terrace, unfortunately it is a little oppressive being towered over by such a primative structure as a semi-open concrete framed multi-storey CP.
That FJP image really gives an indication on just how potentially huge The Carlton Site could become,
-
March 31, 2005 at 1:24 am #728942
GrahamH
ParticipantI think some of the buildings to the rear of the Carlton have already been demolished.
Yes it’s interesting how the backlands of buildings get completely consumed – looking at the long narrow plots of the buildings next to Dublin Bus there, it’s crazy! No natural ventilation & artificial lighting most of the way through…
It’s even more bizarre when you see entire blocks of streets enclosing around yards in a doughnut shape, that in themselves get consumed eventually. This used to happen with Georgian & Victorian houses too where it’d have a much greater impact. I know someone who used to live in a corner Victorian in Dublin where there was no rear at all – it just fitted into the other 2 buildings with no rear windows at all!
At least Upper O’Connell St has the advantage of stable lanes on both sides for access and to curb a halt to ever-extending buildings.
-
March 31, 2005 at 1:32 am #728943
Anonymous
InactiveLight is so important to an individuals health and it is interesting that the first thing that most architects mention in commission negotiations is always natural light, the second of course being budget. 😀
Laneways can be a blessing and I suppose this is probably the origin of the ‘site coverage measure’ in development consent adjudication to ensure that sufficient natural light reaches all occupied areas of a building. I have a feeling that whatever happens with the Carlton is going to be huge and I wouldn’t be surprised to see some of these open air laneways repalced with glazed malls/walkways, I’d say that similar to the Ilac and Civic Offices schemes the probability is that streets will be replaced with internal access, It will be interesting to see what emerges. 😎
-
March 31, 2005 at 3:40 pm #728944
asdasd
ParticipantIs fjp a human with the ability to fly? How come we’ve never seen him around 🙂
-
March 31, 2005 at 5:20 pm #728945
Anonymous
Inactive@asdasd wrote:
Is fjp a human with the ability to fly? How come we’ve never seen him around 🙂
He is still around
-
March 31, 2005 at 9:22 pm #728946
Anonymous
InactiveFor anyone wondering about the suitability of the Abbey to Extend in its current location I got the below image of the lane I was talking about between Liberty Hall and Beresford Court.
http://www.fantasyjackpalance.com/fjp/photos/city/0code1/alley-abbey-st-old.html
The more I think about it there is nothing to stop the Abbey re-developing where it is by consuming part of the above lane, leveling the health club and their existing building and building a state of the art auditorium there, the seamans building at the front which is sadly only a facade retention could provide the entrance to the National Theatre giving prime river frontage whilst retaining the historical location of the theatre.
-
April 1, 2005 at 2:43 pm #728947
urbanisto
ParticipantRegulars to the site will mourn the passing of a famous Dublin landmark. Most of you will have grown up with it and gazed at it fondly as you rambled along the wider-than-it-is-longer splendor of OConnell Bridge. But along with the Pillar, the Royal and the Capital another piece of Dublin’s heritage is gone. Yes, its the half completed traffic lights Batchelors Walk…put in place in a long faded time when blakc and clunky was in and now finally replaced with smart grey and steel light.
Meanwhile, in a bid to improve the state of its premises and play its part iin the rejuvenation of our main street, Burger King have erected a huge advertisement for !!!Baguettes!!! across their facade, Very classy. Didnt notice the planning permission, or is it not necessary.
-
April 1, 2005 at 3:09 pm #728948
Lotts
Participant@StephenC wrote:
…. Didnt notice the planning permission, or is it not necessary.
I too would love to know the answer to this one. These signs in general have been bugging me for a long time now. Does anyone know the procedure needed to be followed or the proper route to object?
-
April 1, 2005 at 3:13 pm #728949
Anonymous
InactiveIf it is any help, I noticed that there was planning permission on the former Department of Justice Buildings on Stephens Green for advertising hoardings whilst the building is being altered. Is there some sort of rule on the lenght of time that advertising can be displayed for without planning?
-
April 1, 2005 at 3:34 pm #728950
Anonymous
InactivePlanning permission is required for all development including plastic wrap type advertising, even when they are of a temporary nature, I once saw a residents association take an appeal to ABP against the granting of permission for advertising on the exterior of scaffolding while a terrace of housing was being renovated. Their rationale was that by the time ABP had made a decision the houses would be renovated,
It does appear that the same buildings are the main offenders and it appears to be a game of cat and mouse between the City Council and building owners. The one that stands out for me is the corner stone bar on the corner of Wexford St and Kevin St, who errect a hoarding every 6-12 months; a month later when challenged it disappears and believe me they have a unique ability to select the tackiest products and designs. Burger King on O’Connell St is another and given the status of O’Connell St as an Architectural Conservation Area meaningful action should be taken against OKR Group Ireland.
-
April 1, 2005 at 8:08 pm #728951
GrahamH
ParticipantYes you’d think that the street’s status would’ve prevented this kind of stuff.
I really hate these banner yokes – they’re terrible eyesores. As is mentioned, the Cornerstone Bar is a particularly nasty offender also.Not that even the most dignified of stores are immune from them – Clery’s has been known to put the odd Sale one up stretched across the lower central part of the facade – albeit more muted in nature.
As for the traffic lights, it’s a sad day, another Dublin institution swiped from under us in the cover of darkness.
To think pedestrians can now cross the road in comfort and safety. A sad day indeed :rolleyes:As the bad old days was mentioned there, perhaps I’ll post this now.
Don’t know if it’s of interest, but below is an extract from a wonderful book entitled ‘Dublin’ which was part of the ‘The Great Cities’ series published in the 70s, and was written by Brendan Lehane. Some may have it; it’s something of a 1970s version of the glossy ‘Dublin – A Grand Tour’ 🙂It’s still available if you search – but it is the most extraordinary book to read during these times, as it captures the capital when it was probably at its lowest point, in 1978, both in text and photographs.
Written 7 years or so before the Destruction of Dublin, and long before all of that Millenium hullabaloo, there is a sadness woven through much of its text, and virtually every photograph is as glum and depressing as one could imagine. There is a decaying Dublin captured in time, and so many sights and customs and traits that have long disappeared, some for the best, some not so.
Suppose it was my first real introduction to the Dublin, and is the book that sparked my interest in the city.Anyway, here’s an extract describing O’Connell Street in 1977/8, painting it very much so as a place for young people. There’s so much you still recognise, and other elements that have long gone – lovely piece of writing.
By Brendan Lehane:
One of the great contrasts of Dublin is to pass from O’Connell Bridge to its wide and eponymous street. On the bridge, ragged, smear-faced itinerants, women with babes at their breasts, children with wild eyes and matted hair, sit or lie on the cold hard pavements, looking away from the dropped coins, passively anticipating an undernourished, sub-human life that sociologists show will last on average less than 40 years. Half a mile upstream you can glimpse an enchanting skyline of steeples, spires and Byzantine domes above the controversial Wood Quay, and area the Dublin Corporation threatens to choke with concrete office blocks. God’s city, with Mammon at the gates. To me the view in the frost-clear twilight, a red sky behind, with its message of many faiths and much antiquity, is one of the greatest in Europe.
Yet there, at your elbow, is O’Connell Street, a wide and flashy thoroughfare, more hick-town than Irish. In the evenings, it is the resort of the young and unattached. Wind slews round from the river and whistles harshly up the street, disturbing the hair-dos of the girls waiting for their lads outside the General Post Office, chilling the central cordon of statues: O’Connell, massive in bronze, towering hugely over the more life-size figures of heroines and angels; William Smith O’Brien, who led a disastrous rising in 1848; Parnell; the 19th-Century temperance leader, Father Matthew. Buildings still raw from their hurried construction after the Troubles 60 years ago house the features of a debased, third-hand American culture: amusement arcades, burger-bars, and arena-sized cafés selling fried potatoes and chicken under the spurious image of some Kentucky patriarch.
Several men click cameras at passers-by and hand them cards, and the willingness of many people to be caught, here and now, on film, seems to underline the fleeting nature of this stage of their lives. O’Connell Street represents a short eruption of romance in workaday lives. It offers dance-halls and snack-bars to meet in, shooting-galleries and poolrooms to bring out manliness, chocolates and films to woo with, ring-shops to usher in the terminal contract. Everywhere there is music or muzak, synthetic melodies programmed to touch vulnerable emotions like steel on a raw wound, facilitating the holding of hands, the looking of looks, the meeting of lips. Even the Irish, with their inestimable gift for small-time chatter, need active solvents to dilute their shyness, as boys from garages and schools and banks eye the wallflowers at Conarchy’s or Barry’s dance parlours – nurses from the Maternity Hospital or students from local colleges or hostel-dwellers from Mountjoy Square – and pluck up courage to ask for a dance.
There are many incongruities on O’Connell Street: the grandiose sculptures, a waxen Christ encased in glass on a plinth; a stocky, bald evangelist with a face like Santa Claus’s shouting his message of salvation against the drone of traffic: “I say to you friends, that here, today, there is the glorious saviour Christ, who on that hill in Calvary paid with his life for all our sins….†And there are wagtails, black and white birds that have wintered in a huge flock among the central plane trees for as long as anyone can remember, regardless of the razzmatazz and the curious whine of the buses and the endless passing of cars and people. I often used to watch them in the bare branches, each in a constant fidget to find the fulcrum beneath its body and that long spatula tail. Occasionally one would fly quickly to the next tree, its white belly lit momentarily by the street lamps below. Why that bird, and why to the next tree were unanswerable questions.
But I have wondered whether the bird’s move ever proved as momentous, as it unruffled its feathers beside two new neighbours, as that of the lad who a few yards away was crossing the floor of Barry’s, to ask another sort of bird to share the next dance, and perhaps the next; and then to buy a soft drink, and later perhaps a vodka in the Parnell Mooney’s or Granby Bar; and a few months afterwards, to pop the question that O’Connell Street, with its lights and chords and dazzle of moving colours, had been prodding him to ask; and finally, some months after that, to call out his and her relations in their dark, becoming suits, their toiles and crêpes and hats of raffia with plastic Easter roses attached, to watch her pledge her life to him and him his life to her before leaving the limelight to new generations, moving into some murky suburb and a whirlpool of mortgage and gas bills, with only one fading photograph, taken by a working photographer under the pillars of the GPO, to bring back the good times of their youth.
-
April 1, 2005 at 8:30 pm #728952
Anonymous
InactiveGraham Hickey wrote:Yes you’d think that the street’s status would’ve prevented this kind of stuff.
I really hate these banner yokes – they’re terrible eyesores. As is mentioned, the Cornerstone Bar is a particularly nasty offender also.Not that even the most dignified of stores are immune from them – Clery’s has been known to put the odd Sale one up stretched across the lower central part of the facade – albeit more muted in nature.
As for the traffic lights, it’s a sad day, another Dublin institution swiped from under us in the cover of darkness.
To think pedestrians can now cross the road in comfort and safety. A sad day indeed :rolleyes:As the bad old days was mentioned there, perhaps I’ll post this now.
Don’t know if it’s of interest, but below is an extract from a wonderful book entitled ‘Dublin’ which was part of the ‘The Great Cities’ series published in the 70s, and was written by Brendan Lehane. Some may have it]There is a difference between a facade the size of Cleary’s puting a relatively small banner with two colours on possibly 5% of their overall facade for a very limited and defined period. As opposed to an image dragged from the same dvd-rom that went to the printers for a magazine advert in Hello or Empire.
I had a look at the Corner Stone banners this evening, the banner is so large that it covers much of the pitched roof and to really crown it, it draws your eye up to the roof of the adjoining early 19th century house that has a rusty corrigated iron pitched roof. It brought me back to downtown La Paz in seconds, how many times have the owners of this bar done this in this most inappropriate locations?
In relation to the traffic lights I suppose it is progress from the roads department as at least it was only a set of polls this time and not an entire streetscape that was non-functional due to their efforts. Although I’m sure Devin would have something to say on the ‘visual clutter’ they created.
Graham Hickey posting Brendan Lehane wrote:It’s still available if you search – but it is the most extraordinary book to read during these times, as it captures the capital when it was probably at its lowest point, in 1978, both in text and photographs.
Written 7 years or so before the Destruction of Dublin, and long before all of that Millenium hullabaloo, there is a sadness woven through much of its text, and virtually every photograph is as glum and depressing as one could imagine. There is a decaying Dublin captured in time, and so many sights and customs and traits that have long disappeared, some for the best, some not so.
Suppose it was my first real introduction to the Dublin, and is the book that sparked my interest in the city.Anyway, here’s an extract describing O’Connell Street in 1977/8, painting it very much so as a place for young people. There’s so much you still recognise, and other elements that have long gone – lovely piece of writing.
By Brendan Lehane:
One of the great contrasts of Dublin is to pass from O’]
That is an increadible piece of prose, I real pleasure to read, I presume you had to type that manually? Either way it is appreciated greately.
-
April 1, 2005 at 8:39 pm #728953
GrahamH
ParticipantMy fingers hurt 🙁
-
April 1, 2005 at 8:41 pm #728954
Anonymous
InactiveThats exactly why I dragged all your extremely worthwhile output onto this new page 😀
-
April 1, 2005 at 8:57 pm #728955
Anonymous
InactiveInteresting read Graham. My favourite bit was this:
“Half a mile upstream you can glimpse an enchanting skyline of steeples, spires and Byzantine domes above the controversial Wood Quay, and area the Dublin Corporation threatens to choke with concrete office blocks. God’s city, with Mammon at the gates.”
Do you think the same author would now conclude that Mammon smashed the gates down?
-
April 1, 2005 at 9:17 pm #728956
GrahamH
ParticipantWith a sledgehammer.
His book is a lovely read – he cares so much for the city. How he captures the nature of the decaying Georgian quarters is particularly striking. Might put up a few pics and extracts in another thread
-
April 3, 2005 at 3:50 pm #728957
Anonymous
InactiveComparison between this image and earlier images bear no relation
-
April 4, 2005 at 5:25 pm #728958
Anonymous
InactiveOn the subject of tacky temporary signage, the Kylemore Cafe has acquired a large sign advertising a langauge school, it really demeans the building.
-
April 4, 2005 at 5:39 pm #728959
Anonymous
InactiveThis increasing trend is interesting in the light of the IAP of 1998 and its criticism of inappropriate signage. I also think the fact that the council are to surround the monuments with advertising during their overhaul shows a distinct lack of imagination on their part. It would be the perfect opportunity to follow on from the Table Tennis with some other temporary art installations. They could also display some of the other designs that the Spire was chosen over.
-
April 4, 2005 at 6:08 pm #728960
GrahamH
ParticipantThat’s an interesting idea!
I saw the Burger King sign today – in the name of all that’s sane, what is Planning at in this city!?
And right beside the bridge too – you’d wonder. Clearly they feel they can get away with it, if that says anything about the level of enforcement of the ACA.Are there any penalties associated with this legislation, or is it just threats of legal proceedings that enforce it? If the latter’s the case, it’s weeks before authorities even notice something like this, when it’s already served its purpose.
Should have a pic soon – for what it’s worth…Saw the Cornerstone today too – or rather the banners wrapped around it. The building is completely obscured!
-
April 4, 2005 at 8:28 pm #728961
Anonymous
InactiveGraham, another option might have been to place information around each monument about its construction or about the person being memorialised.
What is the ‘Cornerstone’? (Excuse my ignorance)
-
April 4, 2005 at 9:33 pm #728962
Anonymous
Inactive@phil wrote:
What is the ‘Cornerstone’? (Excuse my ignorance)
Phil,
The Cornerstone is a period bar on the Corner of Wexford St and Kevin St, it was extensively renovated about five years ago and when it is not entirely covered in a multi-coloured plastic wrap above ground level it is very good early 19th Century corner Building. There were originally four corner bars at this location but the Corporations roads department levelled the other three to widen Cuffe St as part of the inner tangent route in the early 1980’s a pity really as the one directly opposite was a better building a real classic period Dublin Bar.
BTW The table tennis was a great novelty, you have changed ny mind on the temporary advertising, there is no way of telling just what might be put up on the hoardings.
-
April 4, 2005 at 11:22 pm #728963
GrahamH
ParticipantThat’s a shame to hear about the four corner bars, never knew about them.
The Cornerstone is a really lovely building, with red brick on the upper two floors while the ground floor is made up of Portland stone arches – somewhat WSC style.
I was going to take a picture today but didn’t want to add impetus to Tommy Hilfiger’s campaign – damn, just have… -
April 4, 2005 at 11:31 pm #728964
Anonymous
InactiveColloquially refered to as the four corners of hell following a thundering sermon by the parish Curate in Whitefrair St many generations ago.
There was a thread I came across that would be appropriate for posting Tommy which incidently is a cheap brand in the States apperntly he was a footballer before he became a fashion GURU: :confused:
here’s the thread: https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=3028&highlight=baggot
The second post concurs entirely with your own
-
April 4, 2005 at 11:45 pm #728965
Anonymous
InactiveI have often defended certain advertising billboards (such as the ones the corner of Bachelors Walk and O’Connell Street), but it is mainly, I must admit, on nostalgic ‘they’ve always been there grounds’. I think that lately corporate advertising has been allowed to invade every facet of our lives, and when I heard about the hoardings around the monuments I felt it was the last straw. I think the most disappointing thing about it is that in general not very many people will mind. We are just so used to it that it is almost taken for granted and subliminal!
-
April 4, 2005 at 11:48 pm #728966
GrahamH
ParticipantIt may be discreet given the info here – but even so…
From Medialive:
The following monuments are to be refurbished:-
– Parnell
– Fr Theobald Matthew
– James Joyce
– James Larkin
– Sir John Grey
– O’Connell
– Sheehan
– William Smith O’BrienSponsorship opportunity on all sides of each hoarding which will surround each monument
– 10% strip at the top of the hoarding on each side
– Hoarding is 12 ft high
– Width TBCDuration
– Work starts in April and ends in June / early July
– O’Connell and Parnell monument hoardings should be in place for 10 – 12 weeks
– All others will be 4 – 6 weeksCost
– Media Cost is €100,000
– Production Cost is €40,000 approxJust on the issue of the restorations – it seems we’re going to be in for a big surprise with William Smith O’Brien.
He is sculpted from pure white marble, yet is so dirty now he looks like limestone. Can’t wait to see the results! -
April 4, 2005 at 11:52 pm #728967
Anonymous
InactiveI am a little concerned by this the more I think about it, I was walking down Capel St last week and about half way down I saw what I imagined to be hoardings on number 1 Wellington Quay, it was only when I really started looking at it that I realised that it was in fact the posters on the Grattan Bridge fridges that were deceiving the eye. Now if there is that effect with simple tasteful posters what effect would multi-coloured magazine type ad’s have?
-
April 5, 2005 at 10:50 am #728968
Lotts
ParticipantIf you want some intrusive rear lit billboard advertising while you sup a pint you should check out Searsons on baggot street – who decided that the interior of their pub would be enhaced by bringing a touch of the bus shelter to procedings.
-
April 5, 2005 at 12:48 pm #728969
Anonymous
Inactive@Lotts wrote:
If you want some intrusive rear lit billboard advertising while you sup a pint you should check out Searsons on baggot street – who decided that the interior of their pub would be enhaced by bringing a touch of the bus shelter to procedings.
Lotts what have they done exactly?
I also dug this up, it appears that the normal exempted development rules do not apply to ACA’s http://www.dublincity.ie/Images/guide_tcm35-8809.pdf
-
April 5, 2005 at 3:02 pm #728970
Lotts
Participant@Thomond Park wrote:
Lotts what have they done exactly?
They are window sized backlit advertising frames (currently advertising O2). You’ll see them on the pillars by the tables down towards the back. No biggy compared to some of the intrusions into true public space mentioned earlier – but interesting to see that it’s assumed that people won’t care. Didn’t see the price of a pint being reduced due to the cross subsidy of the advertising!
(sorry for going off tread)
-
April 5, 2005 at 3:11 pm #728971
Anonymous
Inactive@Lotts wrote:
They are window sized backlit advertising frames (currently advertising O2). You’ll see them on the pillars by the tables down towards the back. No biggy compared to some of the intrusions into true public space mentioned earlier – but interesting to see that it’s assumed that people won’t care. Didn’t see the price of a pint being reduced due to the cross subsidy of the advertising!
(sorry for going off tread)
You just can’t seem to escape advertising anywhere these days and that does sound a little excessive, its been a while since I’ve been in Searsons a bar that I do like a lot, it is kind of unique in a Dublin sense in that it is busy during the day, gets the office crowd at 5pm and then gets a local crowd in at 9pm. Pure Greed regarding the signs
Good to see that O’Connell will have a clear head come July, although I wonder will the advertising act as a disincentive to finishing the works on time?
-
April 5, 2005 at 3:19 pm #728972
GrahamH
ParticipantSure leave em up – why not! Save the cost of restoration 🙂
Interesting to read about the ACA there…
See the thread has hit the 100,000 hit mark. I’m scared 😮
It’s due to Google though, as over the past week for some reason the thread featured in the first Google page of ‘O’Connell Street’ – hence it was getting 1000 hits a day last week.
It’s moved down the list since though… -
April 5, 2005 at 11:55 pm #728973
GrahamH
ParticipantPatriotism is not amused.
She should put that sword of hers to good use.
-
April 6, 2005 at 1:32 am #728974
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
Patriotism is not amused.
She should put that sword of hers to good use.
I’m not so sure, does the green band on the edge of the plastic wrap not go well with the white & orange paint on the front elevation? A very patriotic image I’d say
In an ACA
-
April 6, 2005 at 3:40 am #728975
Devin
ParticipantThat’s shocking Graham. Knowing it’s not allowed, they’ve just stuck it up there to see how many days or weeks they can get away with it for.
Thomond, why have you posted the image again, given that we’ve seen it in the previous post? :confused:
-
April 6, 2005 at 11:28 am #728976
GrahamH
ParticipantThat pink of their facade is sickly too isn’t it? And delightful windows up there as well :rolleyes:
Saying that, the little circular windows on the first floor retain their original steel frames, and one of them has the original glass in it that can be seen shimmering from inside if ever you go upstairs (just for the views of the street of course – not for any baguette-related purposes)Ann Summers’ application is primarily one for structural works. including reflashing, repointing, reroofing etc.
However they do intend to redecorate the existing timber shopfront, and interestingly they wish (are being forced :)) to restore the steel windows of the upper floors, but they note that some are ‘beyond repair’ and are to be replaced with replicas.
They own 2 properties here, so presumably the other half’s wooden sashes are to be restored too. -
April 6, 2005 at 2:00 pm #728977
urbanisto
ParticipantHas anyone heard anything further about the old trees on Upper OC St. Is there removal still in question. I was thinking as i walked up the street the other day that it will be difficult from a public relations POV to remove the trees now that they are coing into leaf. Taking them down in the winter would have been less problematic. How we will start seeing them in all their summer glory.
The news trees on LWR OC Street were planted yesterday to finsih this section of the street off nicely.
Also awaitied are the first three kiosks including the one to cover the Luas substation. I would imagine these will be put in place when the hoarding from the refurbished statues comes down in July.
Re Ann Summers
The wooden sashes are being repaired also Graham….with replicas if necessary. All in all the AS application looked quite good.The next big target must surely be Joe Walsh Tours and the Amusement dump. -
April 7, 2005 at 12:12 am #728978
GrahamH
ParticipantAttack!
Ever noticed the shop on Nth Earl St that has an almost identical shopfront to Joe Walsh – rounded marble corners etc…
Yes that whole building needs an overhaul – interestingly just on its windows (again), in a pic I’ve seen, the upper sashes of the first floor were Georgian as late as 1922, while the lower ones were Victorian sheet glass…I was thinking about the Upper trees today too – they did look magnificent in the low sun this morning…
Whatever about their removal revealing so much of the street’s architecture and opening the place up, you can’t help but admire the maturity they offer to the streetscape, and the homely feeling they genrate in contrast with the currently skittery windswept, and in places incoherent state of affairs on Lwr O’Cll St…..Some images below of the half-masted flags around the area from over this week. Impressively the CC have erected large Tricolours and Papal flags on the four corners of O’Connell Bridge which look very dignified.
Every institution and retailer in the city has lowered their flags as far as I can make out, even BT’s – with the single noted exception of Marks and Spencer, which are billowing merrily away at full mast – if that says anything…Also a delightful new addition to the ever-changing billboard ‘scene’ on the corner:
-
April 7, 2005 at 9:07 am #728979
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
Also a delightful new addition to the ever-changing billboard ‘scene’ on the corner:
I noticed work going on there a couple of weeks back, is that a new billboard in addition to the Baileys neon or have they simply changed a flat billboard to a revolving illuminated billboard without planning consent in an ACA?
-
April 7, 2005 at 12:17 pm #728980
Rory W
ParticipantHas anyone else noticed the awful neon signs in “the garden of Eden” pub on Eden Quay very close to O’Connell Bridge flashing away about “live adult dancing” and “private lap dancing” surely this sort of tack is covered in the IAP and should be removed asap! (not that I’m a prude or anything – just think it gives the wrong impression)
-
April 7, 2005 at 1:47 pm #728981
Anonymous
Inactive@Rory W wrote:
Has anyone else noticed the awful neon signs in “the garden of Eden” pub on Eden Quay very close to O’Connell Bridge flashing away about “live adult dancing” and “private lap dancing” surely this sort of tack is covered in the IAP and should be removed asap! (not that I’m a prude or anything – just think it gives the wrong impression)
I totally agree Rory, the signs look dreadful particularly when viewed from Burgh Quay, the signs have generated significant business for the proprieters although it appears to be a crowd that few publicans in the City Centre generally seek.
-
April 7, 2005 at 3:15 pm #728982
kefu
ParticipantGraham,
I think you should just email that picture to the O’Connell Street plan’s office
Anne Graham is in charge and is at anne.graham@dublincity.ie
It’s a clear contravention of the guidelines and is damning
Things like that were supposed to be removed – not even more of the same put up -
April 7, 2005 at 3:21 pm #728983
Anonymous
InactiveKefu, that is an excellent idea. Graham, you should include your images of the banner opposite the O’Connell Statue too.
-
April 7, 2005 at 4:50 pm #728984
Anonymous
InactiveGraham I would have no-problem co-signing any submission you may wish to make.
-
April 7, 2005 at 7:36 pm #728985
Niall
ParticipantMe too. How on earth do they get away with that tack?!?!? 😡
-
April 7, 2005 at 8:14 pm #728986
Anonymous
Inactive@Niall wrote:
Me too. How on earth do they get away with that tack?!?!? 😡
No one complains in a structured fashion.
-
April 7, 2005 at 8:26 pm #728987
Paul Clerkin
Keymastermaybe we should – just issue a complaint everytime someone spots a new one…
-
April 7, 2005 at 9:26 pm #728988
Anonymous
Inactive@Paul Clerkin wrote:
maybe we should – just issue a complaint everytime someone spots a new one…
Could it be time to put up a template complaints in relation to temporary advertisements on protected structures and in ACAs?
-
April 7, 2005 at 9:35 pm #728989
Anonymous
InactiveThomond.
I think the fact that these things were the exact things that the IAP of 1998 aimed to change in relation to the street should also be pointed out within any complaint. -
April 7, 2005 at 9:54 pm #728990
Paul Clerkin
Keymaster@Thomond Park wrote:
Could it be time to put up a template complaints in relation to temporary advertisements on protected structures and in ACAs?
if someone wants to knock up rtf files of stock letters, I’ll create a folder for downloads and a webpage to match
-
April 8, 2005 at 12:48 am #728991
GrahamH
ParticipantThat’s an excellent idea – I’m sure the CC will be delighted with the news 🙂
I don’t blame the CC for this ‘incident’ though – it’s tricky enough to police the area all of the time. Although yes, there seems to be a culture of complacency developing amongst some retailers that needs to be reigned in fast by the CC.
Anyway I’ve contacted them about the issue. I hope action is taken in whatever form, and that it will set a precendent for all owners/occupiers on the street. Simply reiterating to owners alone, the special status of the area would help a lot.
Here’s the sign on Kylemore – small, but cheap and nasty:
Saw the new ‘oriental plane trees’ (no less) on the Lower section recently – as Stephen C said they look very well and immediately soften and enliven the area.
And just on the flags – M&S on Grafton St lowered them last night/this morning 🙂
-
April 8, 2005 at 12:43 pm #728992
Anonymous
InactiveGood to hear you have put something in Graham, I’ll do a template up citing the appropriate regulations over the weekend and e-mail it to Paul, I am starting to agree with you on scale regarding plastic signage seeing the colours of the Langauge School sign, Langauge Schools have been some of the worst offenders in regard to illegal signage and unfortunately a lot of it is not of the temporary variety.
Thanks for posting the flags on O’Connell Bridge I’m glad to see that this weeks events have been marked by the City Council, it is a fitting tribute.
-
April 8, 2005 at 1:17 pm #728993
urbanisto
ParticipantI have added my voice to this and sent a mail to Anne Graham. Is a formal message really required…why not just email and make a comment….a bit of public pressure. To be honest the Project Team at DCC are probably totally unaware of the signage.
All the missing trees between the Plaze and Abbey St have been replaced. Looks great.
Erection of hoardings for the statutes starts on Monday. I would imagine that Phase II paving will start then as well.
-
April 8, 2005 at 1:17 pm #728994
Niall
ParticipantJeez, ban the lot! Tacarama
-
April 9, 2005 at 12:25 am #728995
Anonymous
InactiveI hope that the paving starts soon, whilst there is disturbance it also gives you a sense that the waiting will soon be over.
-
April 11, 2005 at 10:20 am #728996
urbanisto
ParticipantPlease note anyone wishing to badger Anne Graham regarding the Bruger King banner that she no longer works with the OConnell St project team. Mails should be forwarded to the Area Manager Paul Crowe
-
April 11, 2005 at 12:55 pm #728997
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
However they do intend to redecorate the existing timber shopfront, and interestingly they wish (are being forced :)) to restore the steel windows of the upper floors, but they note that some are ‘beyond repair’ and are to be replaced with replicas.
They own 2 properties here, so presumably the other half’s wooden sashes are to be restored too.I wonder did they originally intend to use timber or uPVC replacements?
-
April 11, 2005 at 2:00 pm #728998
GrahamH
ParticipantWhat I’d say nearly for sure anyway is that the inquiring hand of the CC with ACA in the back pocket has had a role in this application.
It reads as uncharacteristically detailed, with an emphasis on exactly what is to be done with the windows – highlighting their present condition, both those that need repair and those that don’t, and that replicas will be necessary in some cases. I very much so doubt that they proposed this all by themselves.It has a whiff of in-depth City Council consulatation, which if the case, must be welcomed.
-
April 11, 2005 at 2:18 pm #728999
Anonymous
InactiveAn all too rare commodity on O’Connell Street it would appear.
Did anyone see the storey in yesterdays Sunday Business Post that British Land submitted an expression of interest in the Carlton Site as did a Dutch consortium, it appears that Castlethorn have 7 years to develop the site or sell it on to someone who has the funds and experise to do so. I can see the failure to tie up the right to re sell issue as being problematic given the hit that The Carlton Group will take from the CPO.
-
April 12, 2005 at 12:03 am #729000
Spitzer
ParticipantThose are good photos of the GPO. How do you put photos on to the page like that?
-
April 12, 2005 at 12:26 am #729001
GrahamH
ParticipantYou have to host them elsewhere – like Photobucket.com. Suppose it’s not the ideal soloution, as for reference purposes into the future, the account may close down for whatever reason….
So to completely ignore that :), here’s a rather bizarre version of the Burger King sign taken on film – what I originally meant to post. Eloquence features this time – she’s got a very strange white hue to her clothes that doen’t come out that well on-screen. Spooky all the same.
-
April 12, 2005 at 12:30 am #729002
Spitzer
ParticipantThats just a howl
-
April 12, 2005 at 9:53 am #729003
Lotts
ParticipantI contacted the City Council and was informed that this matter has already been referred to the Planning Department for investigation.
-
April 12, 2005 at 10:21 am #729004
GrahamH
ParticipantGood to hear 🙂
The monument restoration project began early this morning – the scaffolding is going up very rapidly around O’Connell Monument at the moment. The hoardings are also being made up on site.
Wish I’d been able to take a picture – all the winged Victories look most bizarre being caged in scaffolding: something of an uneasy look to them, not least with workmen scrambling about next to them 🙂One thing you don’t realise is just how tall this temporary structure is going to be – presumably it’s going to go right up to O’ Connell’s head which is four storeys above the street 😮
-
April 12, 2005 at 1:24 pm #729005
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
Good to hear 🙂
One thing you don’t realise is just how tall this temporary structure is going to be – presumably it’s going to go right up to O’ Connell’s head which is four storeys above the street 😮
I suppose it has to be as the insurance requirements of chemical use in a City Centre Street would be quite stringent I’d say, the contentious point is will they be down by the 30th of June.
The photo of Burger King is the most revealing yet, ‘freshly baked’ more like half baked I’d say
-
April 13, 2005 at 3:22 am #729006
Spitzer
Participant@Graham Hickey wrote:
Good to hear 🙂
The monument restoration project began early this morning – the scaffolding is going up very rapidly around O’Connell Monument at the moment. The hoardings are also being made up on site.
Wish I’d been able to take a picture – all the winged Victories look most bizarre being caged in scaffolding: something of an uneasy look to them, not least with workmen scrambling about next to them 🙂One thing you don’t realise is just how tall this temporary structure is going to be – presumably it’s going to go right up to O’ Connell’s head which is four storeys above the street 😮
Down with that sort of thing, Victories needs freedom
-
April 13, 2005 at 5:01 pm #729007
brendan c
Participantdoes anyone know the target completion date for the upgrading of o’connell street (for the section up to parnell street).
also, will the the upgrading of parnell sq be done in tandem with this section of o’connell street or immediately afterwards ?bnc
-
April 13, 2005 at 7:46 pm #729008
Anonymous
InactiveBrendan we have all learnd to be patient in regard to the completion of O’Connell Street and as such it is impossible to say that it will be completed on a specific month, but I’d say it won’t be too long now.
In regard to Parnell Square the plan: http://www.dublincity.ie/Images/Parnell%20Square%20bookletc_tcm35-11289.pdf
will be carried out in three phases, this is possibly the best plan yet produced for Dublin City Council. -
April 13, 2005 at 8:06 pm #729009
sw101
Participantfair play to HH, they’ve done their homework. extending o’connell street and pushing people up the hill with the church as a focal point would be interesting to see.
-
April 13, 2005 at 9:29 pm #729010
Anonymous
InactiveDefinitely James Howley did a top class job on this and I’d say that a lot of the clarity in the plan is derived from his intimate knowledge of the area based upon having their offices on O’Connell St. The Church has fantastic potential to act as a real landmark and will no doubt be a great draw up Parnell Square.
-
April 13, 2005 at 11:41 pm #729011
GrahamH
ParticipantAgreed – and the focus on the church as said, should work particularly well – not that it doesn’t already: a very striking building, and well designed for the site.
Poor Daniel 🙁
And a couple of other images below too.
Presumably just to access the statue on top, whatever about chemicals, the scaffolding will have to go all the way up. The plywood cladding will also have the added benefit of protecting workers from the notoriously high winds in the area.
Sigh – what is is with middle-aged women and O’Connell St? Just as I was taking that picture there was a shreek behind me as yet another woman stumbled flat out from the pavement onto the road :rolleyes:
And she just lay there in a heap with juggernauts rumbling by 😮Had to haul her up with the aid of another man and bring a chair over from Bachelors Walk to the median (see Phil, on-street coffee places have their uses 😉 ), where she just sat sunning herself in the morning sunshine in the middle of the busiest crossing in the country!
Her leg was in bits – but we eventually put in a taxi and sent her off, God knows where 😀Another good deed for the day 🙂
-
April 14, 2005 at 12:30 pm #729012
kefu
ParticipantDear Madam,
Another great scoop for the Irish Times. This story only appeared in the Irish Independent eight days ago. Is this a record?Irish Times, April 14: O’Connell Street statues to be cleaned in €300,000 programme by Paul Cullen
The historic statues on Dublin’s O’Connell Street are to be cleaned up in a four-month conservation programme which started this week.
As part of the programme, which will cost €300,000, the bronze statues will be coated in a thin layer of wax to provide protection against pollution.
The programme is the latest phase of the refurbishment of the capital’s main thoroughfare; further works to improve the appearance of the top of O’Connell Street are due to start later in the year.
Cleaning and refurbishment of the O’Connell and Parnell statues at either end of the street will account for most of the budget, according to Dublin City Council’s heritage officer Donncha Ó Dúlaing.
The four victory angels and 30 figures on the O’Connell statue will have to be cleaned delicately using bristle brushes.
“The bronze is very black, though generally in good nick, but it has no protection against pollution,” says Mr Ó Dúlaing.
The other statues to be refurbished are those of Jim Larkin, William Smith O’Brien, Father Matthew and Sir John Grey. Two nearby figures are also included in the programme – James Joyce in North Earl Street and the Sheahan memorial on Burgh Quay, which commemorates an RIC man who was overcome by fumes trying to rescue a worker in the sewers.
Information panels on each statue will be mounted on the surrounding hoardings, according to Mr Ó Dúlaing.
A number of the statues have incurred damage over the years, but there are no plans to repair these defects. They include bullet holes in the O’Connell statue which date back to the 1916 Rising and damage to an angel from a loyalist bomb in the 1960s. Father Matthew has been missing a finger since Nelson’s Pillar but he too will have to soldier on without it.
“The defects are part of the history of our nation, and we won’t be touching them,” says Mr Ó Dúlaing.And the original from that little read newspaper, the Irish Independent.
Irish Independent April 6, 2005
HEADLINE: CITY’S LANDMARK STATUES TO GET Euro 300,000 FACELIFTTHE famous landmark statues along Dublin’s O’Connell Street are to get a Euro 300,000 makeover starting next Monday which aims to restore them to their former glory.
The city authorities have decided to leave the many bullet holes from the 1916 Easter Rising in the statue of Daniel O’Connell, which are part of the capital’s history.
And they have also decided not to replace the missing fingers on the statue of Fr Matthew. They were blown off when the nearby Nelson’s Pillar was destroyed in a bomb blast.
Some of the seven statues and monuments are badly damaged from air pollution or have become defaced by decades of bird droppings.
From Monday, scaffolding and hoarding will be erected around the monuments to allow work to get underway.
Experts in bronze from the UK and stonemasons from Ireland will spend months working on the statues, which have become grimy from air pollution, bird dropping, and decay.
Donncha O Dulaing, Dublin City Council heritage officer, said the clean-up operation was long overdue and the monuments would get the specialist cleaning they deserved.
“We decided to leave the bullet holes in Daniel O’Connell as they are part of our heritage,” he told the Irish Independent yesterday.
Mr O Dulaing said that close inspection of some of the monuments revealed the bronze was now very black and dirty looking.
“We are not cleaning them just for the sake of cleaning them. Some are in need of urgent cleaning. It will be done to best possible conservation standards,” said Mr O Dulaing.
The heritage officer said the work, which starts on Monday next, would take about four months at a cost of Euro 300,000.
The project is being undertaken as part of the ongoing regeneration of O’Connell Street, which has seen the introduction of wider pavements, new road surfaces, and many attractive new trees along the country’s main street.
Naming the people in whose memory the monuments were built, and the year they were built, figures frequently in quiz questions.
They are Charles Stewart Parnell (erected 1911); Fr Matthew of the temperance movement (1890); James Joyce (1990); Jim Larkin (1979); Sir John Gray, an MP and instigator of Dublin’s water scheme (1879); revolutionary William Smith O’Brien (1870); and Daniel O’Connell (1882).
An eighth monument on nearby Burgh Quay to RIC constable Patrick Sheahan, who died rescuing a worker from a gas leak in 1905, is also to be restored. It was erected in 1906.
Treacy HoganEnvironment Correspondent -
April 14, 2005 at 3:38 pm #729013
john bedford
Participant300,000?! it must look really different after they’re done. just hope the money doesnt go to waste
-
April 14, 2005 at 4:09 pm #729014
Anonymous
InactiveMoney very well spent
-
April 14, 2005 at 6:58 pm #729015
JPD
ParticipantWere they ever cleaned before or is this a once off project?
-
April 14, 2005 at 7:43 pm #729016
GrahamH
ParticipantI don’t think they’ve ever been cleaned, save the bases of the plinths of some of the monuments which may been pressure-washed but a handful of times over their lifetime.
Agreed that it is money well spent – indeed I would have thought it to cost over the half-million mark given the scale of O’Connell and Parnell. Presumably the former is guzzling most of the funds.
These monuments are of national importance even if they’re nothing spectacular by international standards.
The fact that Dublin City Council is shouldering the entire cost is a credit to them – even if they’ve no option 🙂I just wonder, what would some parties/people’s reaction be if it were necessary to carry out an extensive and costly restoration of the Albert Monument on Leinster Lawn…
Here’s Eloquence with the nasty wound in her upper arm – I’d get that seen to 🙂
-
April 14, 2005 at 7:45 pm #729017
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
I just wonder, what would some parties/people’s reaction be if it were necessary to carry out an extensive and costly restoration of the Albert Monument on Leinster Lawn…
Don’t you mean the Worlds most important piece of car-park heritage art?
-
April 14, 2005 at 7:56 pm #729018
GrahamH
Participant…the unfinished and endearingly lop-sided lampposts being particularly worthy of conservation…
Here’s the new trees on Lower O’Cll St. This whole stretch up to the GPO looks best in the morning I think.
The sun just bounces off Easons and Manfield Chambers and the GPO and new paving and the shiny bins etc – lovely and bright and warm – so uplifting 🙂And loads of space around then too, with the wide pavements being deserted at times.
-
April 14, 2005 at 8:03 pm #729019
Anonymous
InactiveThat image must have been taken early morning to get such a deserted look, it can still be quite packed walking down there for most of the day. The light in the photo is great and really shows the quality of the Mansfield chambers clearly.
I have to say that the wooden coverings around the lower trunks of the trees are ingenuis, they are reasonably skanger proof, made from a sustainable material and are totally visually inobstrusive. While the trees are quite young now, there will be a very natural vista down there in a couple of decades time.
-
April 14, 2005 at 8:33 pm #729020
GrahamH
ParticipantYes, the coverings are great, even if they do cover some of the white bark of the weeping birches on the median.
The lower stretch is usually very empty between 9 and 11 or so – great time to be there 🙂Manfield Chambers needs a restoration of its magificent steel windows (the wooden interior frames are a bit unfortunate from outside).
Also a removal of the nasty replacement windows in all of its top floor is in order, including the Abbey St elevation, as with that billboard.The Clarks shopfront supports the upper facade well, esp the piers aligning with the columns above.
-
April 14, 2005 at 8:42 pm #729021
Anonymous
InactiveThe windows are unfortunate and I very much doubt that anyone would replace single-glazed timber windows with single-glazed steel. The detailing in the Mansfield Chambers is of an exceptionally high standard, there are quite an impressive collection of 1920’s buildings on the Street when you think about it. In terms of the broader building lines on the Street this location may contain the most sustainable development model in the City even if was largely assembled so many years ago.
-
April 15, 2005 at 12:14 am #729022
GrahamH
ParticipantYes, the density of five storeys that these were built to is impressive, and how extensive office space was built above retailers at ground level which really helped in boosting the city centre.
Despite the WSC development all about the city centre, most of it is still only 4 storeys, even much Grafton St not going above 4 floors.Which is why I’ve wondered about this terrace beside Clery’s for ages.
There is something very suspicious about it. How is it that all of O’Connell St is 5 storeys, yet this terrace is only 4?
Ever since Lower O’Connell St was built in the 1780s this single terrace has always been 4 storeys – why?!
Not even the Wide Streets Commission developed it, or properly at least.And through the Victorian age, past the Edwardians and out the other side of 1916 it still remained at four storeys!
No wonder Horace O’Rourke was dissatisfied with the way Lower O’Cll St was redeveloped post-1916.Why would the owners only rebuild to the previous height – was it just not worth their while going higher or was there another reason? It’s almost as if there’s sightlines being protected or something…
The image below is a composite of the terrace ‘through the ages’, including a Georgian terrace on the site in 1818 which seems to be a surviving part of Drogheda St given the older window frames and mish-mash of heights etc.
In a later Victorian image below, the parapet seems to have been regularised, if not the entire terrace rebuilt according to the WSC at late stage.This terrace really doesn’t seem to make sense, especially when one considers the old Bank of Ireland next door, which as you can see in one pic, has been historically taller than the others since the Victorians got away with a tall structure next to the bulk of the old Clery’s.
So when rebuilding started – this single tall building to the side of Clery’s was rebuilt to its original height, while the rest of the terrace was still kept to its orginal four storeys!
In the context of the rest of the street this terrace is not successful in adding to the whole in height terms. -
April 15, 2005 at 12:11 pm #729023
Anonymous
InactiveThe difference in Clearys then and now is so pronounced between those images, I’d have to say I prefer the newer model.
-
April 15, 2005 at 4:56 pm #729024
GrahamH
ParticipantWell classicism is always going to win favour in these decluttered times 🙂
Yes the New Mart Monster Store/Delany’s/Imperial Hotel/Clery’s – what ever you want to call it – was an extraordinary building. Very unusual to have such an early, not to mention so large an example of Victorian architecture in Dublin city centre.
As far as I can make out the Imperial Hotel opened in 1837, but probably in a couple of Georgians like the Gresham, before the new building was built with the monster store on the ground floor, in 1850-3. The door there to the right provided access to the hotel and the floors directly above it are also distinguished from the rest of the facade by a slight change in design. I woudn’t be surprised if this famous 1853 watercolour of the street was commissioned by the owners…
The burnt out shell of it post-1916 is an extraordinary sight.In the reconstruction the new Clery’s consumed the whole terrace right up to what is now Sackville Place: you can see in the image above that there’s more buildings to the right of it unlike today.
The only thing that I can think of about this terrace’s height is that the site was left undeveloped because of the major building proposed for the site – notably plans for what is now Connolly Station to be located there, opposite the GPO.
But if so, then the WSC must have had plans for the site long before the railways, if they left it undeveloped in the 1780s.
Did they have something in mind? -
April 15, 2005 at 5:28 pm #729025
J. Seerski
ParticipantYes – the Pro Cathedral was proposed for this site – however ferverent opposition from the old protestant ascendancy stopped this from happening. Hence it was built on Marlborough Street – inconspicuous and out of place.
As for your question as to who commissioned the painting of Sackville Street – it was altered by the owners, with the doctored version having a man with a sign standing on the street advertising Delaneys Mart and Imperial Hotel.
There ya go!
-
April 15, 2005 at 5:42 pm #729026
GrahamH
ParticipantHeheh – briliant!
But was the Pro-Cathedral not planned for the GPO site? I thought it moved to the inconspicious Marlborough St after this rejection rather than the terrace across the road. Was it planned for here too?
Were many WSC members sympathetic to Catholics? -
April 15, 2005 at 11:56 pm #729027
Anonymous
InactiveThe Church were given the site for the Pro-Cathedral free of charge so it is entirely possible that they weren’t turned down on the GPO site but actually chose a free site instead of having to buy some of the most expensive real-estate in the City.
-
April 16, 2005 at 3:30 pm #729028
Frank Taylor
Participantnice photo by Matt Kavanagh from today’s paper
-
April 17, 2005 at 5:08 am #729029
GrahamH
ParticipantBrilliant pic Frank – thanks!
Whatever about the fantastic perspective the pic offers, it’s even more interesting just showing how quickly they’re getting to work on the monument.
Presumably this was taken on Friday and Daniel’s being cleaned already – just three days after the scaffolding started to go up!
You can see another conservationist down on the right too – cleaning his, well, you can make it out there yourself… 😉
Good to see the trusty old kitchen roll in use on top there 🙂
Clearly it’s a painstaking process all the same given the size of the tools in use.It’s a pity there’s so many seagulls around – they’ll wreck it before the scaffolding barely even comes down.
Saying that, I’ve seen pictures of the head with a lot more droppings that those currently there, so the wind and rain must help somewhat.
Particularly looking forward to the appearance of the limestone base when cleaned.Regarding the Pro-Cathedral, reading some info by Desmond Guinness he says that the Pro-Cathedral was planned for the GPO site too, but they settled for the less conspicuous site of Marlborough St on account of anti-Catholic feeling post the 1798 Rebellion. Unless he too succumbed to the ‘rejection story’ put forward by the Church, and that in fact they wanted the free site all along as Thomond Park suggests…
So I don’t know…every single source I have says it was anti-Catholic feeling or anti-Catholic Corpo or Establishment forcing it to move…
Either way it still doesn’t explain why the Wide Streets Commission didn’t develop the terrace across the road.The order to build Lower Sackville St was granted in 1777, and it appears to have taken 7 or so years for all existing buildings to be demolished and the roadway to be laid out, as building of the terraces seems to have started in 1784 as far as I can make out.
Why would they stop building, or at least stop building in the same way, once reaching the now Clery’s terrace? :confused:I really ought to go to the Pearse St Library to find out more; they have every single WSC map and proposal in their City Archives. They must be magnificent to look at.
They ought to reveal all… -
April 17, 2005 at 11:51 am #729030
sw101
Participant………………………
-
April 17, 2005 at 12:00 pm #729031
Anonymous
InactiveWell you know what they say; purple is the new black
-
April 17, 2005 at 5:05 pm #729032
GrahamH
Participant😀
This Photoshopping has got to stop!
-
April 17, 2005 at 6:12 pm #729033
Anonymous
InactiveNahhh good photoshop is always welcome
-
April 18, 2005 at 1:50 am #729034
Anonymous
InactiveSw101
Did you get that image from http://www.p45.net or did you have to do it up yourself?
-
April 18, 2005 at 11:10 am #729035
jimg
ParticipantJust to go back a few posts to Graham’s photo of a deserted west O’Connell Street in the morning which reminds me of something I’ve been thinking for a while.
I think the current redevelopment has missed an opportunity to reinstate the “width” of O’Connell Street. I don’t really have the language to describe precisely what I mean here but if you contrast photos of the modern (since the 1940s or 1950s, I guess) O’Connell Street with 19th century or early 20th century photographs (before the cars took over), it’ll give you an idea of what I mean. It seems to me that modern O’Connell Street is visually dominated by “linear” features (i.e. running the length of the street): footpaths and railings, the median, traffic lanes, lines of lampposts, the string of monuments, rows of trees, etc. This effectively emphasises the length of the street at the expense of the width. The pre-modern O’Connell street felt more like an elongated square and looked far more attractive and impressive (as an urban space) in my opinion.
Because the street carries traffic and pedestrians the traffic lanes and footpaths are necessary. However I think the street would look fabulous with no tall “linear” features – in particular with no lampposts for example. The removal of those London plane (or whatever) trees was a massive improvement because it had the effect of giving back some feeling of the expansive width of the street. It’s a pity they didn’t go the whole hog and make a concious effort to get rid of all the other visually intrusive “linear” features (including trees, minor monuments, footpath railings/edge markers, and lampposts). I really think that this would have restored the grandeur of the original.
Unfortunately many such features are new and the CC has obviously spent a lot of money on them so this idea is almost in direct opposition to what is planned for the redevelopment. Maybe during the next one in 2102…..
-
April 18, 2005 at 7:59 pm #729036
GrahamH
ParticipantYou make an interesting point jimg, and I agree with you to a large part – think the aquatint above from 1818 just about sums it up 🙂
The O’Connell Street of old had a magnificent untamed grandeur to it: it’s almost as if the authorities couldn’t grapple with the sheer size of the place and eventually gave up, instead focusing their efforts on just lighting the side pavements and maintaining the statues 🙂There’s an uncontrollable wild element evident in contemporary images that’s quite bizarre and difficult to explain.
But I’ve often wondered if the appeal of this stems simply from nostalgia and a longing for the days of old with horses and traps and sedan chairs and all the rest, or is there a genuine beauty in it and could it be workable today?I see what you mean about the linear element today, but I’d argue that this is as equally worthy as the elongated square model – but it must be decided which way to go, and to stick to that.
I don’t think this has happened – certainly there is no plaza-like elongated square, which is fair enough, but the linear mode chosen has not been executed properly either.
There is way too much clutter on the median, and as said before I think the mish mash of trees there is disastrous.
There was a bold plain simplicity to the old plane trees – they alone defined the nature of the whole street. Whereas now I think there’s too much going on, so one gets neither the ‘width effect’ nor the ‘linear effect’ in full.I think that this incoherence is added to by the fact that everything is now gravitating towards the centre of the street, something perhaps not eveident when looking at the plans. There is nothing at all on the broad expanse of the side pavements – as should be the case – but as soon as you get to the line of trees and lampposts along the edge, all that there is between this focus point and the others on the median is two narrow traffic lanes.
So whereas on most streets you have a narrow pavement on each side and two simple rows of trees along a wide central road, here you have everything gravitating towards the middle, not least the lampposts which are virtually in the middle of the street.If you think of the 1930s arched lampposts that lined the street – they worked fantastically well as they merely flanked the street, acting as a powerful marching backdrop – not standing in the middle cluttering the place up like the current ones do.
Exactly how you get around this given the width of the new pavement I don’t know…
It is difficult to ditch the median to allow visual breathing space given the monuments there and the precedent the 1980s one set – but a complete lack of trees at all may be an idea; either have them along the pavements or just along the median…But the biggest problem as I see it is that the CC have applied the format of the Champs-Elysées to O’Connell St, placing trees at each side of the street, forgetting that the Paris version does not have a median.
The Champs-Elysées’ power is derived from the two simple rows of trees with acres of traffic in the middle.
By contrast O’Connell Street’s power used to be generated by a single row of ‘power-trees’ down the centre.
(Ciarán Cuffe)This has been removed and replaced by a dispersed planting scheme which has destroyed this cohesion, which for all its faults gave O’Connell Street a unique identity.
Perhaps this argument is as premature as the trees just planted, i.e. just wait and see what happens both in terms of the trees maturing and the plans for Upper O’Cll St emerging. Even so, I think the median thus far does not work full stop.
As for for the ‘wide model’ and using it today – would it be immediately negated just by traffic lanes and pavements alone?
Attached are two images of the empty street of old – one from http://www.fantasyjackpalance.com: -
April 19, 2005 at 11:08 am #729037
jimg
ParticipantInteresting set of images, Graham. One visual aspect of both the Champs-Elysées’ and the pre-renovated (late 90s?) O’Connell street which is immediately pleasing is that the buildings dominate the street in terms of height. Maybe “dominate” is too strong a word but at least they aren’t lost in a clutter of tall street fittings. The second (recent) O’Connell street image is horrible; the buildings are almost lost among lampposts – even the spire loses out and is relegated to being just a taller “thing” sticking out of the ground. I think my desire for a completely minimalist approach to the street (i.e. no linear lines of lamposts and other clutter) would restore the buildings of O’Connell street to their former importance in defining the street.
And yes you’re right; it looks like the street will end up having neither a strong linear character (because of the “plaza” in front of the GPO and the pattern of the new trees among other things) nor an elongated square character like it had originally. I prefer the latter but would prefer the former over a mishmash. And if it is going to be linear, allow the buildings to be the most important linear element.
Actually, the more I think about it, I don’t necessarily object to the linear aspects of the modern street; it’s more the fact that such fittings destract from the buildings which should (along with the shape) be the defining features of the street. Unfortunately, I presume when whoever in the CC decides they want to spend money on something like O’Connell street, they quickly realise that they have fairly limited powers; they can’t change the shape of the street nor have they the power to do anything with the privately-owned buildings. Really all they can do is upgrade the paving and stick new lamposts, trees and the like all over the place.
-
April 19, 2005 at 11:45 am #729038
Niall
ParticipantWhy can’t Irish workmen erect straight roadsigns??? See tram warning sign in photo on O’Connell Street median above It’s not rocket science!!
Right, that’s my moan of the day…………….
O’Connell Street has never looked better!
-
April 19, 2005 at 1:46 pm #729039
urbanisto
ParticipantI must admit I was struck only the other day at how the currently completed section reinforces the streets wideness. Alot to do with the smaller trees. The pic above does give a very cluttered perspective of the street and I think the point about more descreet lighting is well made but I dont think its actually that intrusive
-
April 19, 2005 at 1:57 pm #729040
GregF
ParticipantThe Parnell monument/statue is being encased in scaffolding too for a makeover like Danny O’ Connell’s ….hope there will be a notable difference after the cleaning work.
-
April 19, 2005 at 3:00 pm #729041
Frank Taylor
ParticipantI think the above photo appears cluttered as a result of the telephoto lens used. If anyone has a photo using a lens with a focal-length more like the human eye (say 50mm) it might give a very different view.
-
April 19, 2005 at 8:25 pm #729042
GrahamH
ParticipantAgreed that telephoto generates this effect, but this wasn’t taken with a tight lens – this is the view from O’Connell Bridge! – allbeit slightly cropped originally:
It still looks very cluttered when standing at the crossing – people’s first introduction to the street.
I don’t think the lampposts would look so messy of they didn’t have the mini-heads attached to the rear – they could look quite stately.
But the biggest problem I think is the median clutter – it’s way too close to the statement that the lampposts on the side pavements are trying to make.There is no doubting the works have been superb regarding the quality materials used and the standard of workmanship – and agreed about O’Cll St never looking better, I was only thinking the same walking along the median this morning!
But there’s too much clutter and too little a statement being made.Of course a ‘statement’ street isn’t everything – human scale timid planting schemes like that executed can be just as favourable.
Just not what I wanted for O’Connell St 🙁I hope the side pavement’s trees mature into a sweeping line – they ought to. Perhaps if it is intended that these will grow quite tall and contrast with the small scheme on the median, this will help hugely.
Likewise if the median trees fill out, the poley leggy element may go, though a rigid linear effect still won’t be there…. -
April 20, 2005 at 9:48 am #729043
GregF
ParticipantThere are too many lamps on the street which makes it rathered cluttered I suppose.There is one about every 30 feet. The vertical thrust of the Spire adds to it. I agree however, when the trees fill out they will soften the harsh effect.
-
April 20, 2005 at 11:42 am #729044
TLM
ParticipantI wonder to what extent do these trees fill out though?? I’d be surprised if they reached the level of “fullness” of those on the Champs Elysees.. The view of O’Connell street from the earlier photo of the cleaning of Daniel O’Connell looks significantly less cluttered than the others on this page.
-
April 20, 2005 at 1:47 pm #729045
Paul Clerkin
Keymaster@Graham Hickey wrote:
ahhh Paris,.,,,, I know where I’m moving to when I win the lottery
agreed on O’CST, it looks very cluttered – why do they need lamp standards on the median? surely good light on the edges should have illuminated it
-
April 20, 2005 at 4:01 pm #729046
kefu
ParticipantI was talking to the City Council about the proposal to sell advertising on hoardings around the monuments, and apparently it’s not going ahead. It was a proposal made from the advertising industry but Dublin City Council “declined”, presumably on the basis that it would be considered hypocritical.
They will instead be putting in place information panels. So yet more kudos for Dublin City Council.
Except I can’t help feeling that the money raised from advertising would have gone a long way to pay for the statue cleaning project. And as it would have been only temporary, and on unsightly hoardings that are going to be there anyway – maybe it wouldn’t have been such a bad idea. -
April 20, 2005 at 10:43 pm #729047
Anonymous
Inactive@kefu wrote:
So yet more kudos for Dublin City Council.
Except I can’t help feeling that the money raised from advertising would have gone a long way to pay for the statue cleaning project. And as it would have been only temporary, and on unsightly hoardings that are going to be there anyway – maybe it wouldn’t have been such a bad idea.I’d almost say that the money could have been used to hire a dedicated enforcement officer for the tons of un-sanctioned hoardings all over the City. 😉
-
April 21, 2005 at 3:12 pm #729048
Frank Taylor
Participant@Paul Clerkin wrote:
ahhh Paris,.,,,, I know where I’m moving to when I win the lottery
agreed on O’CST, it looks very cluttered – why do they need lamp standards on the median? surely good light on the edges should have illuminated it
I think the champs elysees was recently renovated with new street furniture and parking bays removed from the area between the lines of trees and the buildings along the avenue. There are still 10 lanes of traffic remaining. When I lived in Paris for 2 years it never occurred to me to use a car to get anywhere. In any case, I’d prefer if the traffic lanes were replaced with a park.
In 1990 a French agricultural group put on a reclaim-the-streets-style installation composed of 15,000 pallettes of living wheat that they then harvested.
-
April 21, 2005 at 4:54 pm #729049
Anonymous
InactiveThere is an almost romanesque quality to those images. It is only a pity that we don’t have the climate to perform something similar in Dublin instead of tractorcades or dumping sheep in front of the Dept of Ag
-
April 22, 2005 at 6:41 pm #729050
Boyler
ParticipantIf we keep comparing what the Irish and the French have, we are only going to make ourselves depressed.
-
April 23, 2005 at 1:19 am #729051
Anonymous
Inactive@Boyler wrote:
If we keep comparing what the Irish and the French have, we are only going to make ourselves depressed.
But you have to start somewhere and when talking Boulevards no-one does it quite like Les Bleus
-
April 23, 2005 at 2:29 am #729052
GrahamH
Participant😀
I’m glad the CC decided not to go the advertising route – maybe only because they’d contravene their own ACA legislation 😉
But seriously it was a good move – they’re practicing what they preach. Just looking at the hoardings today they would have looked very unpleasant with advertising attached, whatever about the ideology of sticking commercial material to hoardings surrounding monuments to national figures.
Also have to remember that these are going to be here for 3 solid months: 3 solid months of potential revenue more like – well, there’s exceptionally few areas now where money ought not pull the strings – I think this is one of them.Enforcement Notices were issued against Burger King and the English school with regard to the removal of their banners last Tuesday – they’re both still there as of Saturday.
Is the post really that slow even with the GPO across the road or is there something else?
This ought to be a swift and immediate process. -
April 23, 2005 at 3:41 pm #729053
Anonymous
InactiveIt will be interesting to see how burger king react to the notices, they can’t really leave them there to long I’d imagine, I hope that they are taken all the way on this one as it would send out a very strong signal that this will not be tolerated.
-
April 25, 2005 at 10:55 am #729054
GrahamH
ParticipantWell it’s good to see the sign down this morning 🙂
However the English school banner is still there.It is interesting to note the different attitudes taken towards planning, not to mention the different outlook overall, between retailers on our streets.
Most fast-food joints contribute little towards the streetscape, and generally exercise the bare minimum in quality design and maintenance – exemplified by the recent Burger King case.By contrast, as was noted on the pastiche thread, banks tend to do things ‘properly’, putting the best foot forward, keen to exude a quality what-the-public-want image: reinforcing their established positions.
And a current case in point being the National Irish Bank on Upper O’Connell St, who have just applied for planning permission soley for the purpose of removing the green star symbol from their main sign on the facade, barely measuring 12″ square, and the removal of the same from the projecting sign!
Could the contrast be any more stark between the two?!
It is good to see the Special Planning Control Scheme in action – as far as I know this is more detailed with regard to signage and other similar features than the ACA guidelines.
The fact that NIB applied for such an insignificant change, presumably just for rebranding purposes, proves that at least there is a strong awareness of the now protected status of O’Connell Street amongst some owners – hopefully most. -
April 26, 2005 at 4:54 pm #729055
kefu
ParticipantWell done Graham.
Contacting Dublin City Council is the way to get things done.
They are a very proactive organisation when they get a nudge. -
April 27, 2005 at 12:13 am #729056
GrahamH
ParticipantWell others made contact too – indeed mine was significantly delayed in the system…
Anyway it’s good to see things can get done, and yes the CC can be very pro-active when they put their minds to it.
I saw a pic there recently of a similar banner plastered over the Irish Nationwide across the road about two years ago – indeed I remembered it upon seeing it once more. Suffice to say that won’t be happening again…Well here’s Parnell under wraps – still managing to look as stately as ever 🙂
One more here too:
-
April 27, 2005 at 3:41 am #729057
Paul Clerkin
Keymaster… looks like an art installation…..
-
April 28, 2005 at 1:26 am #729058
GrahamH
Participant🙂
Speaking of the National Irish Bank, it is one of the most notable buildings not only on O’Connell St, but the city centre in general, yet receives little to no attention at all which is a shame; it is an exceptionally fine building, a lot nicer than some of the big guns in the Dame St area I think.
And it is remarkable from another perspective too, something I only realised when writing for something about the street, highlighting how O’Cll St encapsulates the development of the city overall in its architecture from the 1750s to the present day. The NIB building is surprisingly one of exceptionally few Victorian buildings on O’Connell St, and certainly the only one of merit – extraordinary considering the thoroughfare’s importance, and the amount of banks and institutions built in the latter part of that period in the city; the NIB is literally the only one of note on the entire street! (Thanks of course to 1916 & 1922)
From Archiseek: “Built for Standard Life Assurance, the National Irish branch on O’Connell Street [designed by David Bryce] has a striking pediment sculpted by Sir John Steell. The fluted Corinthian columns which uphold the pediment create a strong rhythm of light and shade over the stone façade.”
Does anyone know what stone it is built of – sandstone? I think it is the most striking feature of the building, a highly unusual rust colour not seen anywhere else in Dublin, it must be imported. The Corinthian order really makes it though, generally regarded as the most superior order of all; so elegant and powerful.
Does the building date from 1853 though as stated? The neoclassical architecture suggests a bit later and the windows are at least 1865+. And just reading on the internet, it’s said that the carved depiction in the pediment of ‘The Wise and Foolish Virgins’ ;), was sculpted for the building in 1868 which ties in perfectly.
It’s interesting: apparently the exact same grouping was carved by Steell in 1839 for the company’s Edinburgh office, and was used again for the Glasgow office in 1890 – so a bit of history there.Pity about the ground floor, surely there’s cut stone beneath that diarrhoea coloured paint 😮
Even if there isn’t, it ought to be properly restored using such materials. Stone and paint do not mix; the ground floor looks so false in comparison with the upper façade.
It could be magnificently floodlit too – so much potential there with the extent of relief in the façade and plenty of space for concealed lighting. -
April 28, 2005 at 2:13 am #729059
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterMore by Bryce….
Formerly the British Linen Bank but now a branch of the Bank of Scotland
151-52 -
April 28, 2005 at 9:13 pm #729060
Anonymous
InactiveIt looks like West Scottish sandstone, a material that seems to have really been in vogue in Dublin c1880-1910 along with its darker brown sandstone relation.
-
April 29, 2005 at 4:25 am #729061
GrahamH
ParticipantYes it would appear to be the former, as it is in the vein of much built in Edinburgh in the 19th century.
The link here shows the NIB’s similar colouring to the former Linen Bank:
http://www.edinburgh247.com/photos/royal-bank-of-scotland.jpg
It’s much more brown/orangey than the pinky red Dumfries sandstone used all over Ireland in the 1880s+ (below)
Wonder what the brown NIB one is called, and where it’s from in Scotland.
I can think of it existing elsewhere in Dublin but just can’t place it – it’s so distinctive and unusual that it really makes buildings clad in it stand out from the crowd in Ireland.So the NIB’s also interesting in that all of what we see seems to have originated from outside the country, from the architect, to the sculptor, to the materials used, to the funding, to the owner of the building. Even the architecture itself doesn’t compare with similar Dublin buildings of the age.
It really is an identi-kit building, simply a British design transferred to one of the colonies 🙂Also it seems that the design of the NIB was something of a one-off for Bryce, as he largely reserved classicism just for the interiors of his buildings, while executing busy baroque or Renaissance-influenced exteriors, or baronial for his country houses. It’s interesting that he chose a neoclassical design for the Dublin office – wonder why: the still at-the-time largely Georgian context perhaps?
-
April 29, 2005 at 5:15 am #729062
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterGraham Hickey wrote:So the NIB’s also interesting in that all of what we see seems to have originated from outside the country, from the architect, to the sculptor, to the materials used, to the funding, to the owner of the building. Even the architecture itself doesn’t compare with similar Dublin buildings of the age.
It really is an identi-kit building, simply a British design transferred to one of the colonies 🙂Quote:Always reminds me of Belfast and Norn Iron whenever I see it….
-
April 29, 2005 at 10:43 am #729063
J. Seerski
ParticipantHmmm…this can be a tricky one…
Is the old TSB on the Trinity end of Grafton Street made of the same material? Also, is Fox’s Cigar/Wine shop in the same part of town of the same yellowy/brown sandstone? I’d say if the NIB on O’Connell Street was cleaned it would be quite bright.
Speaking of towers, I wonder has anyone gotten access to any of the towers/cupolas on O’Connell Street aka Supermacs, Ulster Bank, Irish Permanent, The Grand Central?
As the thread is about O’Connell Street, it is interesting to note that most of the east side was full of similar Scotch/Baronial architecture, with at least two baronial towers on the streetscape, for some reason disappearing between 1916 to 1922… :p – as far as I know the only ones remaining nearby are those two on college green – what always fascinated me was how they constructed the College Green NIB there beside the bank-now-pub called ‘The Bank’ – the baronial tower almost touches the NIB builing but never quite does.
As for the restoration, is it not a bit over the top? In terms of statues they really are quite new – just over a hundered years for the O’Connell and less than that for the Parnell monument. Maybe in 200 years they might need restoration – though I acknowledge that the works are to ensure there is no need for a restoration job in the future through proper preservation.
-
April 29, 2005 at 5:42 pm #729064
GrahamH
ParticipantA few bits and pieces here.
I hope I’ve hit the nail on the head this time regarding the NIB sandstone. It would appear to be Giffnock Sandstone, quarried near Glasgow.
Here’s a description of it below from this stone website:
“Fresh surfaces of Giffnock are buff coloured with specks of darker grains visible. On exposure [weathering] iron minerals in the surface layers oxidise and form a hardened layer that is rust brown in colour.”
So it is quite literally rust on its surface :). I’m assuming it is this stone as the weathered colour above matches the NIB perfectly – but crucially, Bryce designed Ormiston House outside Belfast using just that material!
More than likely to be it – certainly ain’t Irish anyway.
Think the sandstone you refer to J. Seerski on Grafton St is too bright to be the same, and the properties of the stone literally rusting out in patches are completely different to anything else in the city. That’s what makes it so special 🙂On the monument restorations, agreed about them not needing to be cleaned on aesthetic grounds – they’re all fine, perhaps with the exception of W S O’Brien who’s just manky. But the primary aim of the project is to conserve them for the future, as highlighted by the first of the information panels to go up on the hoardings today – indeed they don’t even mention them needing to be cleaned – rather the emphasis is on conservation and protection.
The signs look very well – elegantly produced tall and narrow panels, 2–3 metres in height. They feature two pictures of the relevant monument on top and 3 parts of text underneath – one highlighting facts and figures, the second describing the monument, its features and history, and the last informing as to what the project is about and that it’s being carried out by the CC in conjunction with the OPW – this is standard on all boards. Contact details are also printed at the bottom.
Of course the second I saw them, all I wanted to do was scan for errors 😮 . And sure enough we are told that the plinth of O’Connell Monument is of granite :rolleyes:. Just knew they’d make that mistake, just knew it!
Parnell’s one is also up – all details correct, though you can’t actually read it because it faces directly onto the road – so only those with telephoto-enabled eyeballs, or those adventurous enough to risk getting clipped by a bus by going up close are able to read in comfort.
Fr Matthew is disappearing under scaffolding now.
Also the old BoI next to Clery’s is up for letting, with Lisney I think – the PP bookies plans in the mud so?
As for accessing the cupolas – what?!! :confused:
(though that would be fantastic)Yes there was at least one baronial tower on O’Cll St in its most forgotton about terrace – the 19th century mixumgatherum of Upper O’Cll St East. Here’s one barely visible on the corner with Cathedral St. Have a better pic somewhere that may also show a second – I’ll have a look round.
-
April 29, 2005 at 6:05 pm #729065
kefu
ParticipantCan anyone explain why some of Graham’s pictures won’t load up?
I’m on a super-fast connection on work so it’s not a band-width issue.
When I’m at home on broadband, they come up no problem.
Is there something I need to change in settings? -
April 29, 2005 at 6:23 pm #729066
GrahamH
ParticipantYour work server/networky thing may be set to block them.
They are quite scandalous after all…Other than that :confused:
-
April 30, 2005 at 1:56 am #729067
Anonymous
InactiveServers at work can be incredibly erratic in what they will permit and not allow, I once worked in a company that had monthly quotas of 30 minutes for entertainment of which 10 minutes was taken for each page opened so if you wanted to check what was on the box that night 20 minutes was gone. :confused:
Regarding the PP ‘sports cafe’ application, I’m not surprised that it has been abandoned given the clear nature of the refusal and the number of other potential uses for the building. I was just thinking of Habitats pending move to College Green today and it really is a sign of the shift in the retail centre northwards in recent years.
-
April 30, 2005 at 2:38 am #729068
GrahamH
ParticipantIf they could inch just that bit further across the river…
The Suffolk St building seems to be at an advanced stage judging by the few elements evident under the scaffolding.What is it with landmark ex-BoI premises? In Dundalk, exactly the same thing has happened: a bookies has moved into what is probably the third most prominent building in the town, a large Regency pile of a place. Strange coincidence.
Hopefully someone will move into the BoI on O’Cll St soon – it looks a sorry sight closed up as it is. The upper windows could do with a small bit of work too, as could the ground floor. -
May 1, 2005 at 8:53 pm #729069
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
What is it with landmark ex-BoI premises? In Dundalk, exactly the same thing has happened: a bookies has moved into what is probably the third most prominent building in the town, a large Regency pile of a place. Strange coincidence.
Maybe they think that the horrific plastic fitout will be masked by the quality facades that these bank buildings possess. A more cynical individual might say that the change of use is a transient one en-route to becoming a bar where planning is refused in the first instance. Given that many would consider a bar a slighly more desirable use than a bookies.
-
May 1, 2005 at 9:11 pm #729070
notjim
Participantisn’t the point that a bookies isn’t a change of use from a bank.
-
May 2, 2005 at 4:17 am #729071
Anonymous
Inactive@notjim wrote:
isn’t the point that a bookies isn’t a change of use from a bank.
I’m not so sure that if ‘change of use’ is properly enforced that it this particular change of use wouldn’t constitute a change of use, when one looks in any well written development plan under ‘land use zonings’ there is a comprehensive list of ‘permissable uses’ & ‘uses open for consideration’
Betting shop is simply listed as betting shop whilst banks are listed as either ‘retail bank’ or ‘financial services’ depending on the plan. There is no way that gambling could possibly constitute a financial service as 90% of the product i.e. nag and dog races are consumed upon the premises due to their short duration unlike investments and/or credit which take months if not years to mature. A good comparison would be change of use from shoe shop to chipper.
-
May 5, 2005 at 2:41 am #729072
Anonymous
InactiveHas work commenced on all the statues, or is it just the main ones?
-
May 5, 2005 at 11:59 am #729073
GrahamH
ParticipantA bit of both. Fr Mathew was started at the end of last week, while work on Larkin began just yesterday or Tuesday.
All that’s left now on O’Cll St to be covered are Sir John Grey and William Smith O’Brien – no doubt they’ll look quite strange as two giant cubes facing each other 🙂Joyce on Nth Earl St and the Sheahan Memorial have yet to be deal with. Presumably they’ll be tackled last.
Here’s an excellent project commissioned by Dublin City Council in 2003 to bring together information about the 9 monuments in the area (though Yvonne Wheelan’s work is still better :)). It’s the material in this project that was used for the information signs on the street.
http://www.dublincity.ie/Images/O’Connell%20Street%20Statues%20Survey_tcm35-10452.doc
Another perhaps dodgy fact on these signs is that Fr Matthew is of Carrera marble: it says limestone in the report as one would expect, but says marble on the street…though it is possible that he’s just manky dirty – one need only look at WSO’B after all…
It’s interesting (with the benefit of hindsight of course) to note how WSO’B doesn’t fit into the street like the other monuments do – it’s clearly evident he wasn’t designed for this location. His scale is wrong, esp compared with Sir John Grey, and the proportionately larger ‘flight’ of steps at the base is indicative of his original island location at the foot of D’Olier St.
Not that this detracts from it in any way, if anything it makes the monument much more interesting!On the subject of monuments, what about a memorial to Luke Gardiner in the last vacant plot on the street, which also happens to be the ideal location – the entrance to his Mall half way between Fr Mathew and the Spire?
Anyone know what he looked like? 🙂 -
May 5, 2005 at 12:43 pm #729074
urbanisto
ParticipantI think hes due some recognition fror his architectural legacy to the city.
Sheahan is under wraps. Can imagine that Joyce would require more than a days work.
Also the pavement at Parnell St – Cathal Brugha St is being narrows in anticipation of works to the central mall. Things are starting to move again. Any news on our new kiosk?
-
May 5, 2005 at 1:13 pm #729075
J. Seerski
ParticipantLuke Gardiner does indeed deserve recognition…
Not only did his property speculation impact on the city, but some Catholic Relief (emancipation) acts are regarded as his work – so he was not an insignificant political figure. He was also intimately associated with John Beresford – they were close allies in political, social and financial circles. With his death went all tight control of property usage in the Gardiner Estate – with long-term consequences. People think the Act of Union was responsible for the northside’s fall from grace but it is often forgotten that the Act of Union impacted on the entire city, and it was only into the 1840s did the northside stall when the southside was ever expanding.
I did a dissertation on this guy – I must publish it! 😀
-
May 5, 2005 at 1:22 pm #729076
GrahamH
ParticipantLuke II or Luke II? 🙂
Who is more deserving of recognition on O’Cll St – father for the Mall and the street he’d be standing on or son for the contribution to the city at large? -
May 5, 2005 at 2:16 pm #729077
ConK
ParticipantAnyone know where I could access Gardiners Dublin 1991, a 60 page pamhlet It was missing from 45 Merrion sq when I was there.
-
May 5, 2005 at 2:47 pm #729078
J. Seerski
ParticipantI have a copy at home but I aint giving it away! 😉 I think UCD Arch Library has a copy.
Luke 1 started Henrietta Street, Charles started Rutland Square, Luke 11 made more ambitious plans… Mountjoy Square, Royal Circus, Denmark St, Hardwicke St. etc etc….
-
May 5, 2005 at 2:47 pm #729079
Anonymous
InactiveConk, below are links to TCD and UCD library web-pages (if the direct links arent working just go to their library home pages via ucd.ie or tcd.ie and put in your search). The architecture library in UCD (as long as it is still the same) is more open to just walking in than Trinity, so would probably be a better place to try to look at it.
-
May 5, 2005 at 8:14 pm #729080
Anonymous
InactiveIt is quite amazing that one of the City’s most emminent developers/ urban Master planners; Luke Gardiner was never comemorated with a lasting memorial, the only problem now is that if a memorial were to be erected today it would more than likely be in a pastiche form.
-
May 5, 2005 at 11:46 pm #729081
GrahamH
ParticipantPerhaps a mini-Georgian on the median would be a fitting tribute 🙂
But which of the two would you commemorate – Luke I or II?
You couldn’t very well dedicate it to the second, ignoring the man who originated the street it’d be standing on!
Perhaps a monument in honour of both of them?Despite both being raving speculators, they clearly had a vision for the city, an aim to increase its standing on an international level.
-
May 6, 2005 at 2:37 am #729082
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
Despite both being raving speculators, they clearly had a vision for the city, an aim to increase its standing on an international level.
The Gardiners really were visionary in a Dublin context in that they were the first developers to plan ‘New Towns’ and not just develop individual edge settlement extensions. In a modern day context speculation really is simply prediction and there is nothing to stop speculators leaving a good legacy behind them, a simple piece of prediction would be that densities and that architectural standards will increase, in essence the perfect excuse to hold land whilst prices are rising. When one looks at places like New York and Hong Kong there have been many speculators who have left lasting monuments to their greed of incredible architectural quality.
The Gardiners should have a monument although I would feel much more comfortable with a contemporary work perhaps based on a broad site outline of the overall master plans that were executed.
-
May 7, 2005 at 3:21 am #729083
GrahamH
ParticipantYes – anywhere in the city indeed, It’s extraordinary nothing has been erected in their memory – though one could argue that one need only look around the whole Northside to see what’s still standing in their honour…
Well here’s a rough History of the Lampposts of O’ Connell Street for anyone who’s interested.
By no means is it complete, and not every date is pinned down, but it broadly covers the main schemes the street has experienced over the past 130 years. -
May 7, 2005 at 3:26 am #729084
GrahamH
Participant………………………….
-
May 7, 2005 at 3:29 am #729085
GrahamH
Participant………………………….
-
May 7, 2005 at 2:12 pm #729086
Anonymous
InactiveReally interesting.Thanks for posting that Graham. 🙂
Sorry to slightly change the subject, but in one of those photos, I saw a building I have never seen before.
I seen many old photos of Dublin before, but never seen that roof before? Does anyone have more pictures of that building?
Thanks.
-
May 7, 2005 at 4:18 pm #729087
Anonymous
Inactive@weehamster wrote:
I seen many old photos of Dublin before, but never seen that roof before? Does anyone have more pictures of that building?
WH,
That sinister looking building housed the Headquarters of the Dublin Bread Company and was lost along with many others during Easter Week 1916. There are numerous images of it available with the most interesting one being the vista from the West side of O’Connell Bridge.
Graham,
A very comprenhensive history of Dublin lighting, my personal favourite of all those posts must be the deco inspired concrete ones from 1936, it is disgraceful that the last of these has recently been removed. Whilst pastiche is desirable in particular locations it is simply not acceptable that quality 1930’s street furniture be removed to recreate something that never existed at a particular location.
-
May 7, 2005 at 5:02 pm #729088
kefu
ParticipantThere’s a pic of the Bread Company building in this thread
https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=3156&highlight=dublin+bread+company -
May 7, 2005 at 6:13 pm #729089
urbanisto
ParticipantThe Sheahan Monument on Hawkins Street has already been completed. check it out. Looks great. Someone laid a couple of wreaths to celebrate.
Great info on the heritage lighting in the city Graham. Should try and give it its own page so it is kept.
-
May 7, 2005 at 9:22 pm #729090
Morlan
Participant[Post moved]
…. -
May 7, 2005 at 10:07 pm #729091
DublinLimerick
ParticipantBeautiful pictures, Morlan.
-
May 8, 2005 at 3:58 am #729092
GrahamH
ParticipantYes – lovely pictures Morlan, you manage to capture floodlighting very well which can be quite difficult.
The seahorse ones are original Victorians from around 1875-80ish, though their lanterns are later – probably early 20th century resulting from an electric conversion.
Fleet St is a repro.
South Anne St are repros (though possibly original bases from elsewhere)
St. Stephen’s Green are repros – dating from circa 2005 :); though their grand columns are very much so Victorian – they originally featured American-style kind of collegiate-like globes atop, not unlike the OPW lamps on Green East.
South King St – repros too. Though I think they look really magnificent. They were recently painted black and the central shamrock in the head painted gold – very unusual and they give the street a unique identity.
Ah the Bread Building – how did you never see that before weehamster?! It’s pictured in every first class history book in the ‘what your street looked like in 1900’ section, or on the ‘O’Connell St in days gone by’ page 🙂
What is the name of this street?
Do you recognise the building with the pillars in the centre of the street? What is it called? What flag is flying overhead?
Ask your parents about the pillar in the middle of the street. Is it still there today?
Write a short account of your visit to the street in 1900 😀There’s two things that I find very interesting about the lampposts of O’Cll St.
One – that the swan-neck c1903 ones survived both 1916 and 1922 – extraordinary!
Presumably after 1922 is when the weird new black lamps were attached as some of the globes and fittings must have been blasted out of it – so the city overall was also done at the same time.Secondly, the fact that contrary to what is perhaps common belief, O’Connell St never had grand Victorian lampposts! It was a very simple, basic affair with just the small columns.
The trademark tall silver columns all over the city were never erected by the Victorians here – quite startling considering they went up pretty much everywhere else, yet the main street was left out!I’ve always wondered when most of these posts around the city date from – the 1870s? There’s never a word said in any books or articles as to their date – just the usual focus on their decoration, and loosely describing them as ’19th century’ etc.
The loss of the late 30s posts on College St is a disgrace. Whereas I’d support the installation of the (excellent) repro posts in areas where their effect is reinforced, and in places that they contribute to the image of the city such as around Christchurch etc as they have become such an institution, much more than just heritage pieces they’re now one of the foremost representations of the city – but to put them in in place of other historic pieces of street furniture is nothing short of a joke, whatever about the loss of the original fabric itself.
This small area of posts should have been consolidated rather than undermined 😡
A close eye will be kept on the remaining ones… -
May 9, 2005 at 12:48 am #729093
Devin
ParticipantThanks for all that Graham. I’ve got some stuff on lamps in the city myself which I shall put up soon. The quality, design and appropriateness-to-location of new lamp standards, and importance of protecting our historic lamp standards, are soo important, but, unlike buildings, lamps can often come and go without you noticing…
-
May 9, 2005 at 3:03 am #729094
Anonymous
InactiveGreat images Morlan,
I really think that Heritage lighting should have its own thread. Often on threads like O’Connell St great information tends to get buried due to the sheer quantum of different aspects disscussed. It often strikes me that some of the best threads in discussion forums can often only have three or 4 replies before the point gets nailed. 😀
-
May 9, 2005 at 3:43 am #729095
GrahamH
Participant…as opposed to 1270 🙂
Agreed about a new thread for old street lighting – by all accounts if Paul wants to move any content feel free, as long as nobody else has any objections to theirs being moved…
Originally that post started out with just the lighting of O’Connell St, but it just got bigger and bigger, and then bigger again once posted!
Dublin’s Heritage Street Lighting seems like a decent thread alright – just not ‘antique’ or something – kinda patronising to the technologies of old or something…
Or various threads for other cities’ lighting either, just that Dublin tends to swamp anything that’s non-specific.Interesting how heritage lighting and ‘heritage’ lighting mean entirely different things 😀
-
May 9, 2005 at 3:43 pm #729096
Morlan
ParticipantThanks for the feedback!
-
May 9, 2005 at 4:23 pm #729097
Anonymous
InactiveAh the Bread Building – how did you never see that before weehamster?! It’s pictured in every first class history book in the ‘what your street looked like in 1900’ section, or on the ‘O’Connell St in days gone by’ page
Wow. The front, now I remember. I have seen before, but the roof? Strange thats I have never noticed that before. How can I miss that? 😮
I can only presume its just I’ve only seen photots of it close up (not showing the roof) or of O’Connell St before and after it was built. 😮
-
May 9, 2005 at 5:42 pm #729098
Anonymous
InactiveBut what do you think of the Bread Building Weehamster, do you like it?
-
May 10, 2005 at 1:55 am #729099
JPD
ParticipantThe image above of the building in O’connell street reminds me of one of the control posts that used to be on the border.
-
May 10, 2005 at 2:16 am #729100
GrahamH
Participant😀
That’s where I’d seen it before!
Here it is before and after 1916 as pictured in the IAP – it was literally the only building left standing out of that entire terrace:
By the time 1916 come along, the Hibernian Bank was already come into possession of the building – I think they used it as their HQ – wouldn’t you?!
Also just a pic below of O’Connell Monument at its most magnificent, without its railings, but surrounded by the four splendid lamp standards. Interesting that the railings weren’t totally original to the monument, but arrived a couple of years later.
The disappearance of the four lamps was a terrible loss to the stature of the monument – they gave it a dignity and power that just isn’t there anymore. Here, in its original state, the mounument completely dominates with the lamps helping to spread its power out into the street, while now the median curtails it in a most unfortunate way.
The lamps disappeared in around 1930.Also the insert in the picture depicts a small turreted building that can be seen to the right at the juction with Sackville Place.
A correction regarding the O’Connell Bridge lamps needs to be made – their alteration did not happen in 1919 as stated, as can be seen not least in the 1916 picture above where they’re already altered! It occured somewhere between 1900 and 1916.
The 1919 date is from an official City Council document, but is clearly incorrect 😮 -
May 10, 2005 at 2:19 am #729101
Anonymous
InactiveThose lamps are fantastic
-
May 10, 2005 at 2:21 am #729102
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
😀
That’s where I’d seen it before!
Here it is before and after 1916 as pictured in the IAP – it was literally the only building left standing out of that entire terrace:
By the time 1916 come along, the Hibernian Bank was already come into possession of the building – I think they used it as their HQ – wouldn’t you?!
Also just a pic below of O’Connell Monument at its most magnificent, without its railings, but surrounded by the four splendid lamp standards. Interesting that the railings weren’t totally original to the monument, but arrived a couple of years later.
The disappearance of the four lamps was a terrible loss to the stature of the monument – they gave it a dignity and power that just isn’t there anymore. Here, in its original state, the mounument completely dominates with the lamps helping to spread its power out into the street, while now the median curtails it in a most unfortunate way.
The lamps disappeared in around 1930.Also the insert in the picture depicts a small turreted building that can be seen to the right at the juction with Sackville Place.
A correction regarding the O’Connell Bridge lamps needs to be made – their alteration did not happen in 1919 as stated, as can be seen not least in the 1916 picture above where they’re already altered! It occured somewhere between 1900 and 1916.
The 1919 date is from an official City Council document, but is clearly incorrect 😮New page 😮
If there was ever a correct time to indulge in pastiche lighting it must be to replace those lamps around the O’Connell monument.
-
May 10, 2005 at 1:14 pm #729103
Rory W
Participant@Thomond Park wrote:
New page 😮
If there was ever a correct time to indulge in pastiche lighting it must be to replace those lamps around the O’Connell monument.
Not at this stage, would look completely out of character with the rest of the street now. Perhaps a contemporary interpretation of the lamps though
-
May 10, 2005 at 5:19 pm #729104
Anonymous
InactiveI think you could get away with four of them at each corner of the monument as they would appear to be part of the monument’s curtilage as opposed to free-standing lamps. I totally agree on the need for contemporary lighting on the rest of the Street as it is best to have a lighting scheme as unified as is possible.
-
May 11, 2005 at 1:09 am #729105
GrahamH
ParticipantI think a contemporary interpretation of the posts would be inappropriate – already there is too much clutter; at least if the original designs were reinserted they would clearly demarcate themselves from the rest of the post-mania behind; the eye associating them with the Monument rather than the street at large.
Though I must admit there is something a little strange about putting in replica posts, i.e. the fact that these would be as new as the contemporary ones going in a few metres away!
They were very much so an integral part of the monument’s design orginally, they were the exact height of the lower third of the structure, being capped off just as the second third begins really establishing it into the street. But nowadays would it be inappropriate to have such dominant features of the streetscape as replicas?
Then again, if the statue of O’Connell or any of its other fatures for whatever reason disappeared or got damaged over the years it would be replaced without hesitation as part of the IAP/HARP projects…Unfortunately either way, as things stand there is simple no space for them to go in – they’d complelely block the narrow pieces of pavement either side of the monument.
It is a pity that despite all of the progress that is happening on the street, presumably what was the very cause of the posts’ removal in the first place is still preventing them from going back – traffic. -
May 11, 2005 at 4:11 am #729106
Anonymous
Inactive@Archiseek news wrote:
Caherciveen launches appeal to save church named after O’Connell
Archiseek / Ireland / News / 2005 / April 29
The Irish TimesThe “only church in Christendom” to be named after a lay person is falling down. The Daniel O’Connell Memorial Church, named after the liberator who was born at Carhan, Caherciveen, Co Kerry, in 1775 will need a €5 million restoration programme if it is to be saved, a meeting in Caherciveen, has heard. It was “no ordinary church”, said Leonard Hurley, one of those leading the restoration programme. Papal approval had to be sought for the building and in the late 1870s, Pope Leo XIII not only approved but presented a block of marble from the catacombs in Rome, to serve as a foundation stone. A recent report by a team of architects and engineers had outlined several works including the need to re-point all the granite stonework, to repair the windows and erect rainwater guttering.
In no way can O’Connell’s contribution to Irish History be underestimated it is in that regard that it may be appropriate to view the lighting of this monument of World importance in a manner befitting the age of its construction.
-
May 11, 2005 at 9:35 am #729107
GregF
ParticipantThis is a great shame. O’Connell could be viewed in the same light as Parnell and the present day John Hume…..negotiating for Ireland and the Irish using peaceful methods. Don’t think other countries would do the same regarding their patriotic historical heroes.
(Good to see the plaque unveiled last week to ”The O’ Rahilly” of 1916, on the wall just off Moore Street. Looks very much of the time too).
Regarding the replacement of the O’Connell statue lighting, should the railings that was once there be replaced too in that case?
-
May 11, 2005 at 5:15 pm #729108
Anonymous
InactiveWhen were the railings removed?
-
May 12, 2005 at 1:38 am #729109
GrahamH
ParticipantScandalously very recently – not in the depths of the dark 60s as one might expect, but in the heritage decade itself – at least 1980, if not later: possibly when the median was unified in the latter part of the decade.
It would be a scandal indeed if they disappeared as part of the heritage-fuelled Millenium project for the street – saying that there’s little point in jumping to conclusions, and as I’ve no photographic evidence the assertion ought not be pressed.
If anyone has pictures from dates in the 80s that would be great.Good point about the question of reinserting the railings; they were a highly attractive piece of street furniture:
To be honest I think it looks better without them, though saying that – only in the case of the deserted street of old where the steps majestically rise out of the ground. In the modern context they could look very well ‘protecting’ the monument from the traffic and all that’s going on around – also the Monument at the moment has a big problem with being constantly soiled with all types of matter, a lot unmentionable – no doubt why the railings went up in the first instance.
All considering, I’d probably go for no railings today, as the monument I think can be said looks at least equally well without them as with them. Considering they weren’t totally orginal to the structure, and in an effort to reduce the replica burden on the monument where something isn’t totally necessary, I think it’d be best that they be left as yet another piece of lost street furniture.
Though again, considering it was the 80s, it’s very likely they’re still kicking around somewhere…
-
May 12, 2005 at 1:44 am #729110
Anonymous
InactiveThe rilings seem to have had a short life as they are not in the original photo and not there today.
The second image is very interesting catching not only base of the monument but more importantly the people of the time, at a guess I would say c 1900?
-
May 12, 2005 at 1:52 am #729111
GrahamH
Participant1897 to be precise – sheesh, you mean you can’t even tell from the cut of their coat tails TP?! 🙂
The railings had quite a long life – as you say they’re here in c1900, and are probably earlier: so they went in not too long after completion in 1882, and lasted up till 1980 or so.
-
May 12, 2005 at 1:58 am #729112
Anonymous
InactiveI think they should be re-instated if for no other reason than to keep drunks away from the base of the monument. When one looks at the number of tourists that have their photo taken at the spire and compare it with the number that did the same when there was access to the O’Connell monument. The O’Connell monument would be a better backdrop for a photo as it is at a much more person freindly scale.
I was at an exhibition of extracts from DCC traffic Cameras a few years ago showing some of the funnier and seedier passages of tape accumulted over the years. The one in question was two vagrants having intercourse on the bench in front of the O’Connell Monument at 3pm on a summers day. A situation that should never be allowed to happen again, re-instating the railings and lamps would give the monument a decent enclosure and frame it to allow it receive the type of attention it deserves.
There is also a very nice bow at the base of those railings, almost an arts and crafts influence on what could be considerd a political-religious monument, most unusual for its time.
-
May 12, 2005 at 2:16 am #729113
GrahamH
ParticipantDon’t they – very Gardineresque too…
Well putting railings up aren’t going to stop such ‘activities’ either! :). Are you sure this was a public exhibition TP?!!
I have a funny Iveagh Gardens story but I won’t go into details – only to say that this involved um – ‘lady friends’ – yes, that’ll do…It would be nice to have the whole ensemble restored if it looked right in the modern context – still a bit wary about having so much replica stuff about, but if the whole was to be restored it certainly would be above your average pastiche debate – this is a monument to a national figure here which ought to be restored to its orginal state – there is a moral element here moreso than other situations.
I have never been able to understand why these railings were removed at such a late statge – what the heck were the Corporation thinking?! Their removal had absolutely no purpose save having to paint them every five years and the effort of scooping out the odd piece of litter (which was only to be replaced with another problem) – really a disgraceful move. -
May 12, 2005 at 3:22 am #729114
Devin
ParticipantI think a stepped plinth like that of the O’C Mon. needs to run into an area of flat ground…
-
May 12, 2005 at 9:20 am #729115
GregF
ParticipantPity that they ever tampered with the statue in the first place. Why oh why is this always so here in Ireland. Could they just not leave it well alone.There is hardly anything in the country whether it be statue, building, park or street that has’nt been meddled with in some way. In almost all instances something is always subtracted rather than added.
-
May 12, 2005 at 3:28 pm #729116
Anonymous
InactiveI agree it always seems easier to remove elements of a structure for various reasons such as insurance, expanded clearance etc. It would not cost a lot of money to restore the monument to its original state although one wonders if the will is there given the atttitude of the City Architects office towards Grattan Bridge and the fact that the lighting department are outside the loop.
Graham re the exhibition it was 8in the Dublin Photography Something on Camden St back in 2000, it was one of the best exhibitions I was ever at, with years of video to choose from it wasn’t difficult to catch the sad and the bad and even the mad.
GregF congrats on your 1000th post 🙂
-
May 12, 2005 at 4:20 pm #729117
jimg
ParticipantPity that they ever tampered with the statue in the first place.
Ya. Sometimes I wonder whether future generations will view current development in Dublin as being any more enlightened than that of the post-war heyday of destroying the Georgian fabric of Dublin. It’s obvious there’s more money sloshing around now and there seems to be more effort put into things but there’s still an “out with the old, in with the new” attitude to developing the civic infrastructure in Dublin.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big proponent of modern architecture and am in favour of much higher buildings in Dublin. But I don’t see the point of replacing old “stuff” with new “stuff” just for the sake of it. Grattan Bridge, that old park beside Jervis Street, etc. are typical.
As far as I’m concerned, the city architects/planners should seperately consider function from style. If some “old” feature has a functional problem, then by all means address it – even if this will damage it (for example adding wheelchair access). However stylistic changes, which in many cases adversely affect the function, should be avoided completely. It’s not the city architects job to decide what period elements are unfashionable. If history has thought us anything, it should be that fashions change (often very rapidly) and destroying anything of architectural significance for the sake of contempory fashion is almost always seen as a mistake in hindsight. Medieval, Georgian, Victorian, Edwardian styles all went though periods of being unfashionable. By all means, express contempory modern tastes in NEW development but don’t f*ck with older stuff just to make stylistic changes.
-
May 12, 2005 at 5:43 pm #729118
Anonymous
InactiveI totally agree,
and some of the re-modeling jobs done recently on some 1960-70’s office buildings would make you want to cry in particular Goldsmith House on Pearse St, the elevation on that one was possibly the best of its generation. What replaced it could only be descibed as architecture by numbers even if the materials used were expensive.
I agree re Wolfe Tone Park it would have been a reasonably decent effort if it were starting from scratch but given the railings that were removed it was a real waste of public funds to spend that sum of money when a decent landscaping would have yielded at least an equal result.
-
May 13, 2005 at 3:26 am #729119
GrahamH
ParticipantIf not better – what a lovely breathing space it could have been for that whole area.
Changing things for the sake of the new is something that is widespread in Ireland today and by no means just limited to public bodies or private companies. Unfortunately it’s what’s fuelling so much in contruction at the minute, particularly poorly designed bog standard housing; the allure of the new hides everything until five/ten/fifteen years down the line and only then it’s realised that ‘today’ or ‘now’ is no better than any other time – things go in and out of fashion as ever.
Agreed that O’Connell Monument needs to rise out of the ground, in which instance I think it’d look better without the railings judging by that earlier pic. But in the current situation they could look very well.
Surely they’re kicking around somewhere in a CC yard or in use surrounding a flowerbed in a park somewhere – it seems highly unlikely they would’ve been dumped or sold on – they would have come in handy for a twee use in a public garden somewhere. The Corpo hadly sold on the O’Connell Monument railings – would they…?Here’s some pics of the newly restored, slightly shell-shocked looking Sheahan Memorial. It was in shadow at the time so I had to focus on details. It seems just a cleaning and weather treatment job was done, leaving minor damage as it was.There’s a pic at the bottom too:
Reigned in by the authorities yet again – Larkin looks like he’s ready to explode with rage 😮
Also a pic here of two of the information signs gone up on the hoardings (sorry about quality):
-
May 14, 2005 at 12:24 am #729120
Anonymous
InactiveI had a look at Larkin today and it would appear that his great hands are almost spilling over the scaffolding, he didn’t look happy at his temporary incarceration right enough :p
Re: The O’Connell Monument it would appear that with persistent road widening there simply isn’t the space to re-instate the railings. The monument is going to effectively sever the central median from the bridge and it would appear that DCC are happier to widen both side paths as opposed to allow the median continue onto the bridge, which I can understand at present given the safety implications of the HGV usage on the Quays but I feel that in the post Port Tunnel environment that this should be re-examined.
-
May 14, 2005 at 3:46 am #729121
GrahamH
ParticipantWhat’s annoyed me for a long time is not just the removal of the railings, but also the insertion of a completely inappropriate type of limestone as a replacement for the step that used to be behind them – now the very bottom one:
It is blue limestone while the orginal stone is a yellowish grey. I’m sure everyone’s noticed this, not to mention how horrible it looks worn down and shiny and often covered in sticky filth. This should be replaced in the conservation works with a matched stone.
The Monument now only has three steps out of the original four – the railings were sited on the bottom one, now gone. Also the orginal second step that has been crudely replaced is much stouter than the previous broad step, hence the flight up is steeper than before resulting in a certain loss of grace overall, esp as a result of the loss of the bottom one altogether.
Interesting concept of linking the bridge median with the street – though I think that a clear boundary should be set between the two spaces – something that O’Connell Monument does so well at the minute.
Even with the trucks gone though, would it be possible?
From a pedestrian view it is certainly desirable. -
May 14, 2005 at 2:37 pm #729122
Anonymous
InactiveThat is a pretty crude piece of work and it certainly is not appropriate to a monument of this stature and should be reversed with more sympathetic materials. The central median could be used a lot more effectively than at present with a few minor modifications with the monument not being the only obstruction that renders the median ineffective as a thoroughfare. The location of the bicycle parking and unauthorised motorbike parking must also be addressed if the area is to develop in accordance with the original plan. Widening the central median at the monument would be the perfect start.
-
May 15, 2005 at 9:28 am #729123
J. Seerski
ParticipantYes – maintaining the median seems to be pointless given the present situation of having bikes strewn everywhere – very inappropriate to have this placed on a part of the street they hope to provide with kiosks!
I dont recall any montages of the new median being used as a cycle park in the regeneration plan for O’Connell Street. A few posts back, some mentioned the proliferation of street clutter in the city centre, obscuring many fine public spaces – this must surely rank as the worst and most inappropriate.
Why were the side streets not used for parking bicycles – surely there is adequate space on Parnell Square, Abbey Street, Pearse Street etc.
Can I ask what is the point of having the median maintained? If the idea was to maintain an alternative pedestrian route through the street (which I’m sure it was) then whoever put these bike railings in has messed the whole concept up. I used to walk the median frequently in the old days (1997 lol) and it was then one of the few joys on the street to complete the stretch with minimum obstruction. The new stretch has so many obstructions (and is narrower) that I couldn’t be bothered negotiating it any more.
It is sad to see the opportunity to improve the street already make some stupid mistakes – though compared to its treatment in the past, at least the street is getting some attention.
On Upper O’Connel Street they have removed the old granite kerbing and are reducing the width of the paths. Where has the granite ended up!!!!!! Please let it not be an Irish Bar…. :confused:
And as part of the plan has been completed, I think its possible now to give a critical judgement on it. The standard of the work is very impressive, however I get an entire temporary feel to the works (ie many features will be gone in 10 years). The granite, limestone and marble paths are well finished but I am puzzeled as to why the path sizes are wholly inconsistent – again an example of cars taking precedence over design and indeed pedestrians.
Im sorry guys but I dislike the new lamps a lot – they are crude and generally unsuited to the street. Why the need for ultra modern lighting on a largely neo-classical street? The clash is truly awful. And before anyone goes anti-pastiche, why did the council think it appropriate to replace all the lamps on stephens green with victorian replicas and not do the same on OC Street? Perhaps because they new it would look awful around the green and did the right thing. Pity the same judgement was not exercised on OC St.The new bland and boring lamps are more suited to an obscure dual carriageway heading to monotonous suburbia than a city’s main thouroughfare. One word: Tacky.
To DCC’s credit, the general feel of the street is imroving. It appears less menacing than, say, five years ago. The formal square around the GPO has an almost genteel feel to it. This part – free from clutter, quality materials – and well lit (lamposts apart 😉 ) is a fine example of urban design gone right. I note the usage of buildings has changed somewhat from that of the late ninties, though the fast food outlets and the amusement acardes persist. Some private companies have been lavish in their redevelopment of their buildings (Clerys, the Gresham, Bests would be good examples) but some are still awful – burger joints aside, the RDH, the Centras, Spars, Quirkeys etc etc have done little or nothing to improve there look – then again they would probably improve the street by closing down!
Overall, the street is getting better – and maintained to a better degree than before. But some problems still persist, and some new design features are inappropriate. Perhaps when they finish the rest of the street they will begin to correct the errors of the first phase… :rolleyes:
-
May 15, 2005 at 8:06 pm #729124
GrahamH
ParticipantAgreed that it is important to acknowledge the quality of the works executed – and yes the plaza is really magnificent, especially now in the summer sun; the limes look fantastic!
…which really confirms for me what a disaster it has been not to have used them on the median, or indeed any regular planting scheme. It has been such a cop-out to go for the ‘intimate’ or ‘varied’ or whatever they’re calling it scheme of sextets of trees.
The entire the street has been almost ‘plazafied’ as a result, not just the area outside the GPO.
To see how magnificently the limes define the Plaza, not to mention how good they look in their own right makes it such a crying shame to be able to see the scheme that could have been for the street at large 🙁Regarding the maintenance of the median, it’s difficult to envisage an alternative layout given the monuments on the street and how traffic and pedestrians would interact if the median was removed, and indeed what would replace it. No doubt all options were considered at the planning stage and this was decided as the best or at least most workable of layouts.
But certainly agreed it is nothing short of redundant in places with the bicycle parking there; it is ridiculous, not only making the area hostile to pedestrians as a route, but also contributing in a major way to the already undesirable clutter of the space. And whatever about the bicycles, the motorbikes are just a joke.
I walk down this median stretch almost every day – it is ludicrous that the only space for pedestrians to get by behind Sir John Grey there is at times a mere two feet of pavement – essentially the kerbline – either side of the parked bikes in an effort to continue on to the Abbey St junction.
The amount of people walking down in this direction that cross over to the side pavements before even reaching the bikes is notable.Fundamentally with the median the case for retention other than the monument aspect has two elements to it, i.e. the median should be retained firstly to define the linear nature of the street, and secondly to provide an alternative, not to mention more relaxed and pleasant route for pedestrians. As I see it the first case has not been fulfilled at all, while the second only in part.
Regarding the median lampposts – never liked them since the moment they went in, both their design which is seen in every ‘cool’ urban development in the city, not to mention Western Europe, and more importantly their number: there’s a set of two every 15 paces! Combined with the mixture of trees, traffic poles, Luas sign poles and everything else that is going on, it’s just busy busy busy. The coherence of the median, the purpose of the median, is swallowed up.
To use pastiche lighting on a large scale on the street I think would have been a complete cop-out though – modern street furniture is generally highly compatible with older environments, unlike what one may think about using the form with buildings, in most cases furniture is detached from the buildings around quite unlike any other form of structure.
But I agree about the new tall posts; first and foremost if you take them out of their environment and view them objectively as pieces of design, they fall flat on their faces. Unlike other lampposts that have graced the street, whether they be the first 1892 electric posts, the Celtic-influenced 1903ish ones, or the grand modern Art Deco posts, they all held up in their own right – these new ones don’t. They’re functional and crude, doing two jobs in one – although I think the domed heads are well-designed as said before.
Whereas I wouldn’t like to see pastiche lighting on the street, posts that were broadly classical in nature, i.e. simple but elegant should have been used, something Edwardian design successfully managed by combining classicism with modern influences. Posts that look well on their own as well as in a team marching down the street should have been used – as have always been used on O’Connell St in modern times.
Also I hate those gimmicky sign yokes attached to the lampposts – just a personal thing suppose – but I really detest them – and they’re popping up in every town and village in the country! I think they’re particularly inappropriate for the capital’s main street though – think they look naff 😮Some good points – gasp there’s good points graham? 😮 🙂 – the quality of works has been superb, both the materials and the craftsmanship.
Also the levels of maintenance have shot through the roof – from litter cleaning, to emptying of bins, to polishing of bins, to replacement of trees, to tweaking of traffic lights, to road and pavement cleansing and sweeping – really superb. The newly completed end is being kept in pristine condition.Also late at night the street feels a million time safer than before, open and spacious, brightly lit in white light and so much more inviting than before. This was a major aim of the IAP and it has been hugely successful I think.
(though just one point about the plaza lighting – the lamps at the top for some strange reason are not directed into the centre of the plaza – rather pointed just below around the area of the posts themselves. They need to be tweaked tol ight the median of the plaza also – very surprising considering this is the whole purpose of them!)What do you mean J. Seerski about the pavaemnt sizes being inconsistant? Regarding the granite kerbstones, presumably they’re being restored and kept ofr other uses. By now the CC are well aware of their value across the city – not every removal has negative intentions behind it anymore!
-
May 15, 2005 at 11:31 pm #729125
Jack White
ParticipantSo the median is a failure as I suspected recently myself. How much public money has been wasted on this paving fiasco?
-
May 16, 2005 at 10:42 am #729126
Anonymous
InactiveJack,
I wouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, yes the median could perform a lot better but I wouldn’t say it is a fiasco as all of the errors are reversable with minimum capital outlay. An example of this would be to remove the bicycle parking stands that are so well illustrated in Graham’s photo and to remove them to their original positions on Abbey St and Cathal Brugha St. I also agree with our resident planning freak that the placing of the kiosks and their functioning must be the number one priority for the median.
-
May 16, 2005 at 10:57 am #729127
GregF
ParticipantWould be good too if they removed that large unslightly concrete cube from this part of the median too. Dunno what its there for.
-
May 16, 2005 at 12:02 pm #729128
Anonymous
InactiveThe box is connected in some way with the Luas I read somewhere on Platform11, why it was put here raises questions given the number of alternative locations that would have been available.
-
May 16, 2005 at 12:31 pm #729129
GregF
ParticipantAye …..probably connected to the LUAS electrics. Could be camouflaged by dressing it up as a plinth for another statue.
-
May 16, 2005 at 12:32 pm #729130
Frank Taylor
ParticipantCould they dig a hole and drop the box in? Or disguise it as something else?
-
May 16, 2005 at 12:59 pm #729131
urbanisto
ParticipantThe substation will be camouflaged by being incorporated into a kiosk planned for this location. Two more kiosks are meant to go in this summer outside Easons and Permanet TSB.
I think the bicycle parking issue on the street needs to be dealt with. Its getting out of hand. Leaving aside the fact that the original thinking behind the plan was to remove all ‘services’ on the street the median thereby leaving the side pavements free for people, the fact that so many biks stands are provided and allowed is as someone mentioned the worst form of visual clutter.
I was thinking of what a lost opportunity the Luas works on Abbey St were to reinvent the street. It now looks so windswept and bare – not even enough traffic! A move pedestrain centred scheme here, with lots of planting could also have incorportated bike stands that would lessen the demand on OC st.
-
May 16, 2005 at 1:03 pm #729132
Anonymous
Inactive@StephenC wrote:
I was thinking of what a lost opportunity the Luas works on Abbey St were to reinvent the street. It now looks so windswept and bare – not even enough traffic! A move pedestrain centred scheme here, with lots of planting could also have incorportated bike stands that would lessen the demand on OC st.
Good points. It does look very bare. Would you suggest to widen out the footpath further here to provide bike parking?
-
May 16, 2005 at 1:10 pm #729133
Anonymous
InactiveI agree Middle Abbey St is a very dull urban space and is almost eerie in the evenings, landscaping would be a good start. It would be an interesting experiment to see how much neighbouring streets could benefit from the O’Connell St spillover
-
May 16, 2005 at 6:16 pm #729134
GrahamH
ParticipantYes eerie is an appropriate description, including the daylight hours! It is a most bizzare place now: not a main street, but not a secondary one either, located just off a major thoroughfare yet recieves little to no traffic. It’s more of a leftover space than a street.
It’s in a prime loaction yet there’s absolutely nothing on it – including people! Do you ever get the feeling walking along here that everyone’s very hushed and slightly nervous cause the street just feels so silent and weird?!
Agreed about the Luas works not finishing the place off properly; whereas the lack of traffic is great – it’s now one of the most pedestrian friendly streets in the city – some landscaping is badly needed. Not to go on about the linear thing again, but considering there’s no breaks on Middle Abbey St at all save the Arnotts car park, a very impressive avenue of trees could be planted here that’d really look fantastic.
Something along the lines of the beautiful species of tree on Talbot St of all places – anyone see them?
They probably get mostly ignored due to people walking with their heads down along here for obvious reasons :), but they’re very attractive, esp when ‘leafing’ if there’s such a word, in spring.
I’m sure Peter knows what they are…:Regarding O’Connell St, agreed about the median not being a fiasco. From a functional perspective it’s simply the bikes that are causing the problem – get rid of them and all is solved in that respect, though considering the attention to detail in the manner they were put down it seems they’re permanent… The fact as J. Serski pointed out that the median is now narrower than the old does not help either in fitting the bike parks in, whatever about the appearance.
Abbey St should be able to absorb a lot, as well as Cathal Brugha St for the northern end.It’s a pity the Luas sub-station could not have been sunk; its sheer scale is going to significantly bulk out what is supposed to be a simple kiosk, not a dominant structure. Judging by the pictures though it will be finished off very well.
And just on the sinking of services, why was this 80s signal box dumped back down from space into the middle of the Eason’s pavement?! -
May 16, 2005 at 11:10 pm #729135
J. Seerski
ParticipantI think the point is missed though – the corporation has had EIGHT years to perfect the O’Connell Street rejuvination yet not only has it been incoherent in places but is also less than half finished! I was 18 when the programme for rejuvination was launched, still sipping coffee in Hilpers in UCD. Now, no hilpers, a degree, a postgrad and five years working (!) eight years later, O’Connell Street is still only just partially finished and many critical elements – shopfronts, shop usage, the Carlton Centre etc. are in the same sorry state as 1997.
I am positive that things are improving, but at an infirm snail’s pace.
Dubin Corporation should be lauded when things go right. In this case they should be berated. This project could have been completed in a year and I will probably be facing retirement before I see the last peice of granite set on the pavement. I fear to ask how much the project has costed so far. For God’s sake lads, massive shopping centres, housing estates, skyscrapers etc etc etc are finished within a year – this repavement of one street has gone on long enough. 😡
-
May 17, 2005 at 12:25 am #729136
JPD
ParticipantThat is a very clear view of it, 7 years for a paving job does sound a little much.
-
May 17, 2005 at 1:03 am #729137
asdasd
ParticipantI believe that there were tree huggers involved, no? All Irish projects take so long because of the large amount of time spent on public consultations, and displays, and feedback – none of which stops objectors making objections at the last minute or chaining themselve to trees.
About a year , or so, ago the average person in the street thought that the corpo was vandalising trees in O’Connell street and was vehemently opposed to that sort of thing. The spire had strong opposition too. People are marching even now to keep ruined victorian baths in Dun Laoighre safe from modernity.
I would not just blame the authorities.
-
May 17, 2005 at 1:34 am #729138
GrahamH
ParticipantA year for repaving is pushing it, not least considering it’s much more than just a paving job, but certainly two-three years is not an unreasonable expectation. The pace has been exceptionally slow considering less than half has been completed in that time alone – remembering that the south-eastern section has yet to be dealt with in any form. The time taken thus far would not be so disagreeable were it not for the six year delay it took to get physical work started on the street in the first instance, as has been said so many times by so many people. And this in turn after proposals since the 1980s to get something done about the street!
To reminisce also – I remember standing under the vast canopy of the lower median trees next to a mock-Victorian iron seat in freezing November of 2002 and thinking of how amazing O’Connell St was going to look upon completion in a few years time.
It was impossible to imagine the thoroughfare without the trees – what it would look like minus their canopy, without the trademark heritage lampposts, without the traditional seating, without the red brick-edged wide median, without the man who used to always sit on the seat opposite Eason’s.
It was exciting that O’Connell St was going to be cleared out of mismatched elements and a cohesive scheme for the whole street, the whole street, was to be constructed from scratch.The plaza element has materialised as expected, and hugely successfully save perhaps its median area being a bit strange.
The side pavements have materialised as planned, again very successful.
The quality of the works promised has materialised, the attention to detail superb: for example the way the paving elegantly slopes down at crossings to meet the road level as if lightly pressed down like modelling clay – really exquisitely executed.
The exposure of the monuments has materialised to great effect – now once again central features of the street.
What has not materialised, what as I and most people I know were most impressed about was the Champs Elysées-like order intended for the thoroughfare – the bold, radical even, but nonetheless simple planting arrangement for the median space.
Likewise the street’s symmetry has been diluted with granite paving spilling over for no reason from the plaza onto the roadway, and the plaza into the median-proper due to a lack of tree definition.The very first aim of tree use on the street that the IAP sets out is to ‘create a high level of spatial definition’.
It also states at the outset of the Public Domain section ‘How often have we witnessed…street-planting which is inappropriate to its location, all contributing to a feeling of clutter and over-design on an ad hoc and unintegrated basis.’Also: ‘A properly constituted strategy for the creation of a visually cohesive and coherent public domain will be based on the identification of precise needs for each component of the urban fabric…’
Unfortunately it doesn’t identify the layout and form of the street as a one of them 🙁Of course most of this is entirely subjective; one person’s cohesiveness is another’s chaos – and yes the ordered symmetry has materialised with the side pavement trees, but the median ones just dilute their impact to a degree that is detrimental to the cohesive design intended. I feel the street very simply is too narrow and too fragmented, especially the lower end, to accommodate so much variation.
-
May 17, 2005 at 11:02 am #729139
Anonymous
InactiveIn fairness to the O’Connell St planners they never sanctioned a 10 storey building like the Dun Laoghaire plan envisages for what are both sensitive locations. I agree with Graham that it is unfair to point to tree-huggers given that the section of the Street with the trees hasn’t even been touched and that the remainder of the Street without trees has taken the best part of a decade to partially complete.
I think that we are getting a lot closer to the source of the problem when one considers a comparison with some of the great Parisian boulevards and the unified design of these and the lack of cohesion in the O’Connell St proposal. It is an obvious reality that space is at an absolute premium in O’Connell St and that the designers had a very simple choice on how to use that space, my problem is that I feel that in some sections too much space was used widening the side pavements and not enough on the central median.
The meagre allocation has been further compounded by the inappropriate siting of non-essential items such as the bicycle parking and a luas transformer. Mistakes that could have been avoided with just a little thought and a little co-ordination.
You can blame incidents like objections to the Spire and the delays to the Carlton project for a certain amount of delay in very specific sections of the Street but these excuses can only be relied upon for a very small proportion of the problem.
-
May 17, 2005 at 8:45 pm #729140
Jack White
ParticipantBut are they going to sort the mess out or has the money been wasted?
-
May 17, 2005 at 10:19 pm #729141
Anonymous
InactiveWasting public money is a national sport in this Country, thankfully removing the bicycle stands and incorporating the luas transformer into a kiosk could be easily acheived at a pretty minimal cost. It does raise the point on why this grand plan doesn’t have some mechanism like a mid-term review where minor glitches could be ironed out.
Graham the images of Talbot St are great, that end of the street has come along nicely from the scene of total dereliction it was just a few short years ago. The trees have really added to the sense of place and the monument is really well done giving an appropriate sense of dignity for the victims of 31 years ago to this day.
-
May 18, 2005 at 12:13 am #729142
GrahamH
ParticipantIsn’t it – a poignant reminder to pass every day. Just a pity about the inevitable bunches of flowers smothered in disgusting plastic that are often laid at its base. I can never understand how people can leave such muck, often wrapped in reams of sellotape at the scenes of disasters, accidents or memorials; such materials are an affront to dignity.
And these personal affectations assume the role monuments are built for; they ought to be restricted to the annual laying of wreaths and floral tributes – of course being mindful of what it means to people, but it is in the common interest to adhere to such a policy.On O’Connell St I think it’s important not to let comparitively niggly issues like the bicycles get the the way of what has broadly been a successful scheme thus far – though just on the issue of the sub-station I do think its placement in that location broadly highlights the esteem in which the median space on the street is now being held.
There is no way in a million years such a feature, regardless of how it was to be ‘decorated’, would have been allowed on the median in the 1910s & 1920s reconstruction, or the 19th century for that matter – directly behind O’Connell Monument. No way.
It’s just that the myriad of poles and trees and bikes and bollards here has ‘urbanised’ or cluttered the space to such a degree that its alien presence won’t be noticed nearly as much – they ‘cover for it’ as it were.If you want to see a comparison between the new and old widths of the median go up to Upper O’Cll St just opposite the Royal Dublin Hotel. The new median footprint has been outlined in red spray-paint on the existing median; it’s interesting to note the different scales – the new version being reduced in size by 2.5 – 3 feet on each side, overall a reduction of just under 6 feet it would seem.
In light of this one wonders as to the wasted space given over to the cycle path on the inside lane of the new western carriageway – it is rarely availed of as few cyclists are stupid enough to put their life in their hands using it. -
May 18, 2005 at 12:29 am #729143
Anonymous
InactiveI totally agree on the cycle lane being under-utilised. I feel that this could all change if the Council ban private cars from the Street as the main hazard would then become buses and on the inside lane you would be protected from buses stopping suddenly to allow passengers on or off,
Re: The bicycle parking and the sub-station, I think that these two elements are symptomatic of a much larger problem, I don’t think that the designers fully considered just how tight space is in O’Connell St; if four lanes of traffic and three pedestrian spaces are to be accomodated. Something has got to give and I am sceptical of the ability of the kiosks to perform well if the space isn’t there for the ancilliary tables and chairs. Good cafes at these locations could be the making of this urban space giving the City something distinctive, ultra-modern in a historical setting.
I noticed today that the scaffolding is down from the Larkin statue and it looks really well, the granite has come up really well and the colour of the statue has been preserved well, hopefully this is an indication of what is to follow.
-
May 18, 2005 at 3:01 pm #729144
urbanisto
ParticipantTheobald Matthew is white! Its quite a remarkable transformation.
This is an interesting appraisal of success of the redevelopment to date. I would also question why on earth it is taking so long to complete. Things are only finally beginning to happen on Upper OC St . I heard Dick Gleeson remarking that the works to date had all been completed without the promised funding from DOEHLG. Dick Roche can talk the talk but not wlak the walk it seems.
I think most elements of the street have been very successful and the widened pavemnets alone are an excellent innovation for the street. The trees will mature in a few years and the street will begin to really take shape. What will be passed on (hopefully) is a legacy the same way the widened Sackville Street was a legacy from its time. Its also very hard to make a judgement on the street until its all completed. I was just thinking how different again the Spire will look once the paving and tree planting on the other side is completed.
Its also worth remembering that most of the buildings are in private hands and that the CC is depending on owners to fuind their renovation.
What I do think is terrible is the timescale this is being played out over. Side streets like Malborough (the worst in the city?) Sackvill Place, Cathedral Street and, as I said earlier, Abbey Street all remain to have even a sniff of the IAP. Works here would be reletavely minor. Improved paving (doesnt have to be expensive granite) , street resurfacing for Malb. (much needed), some trees planting and a unified lighting scheme could be put in place within a few months, A targeted incentive programme for derelict sites would do wonders in a city taht will soon be crying out for development sites.
-
May 18, 2005 at 9:55 pm #729145
Anonymous
InactiveIt is very true that central sites are getting rarer by the day and it is equally true that Marlborough St is the most under-performing street in all of Central Dublin. This is an utter disgrace when you consider that this Street contains
1> The Cathedral of the majority religion.
2> The National Theatre
3> The Planning Appeals Board
4> The Headquarters of the Department of Education.
5> The most important Tourism and hospitality College in the CountryIt is not a very hospitable place unfortunately and this Street should be one of Dublins best given its location and strategically important occupiers, what really galls me is the dreadful multi-storey car-park that received tax incentives for what has only served to deteriorate the setting still further. There is a very fine terrace of Georgians between DIT and the Cathedral that many of are in terrible condition and no intervention is made whilst a house in poor condition in Upper Leeson St was CPO’d earlier this year. Unfortunately it would appear that this Street does not exist in the eyes of certain people and like Cathedral Street and Sackville Place it has been left to rot.
Re; O’Connell St, The banner has now gone from above cafe Kylemore, McDonalds on Upper O’Connell St has bush sized weeds growing on its gable and yes Theobald Matthew is very white.
-
May 18, 2005 at 10:04 pm #729146
Anonymous
Inactive@StephenC wrote:
Things are only finally beginning to happen on Upper OC St . I heard Dick Gleeson remarking that the works to date had all been completed without the promised funding from DOEHLG. Dick Roche can talk the talk but not wlak the walk it seems.
😀 He He
It is very difficult for local authorities to act on promises that aren’t kept. But they also need to start looking at the neighbouring Streets as well.
-
May 18, 2005 at 10:59 pm #729147
Jack White
ParticipantMarlborogh St is a really depressing place and I think that when the cops cleared the junkies off O’Connell St a few years ago that most of them headed straight to Marlborogh St. The stretch between Talbot St and Abbey St must be the most rundown spot in Dublin. We should be nostalgic because this is what O’Connell St used to be like.
-
May 19, 2005 at 1:30 pm #729148
Anonymous
InactiveYes it does high-light the progress that has been made but I think that this must be viewed as a transition from an unacceptable position as opposed to progress per se. Whilst it will not be possible for surrounding streets to be finished to the same standard as that of the O’Connell St IAP; these streets must be returned to at least the same standard as corresponding streets on the southside such as Fleet St or Exchequer St.
-
May 19, 2005 at 2:18 pm #729149
kefu
ParticipantMarlborough Street’s junkie contingent appear to have taken up residence on the Eden Quay boardwalk – the Sheriff Street of Dublin’s boardwalks.
-
May 19, 2005 at 7:34 pm #729150
Jack White
ParticipantNo one seems to use the new section of the boardwalk, well that is before the Sherrif St contingent.
-
May 20, 2005 at 9:29 am #729151
GregF
ParticipantI thought the Gardai were going to patrol the O’ Connell Street and Boardwalk more regularly, to move along the scumbags and gurriers. That’s what they promised last year. The committment is’nt there as always!
-
May 20, 2005 at 10:59 am #729152
TLM
ParticipantYeah, I think a police presence around both O’Connell Street and the boardwalk is pretty important… Does anyone have any idea when the kiosks are actually going to go in?? It would be good if it could be done in time for this summer (wishful thinking probably!)
-
May 20, 2005 at 3:30 pm #729153
Jack White
ParticipantPolicing is what makes a city.
The kiosks will be next year at the earliest.
-
May 20, 2005 at 6:38 pm #729154
GrahamH
ParticipantWell their presence on O’Connell St is always noticable – and reassuring, though they should get up a bit more from leaning against the GPO all day; it’s probably notorious within the force by now: ‘ah I’m GPOing today’…
@Thomond Park wrote:
Marlborough St…is an utter disgrace when you consider that this Street contains
1> The Cathedral of the majority religion.
2> The National Theatre
3> The Planning Appeals Board
4> The Headquarters of the Department of Education.
5> The most important Tourism and hospitality College in the CountryThat’s a very good point – it is a major street, yet is in bits for the most part, including the public domain of the Catherdral area even if the buildings are of significance around here.
It’s a very strange place all the same – it doesn’t feel like a street because it varies so substantially in nature along its length, from a parkland feel around the Dept of Education, to deserted roadway further up (lovely Gerogians though), to a coach park in others, to 70s timewarp at the southern end.Agreed it is in a disgraceful condition in parts, and generally poor overall. Whatever about the delays on O’Connell St, the IAP hasn’t come next or near any other street at all! Marlborough St, Sackville Place, Parnell St, Westmoreland St, D’Olier St, College St, Hawkins St, Burgh Quay…
At least some owners are making an effort on Marlborough St – these Georgians are just coming to the end of an extensive restoration and look magnificent, incl the delightful pawnbrokers sign]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v219/Dublin1/MarlboroughStGeorgians.jpg[/IMG]
Stephen you raised an interesting point about Marlborough St not needing expensive granite paving, it doesn’t, or most other streets for that matter. But what is so ridiculously ironic at the minute regarding this idea is the fact that the temporary concrete paving currently going down on Upper O’Connell St to accomodate the new works is without doubt the best paving this area has seen in 20 years! Upper O’Connell St has never looked so good!
It really goes to show the shameful, shambolic ignorance the Corporation, and even latter City Council paid to this street. Since the mid-late 90s O’Cll St’s paving was in bits – dangerously so in places: and yet only now, at the end of the old layout’s life, when it is needed least in terms of expected lifespan, brand new concrete paving is laid for temporary works lasting perhaps 12 moths, despite it beingh capable of lasting 12 years!
The regular new kerbstones and evenly laid paving slabs highlight more than anything the shambolic state of the older pavements, but moreover how simple and cheap it would have been to replace them, even as late as 1998-2000 in anticiption of the IAP works.
There is a form of paving in between salubrious granite and dereliction – something the Corpo didn’t seem to pick up on.Some pics of Fr Matthew and wow, he is indeed marble! What a transformation!
Can’t wait to see what he looks like in contrast with the deadpan limestone base – what a contribution he’ll make to the streetscape. He’s turned into one of the finest monuments on the street! Considering he’s been there since 1893, it’s hardly surprising he was that dirty.
Also Larkin – the plinth looking very well:
He doesn’t look much different on top – as to be expected really: just traffic dirt removed and a protective coating applied:
Finally William Smith O’Brien has just gone uder scaffolding and cleaning is already underway – there’s suspicous rumblings going on inside 🙂
We can expect him to emerge sparlking white too, given he was sculpted of marble also and is blatenty white in most old photographs such as above.
-
May 21, 2005 at 12:46 pm #729155
Anonymous
InactiveThe statues will look great when finished it appears, although they will take a little getting used to given the dramatic shift, I remember when the front facade of Trinity was cleaned 15 years ago, it looked very strange for a while even if it did look a lot better. The contrast in the FR Mathew statue should be very interesting and one wonders was the original sculptor thinking more of an indoor sculpture than an outdoor one relying on the dual-colour for effect.
The pawn brokers in Marlborogh St is coming on well and it is good to see occupiers investing in their premises to such an extent, I had occaision to visit this business in December while Christmas shopping and they have really good jewellery. What was interesting about the visit was that there are so many vacant shops on Cathedral St that they were able to do a short-term let on the premises directly next door to their own under renovation. If this isn’t a sign of failure of the retail market in this area I don’t know what is because they could have chosen from a number of other shops in that terrace at the same time.
It is a very good point you make regarding the divergent nature of Marlborogh St which should be the strength of the Street, how many Streets have a parkland setting as good as the Department of Ed in the centre of the street? It is such an asset which allows the planting to be contained behind the railings giving a sense of greenery without the shadowing that on-street trees have. The section between Talbot St and Abbey St is in rag order there are at least 10 buildings that should have moves made to get the owners to implement their plans or be CPO’d. It is the failure of this section of the Street that has ensured that the entire area has failed to benefit from the Luas line unlike the Jervis/Liffey St area which has regenerated significantly.
-
May 21, 2005 at 7:06 pm #729156
urbanisto
ParticipantAgree about the changing nature of the street. Its definately a strong point. IMO the main killer of this street is Irish Life and most certainly Dublin Bus. The fact that the Talbot to Abbey section is a buspark would turn any business off. Also Dublin Bus own a redbrick pile here that could do with the chop. The dreadful office building next door on Sackville Place is also a candidate for demolition. Perhaps an enhanced Clerys can do something with this area. Irish Life too are doing nobody any favours with their dead street frontage, Even the section in front of the Abbey Theatre is disappointing seeing as it fronts a national institution.
Some hope is in the air…as well as the pawnbrokers mentioned above. The large pub on Marl St is being renovated (although Im not sure to what standard) Also plans are underway for all three corner buildings on Abbey Street axis. however until such basics as removing the buses and improving the general environment are undertaken I think its set to remain a dissatisfyingly under used street.
-
May 22, 2005 at 3:06 pm #729157
Anonymous
InactiveIt is a very well made point about the effect of buses parking for long periods on this section of Marlborogh St, it serves to effectively sever the Street into two sections making it a most unpleasant street to cross thereby making it an unactractive pedestrian environment which has made successful retailing more difficult at this location. The necessity of most bus routes to terminus in the City Centre is highly questionable in my opinion, what Dublin Bus could do is to examine which city bus routes could be doubled up to serve opposite sides of the city, for example an amalgamation of Route 130 from Clontarf to City Centre with Route 14 from the City Centre to Churchtown and so on. Buses such as the 16A function effectively on the route from Dublin Airport to Rathfarnham and this method eliminates a lot of city centre parking requirement and resulting congestion. The main obstacle to the implementation of this has been the fact that the only bridge that DB have used for cross city buses in the past has been O’Connell St and if one of the objectives of the O’Connell St IAP is to reduce traffic on the Street alternative routes would need to be found to allow new routings to occur. It is possible that both Capel St and Marlborogh St could be used as cross city routes with the existing Grattan Bridge and if the mooted pedestrian bridge for Marlborogh St/Hawkins St were upgraded to a public transport bridge from North to South and Butt bridge used in the opposite direction.
The ‘dreadful office building’ next to the Dublin Bus offices is Sackville House which was built in the early 70’s and featured in the film Adam & Paul as the location where the homeless junkies slept out whilst in town. It would be a good result if Cleary’s were to acquire it and expand into this Street, but I remember seeing the sale brochure on it about a year ago, it is unfortunately multi-tenanted with some of the leases having a term of greater than 10 years remaining.
The Abbey is dissapointing and it would appear that this situation will be ongoing for some time, The Irish Life will never deliver for Marlborogh St as each of the office buildings at this end of the complex has two entrances one to the Street and the other from the elevated and landscaped courtyard within the complex, it is not a difficult decision on where to put reception.
Is the Taxi rank on O’Connell St part of the IAP or will it be phased out, it has struck me that if it is to be accomodated then at that point of the Street there will be a necessity for six traffic lanes which will have adverse effects on the overplan.
-
May 22, 2005 at 5:42 pm #729158
GrahamH
ParticipantIt has to go, there’s no way two lines of cars can be allowed park here as part of the new scheme.
But it would seem they are to be moved – they’re not included in the IAP drawings – allbethey 7 years old at this stage…
Does anyone know the link to that page posted before of recent plans for Upper O’Cll St? It should be included in that.
For the time being anyway during the works the taxi rank is being moved up to outside the Gate.Buses are the death of Marlborough St alright – they make it so hostile for pedestrians, as well as significantly narrowing the street making it just unpleasant full stop for all users. And yes that office building,….can it even be described as such?!
Here’s an entirely unfair view of the poles of Lower O’Connell St – but interesting nonetheless 🙂
And the bikes:
-
May 22, 2005 at 11:31 pm #729159
Jack White
ParticipantThose pictures illustrate the point I am making about the median. What is the point in putting in top quality paving if it is only going to be covered in poles and mopeds?
-
May 23, 2005 at 9:37 am #729160
Anonymous
InactiveSurely that number of poles can’t be required for such a small section of the Street? What strikes me about the second image is the balance between mopeds/motorbikes and bicycles, you don’t see that proportion of motorbikes on the streets as opposed to bicycles.
I wonder why O’Connell St wasn’t used for the eurovision background, surely this is our best civic space?
-
May 23, 2005 at 1:39 pm #729161
kefu
ParticipantThis is from the City Council Press Office:
As part of the overall redesign and redevelopment of O’Connell Street, Dublin City Council is delighted to announce the completion of the cleaning and conservation works to the O’Connell Monument on O’Connell Street.
One of the first of the monuments to be completed, the O’Connell monument, is set to be revealed in all its glory over the coming week. Work on removing the extensive scaffolding that was erected to allow the work to be carried out, will begin today on Monday May 23rd
The O’Connell Monument was designed by John Henry Foley and unveiled in 1882 to commemorate Daniel O’ Connell, the Emancipator. The cleaning/conservation programme for O’Connell took an expert team over 1,000 hours to complete. The bronze figures (including O’Connell himself, a frieze with over thirty figures and the four winged victories) were first washed with detergent using soft bristle brushes. An acrylic pigment was painted onto areas where the bronze patina was lost and the final treatment involved the application of three
coats of protective wax which will form a weather proof barrier and enhance the appearance of the bronze.
The granite blocks were cleaned using a micro abrasive system that applied fine glass powder at a very low pressure. This cleans away dirt particles while avoiding any damage to the stone surface. All joints between the blocks were raked out by hand and repointed using a hydraulic lime mortar.
The works have tackled damage caused by environmental erosion, air pollution, bird droppings, graffiti and decay. However other damage such as the bullet holes in the O’Connell Monument from the 1916 Rising will not be repaired or restored. This type of damage tells part of the story of the monument, O’Connell Street itself and of the history and heritage of the state.
Indeed during the course of works ten bullet holes were identified in the figure of O’Connell alone with two bullets through his right temple. In all approximately thirty bullet holes were counted in total on the monument.
The cost for the works to all eight monuments in the O’Connell Street area will be in the region of 300,000 euros with around half that cost for the O’Connell Monument.
“The quality of the results is very impressive, with the O’Connell Monument looking old but well cared for” said Dublin City Council’s Heritage Officer Donncha O’Dulaing. -
May 23, 2005 at 1:47 pm #729162
urbanisto
ParticipantDaniel OConnell is being unveiled…looks fab.
-
May 23, 2005 at 1:57 pm #729163
GregF
ParticipantHope they keep it and the rest looking like that in future
-
May 23, 2005 at 2:53 pm #729164
GrahamH
Participant@kefu wrote:
Indeed during the course of works ten bullet holes were identified in the figure of O’Connell alone with two bullets through his right temple. In all approximately thirty bullet holes were counted in total on the monument.
Fascinating that there are so many bullet holes! No doubt some of them were direct pot-shots at him from the river…
Can’t wait to see what the Monument looks like – apparently most of not all of the scaffolding is coming down this afternoon. I see they mention granite again in the press release :rolleyes:
The speed with which the monuments on the street have been tackled is very impressive, and largely finished in time for the summer tourist season too.
A job well done by the contractors and City Council, and money well spent. -
May 23, 2005 at 6:38 pm #729165
Anonymous
InactiveA fantastic job,
the contrast between the bronze and the stone is really striking, I am surprised that all the statues could be done for 300k given how specialist a job it is. I hope that this timely completion is a flavour of what we can expect to see in the future.
-
May 23, 2005 at 6:53 pm #729166
Anonymous
Inactive@RTE Interactive wrote:
Calls for Government to buy Pearse note
23 May 2005 17:16
There have been calls for the Government to purchase a surrender note handwritten by the revolutionary leader, Padraig Pearse, during the 1916 Easter Rising.The note, which is being valued at up to €]http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0523/auction.html[/url]
It would be a good exhibition piece for the GPO.
-
May 23, 2005 at 7:00 pm #729167
sw101
Participantwho owns the note at the moment?
-
May 23, 2005 at 7:13 pm #729168
Anonymous
InactiveIt must be in a private collection
-
May 23, 2005 at 10:38 pm #729169
kefu
ParticipantDefinitely amongst the best E300,000 spent recently.
The statues on the O’Connell Monument look like they were cast yesterday – a really incredible job by all involved. -
May 24, 2005 at 1:07 pm #729170
TLM
ParticipantYeah, they certainly look great from the pics anyway… and all at such a good price!
-
May 24, 2005 at 1:50 pm #729171
JPD
ParticipantLooking good but I would be careful going on about how good a price it was or else the contractors will probably double their next tenders
-
May 24, 2005 at 11:51 pm #729172
Anonymous
InactiveTalking about quality has there been any announcement of a timescale for the Gresham renovations ?
-
May 25, 2005 at 1:15 am #729173
GrahamH
ParticipantDon’t know, though it would make sense for work to get underway while the rest of the street is in chaos – get it over and done with.
I’m sure they’re delighted with the digger that’s been ripping up the pavement outside the front door for the past week 🙂Some bits and pieces here about one of the least noted terraces on O’Connell St – what I tend to loosely term the ‘Georgian Block’.
Its brick elevations are different from the other granite and Portland stone clad terraces of Upper O’Cll St because it was built post-1916 rather than post-1922.
It has a more traditionally Georgian appearance than the terraces of Lwr O’Cll St presumably because of the quite domineering 18th century converted houses that still mostly covered the site before destruction. Indeed taking away the corner Kylemore building which disrupts the symmetrical design of the terrace (just like the pre-destruction corner building that was out of place), you are left with a row of buildings which replicate exactly the Georgian scale of the pre-1916 block.Interestingly the terrace still displays elements of the integrated scheme drawn up after 1916 – with the emphasis placed on accommodating commercial activity on a large scale on the reconstructed street.
Most if not all of the retail units in this block were, and still are, long and rectangular in shape, with high ceilings and cornicing – quite formatted in nature, all lined up alongside each otherUnfortunately most of the terrace has been allowed fall into a semi-derelict state as can be seen here. Look at the difference between a restored property and the appalling condition of all the others:
And again with a close-up of windows:
This terrace features a delightful array of Edwardian style (though not in period) windows, many if not all with original shimmering glass. Alas much of these have been allowed fall into not only disrepair, but what looks like decay. What is the likelihood now of some of these original post-1916 pieces of architectural fabric having to be replaced, or parts replaced, as a result of neglect?
It is areas like these that make the lack of progress on property on the street so frustrating. Whoever owns these buildings couldn’t give a damn as to their condition, their only outlook being ‘groundfloorism’, concerning themselves with counting the cash from the cheap shops that occupy their pavement frontages.
McDowell’s and the owner of the First Active building are the only ones who have made an effort, and what an effort. Their properties look magnificent, especially this splendid Edwardian window (have another pic soon of an interesting detail about how these were originally decorated)
Contrast that with this – not quite a direct comparison, but the difference in condition is light years apart.
These upper floors probably haven’t been touched in 30 years. Their appalling condition is exactly the same, indeed more pronounced, since the IAP was published 7 years ago.
It is annoying the CC can do nothing about this. Whatever happened to the by-laws of old? Is it considered an infringement of ‘personal rights’ that local authorities cannot force owners in designated areas to keep their buildings in good condition? Are by-laws like Victorian seven-year painting rules so antiquated and irrelevant – have we really gone so far down the individualistic route?
Is it not in the common interest that owners face basic responsibilities like keeping what are prominent properties in an acceptable state? -
May 25, 2005 at 1:46 am #729174
Anonymous
InactiveMany leases are very specific about both internal and external painting requirements as a general rule of thumb one could say that external joinery would have a standard 5 year re-painting obligation. Many occupiers find to their cost that when they surrender properties mid-lease or at expiration that many landlords are only too happy to enforce a ‘schedule of dilapidations’ on tenants that have failed to observe the covenants they have entered into at the commencement of the lease.
Those contrasts are very clear and McDowells deserve praise for the condition of their building which I imagine given their long history at this site is probably owner-occupied and it is ultimately the owners of buildings who are liable under the protected structure legislation.
The terrace is pretty striking, although not a particularly unified design the different elevations work pretty well together, it says a lot for peoples appreciation of architecture that terraces such as this are often over-looked by the public who seem to prefer the grander set-pieces or the Georgian Squares.
Good to see the diggers are down there, I read that The Herbert Park Tearooms project which is based on the kiosks to be put onto O’Connell St has been postponed until mid-summer because the city architects dept wish to assess the impact of the kiosks when they are ‘put into O’Connell St in June’ I hope that this report is accurate.
-
May 25, 2005 at 2:40 am #729175
GrahamH
ParticipantWell there’s a couple of bikes that have to be cleared away first 🙂
Are HPT leasing all the kiosks? What’s their standard of service etc do you know?To be honest I’ve never been enamored with the concept of kiosks on the median. Not to be overly negative – but I really don’t see their need. It’s not as if they’re providing a unique service, or a pleasant location-specific service where needed like on the Boardwalks.
They’re just an acknowledgement of how the street currently isn’t living up to what it it’s going to hopefully be.
It is a thoroughfare lined with buildings designed to hold retail outlets – I fail to see the need for more dumped into the middle of the street, where the buses roaring by hardly make it pleasant to sit down either. What’ll be really damaging though is if all that ridiculous rubbish like gas heaters and parasols and partitions come in too. -
May 25, 2005 at 11:24 am #729176
Anonymous
InactiveIt is true that the kiosks will not be providing any unique services to O’Connell St and it is equally true that they will take up a considerable amount of space. I am however of the opinion that they will add to the ambience of the Street by complimenting the paving scheme and tree planting, they will also provide outdoor cafes which have worked very well else where. I definitely like the idea of sitting out on a fine day on the Street having a coffee whilst taking time out. In comparison to the bicycle stands and accompanying motorbikes strewn all over the median they should produce a relatively ordered environment. Although the translation of the renderings to reality will have to be good if they are to be appropriate to their surroundings and very strict rules will need to be imposed on consent for any items to be placed outside the actual kiosks. The exclusion zones around the kiosks on Grattan bridge have left very little space for pedestrians using the bridge.
-
May 25, 2005 at 12:42 pm #729177
ctesiphon
Participant@Thomond Park wrote:
it is ultimately the owners of buildings who are liable under the protected structure legislation.
.It was my understanding that under the 2000 Act, occupiers also have a responsibility to protect and maintain Protected Structures. Local Authorities have powers to request that works be carried out to protect the character of either the PS itself or of the ACA in which a building (not necessarily a PS) is located (Sections 59 & 60 of the 2000 Act).
You might be right to say that ‘ultimately’ it is the responsibility of the owners, but it gives the wrong impression about the duties of occupiers.A minor point, but one worth making, I think.
Also, this is relevant to Graham’s point about bye-laws and duty of care.
-
May 25, 2005 at 1:05 pm #729178
Anonymous
InactiveP & D Act 2000 wrote:Section 58Duty of owners and occupiers to protect structures from endangerment. 58.—]
As you can see the responsibility under the act is equally binding. In relation to upper floors at locations such as this it is quite common for the floors to be let on a short term basis and standard practice on short-term leases on a portion of a building would be that the occupier would be responsible for only internal repairs and insurance. So it would in fact be the owner who would be responsible for external repairs such as joinery and stonework.
On longer term leases you are correct that it is generally the occupiers who have the main burden of responsibility.
-
May 25, 2005 at 1:18 pm #729179
Anonymous
Inactive@P & D Act 2000 wrote:
Section 59
Notice to require works to be carried out in relation to endangerment of protected structures. 59.—] (a) the terms of the notice, [/B]
(b) the provision of assistance under subsection (2), and
(c) any other material considerations.
(4) After considering any representations made under subsection (3), the planning authority may confirm, amend or revoke the notice, and shall notify the person who made the representations of its decision.
(5) Particulars of a notice served under this section shall be entered in the register.
Section 60 to follow
-
May 25, 2005 at 1:21 pm #729180
Anonymous
InactiveP & D Act 2000 wrote:Section 60Notice to require restoration of character of protected structures and other places. 60.—]
The mechanism works well in that it allows the owner and occupier to establish which one is actually liable for the works contained within the notice.
-
May 25, 2005 at 4:20 pm #729181
ctesiphon
ParticipantCheers TP. Couldn’t have put it better myself. 🙂
Graham- does this answer your question (provide necessary ammunition? 😉 ) re duty of care on O’Connell St.?
-
May 25, 2005 at 6:37 pm #729182
GrahamH
Participant😀
Well let’s start at the beginning then – part (a) of subsection 3 of Section 58 sates that… 🙂
Thanks for that ctesiphon and Thomond Park – most insightful, particularly the notion of long-term occupiers seemingly having equal responsibility as the owners, as implied in: ‘consistent with the rights and obligations arising out of their respective interests’.
I also note with interest the inclusion in the description of ‘works’ of ‘the removal or alteration of any advertisement structure.’
Would this only apply to advertisments added post protected/ACA status being imposed?In relation to the ‘Georgian block’ as one would expect really none of the buildings in the terrace are protected with the exception of the corner Kylemeore building. However they do of course fall under the ACA status of the street, and so their condition and welfare is still in control of the City Council.
This statement really says it all: that an authority may serve notice if ‘the structure is in an architectural conservation area and, in the opinion of the planning authority, it is necessary, in order to preserve the character of the area, that the structure be restored.’
The implications here are pretty obvious, and not just in relation to this terrace. There’s quite a few buildings on Lower O’Cll St that are in poor condition, not to mention the none too minor point that that all ACAs and PSs in the city fall under this legislation, whatever about the country at large.
Even so, in the case of a building that is simply a bit tatty, eg in poor decorative order with just cosmetic problems, can the rather severe stipulation of ‘in the opinion of the planning authority, the character of the structure or of any of its elements ought to be restored’ be brought to bear?
Are there any laws anymore similar to the lease stipulations often made by the great Victorian estates?
That is laws rather than lease-induced controls?
Surely there’s loads still in active use in towns and villages across the UK?Overall though, I’m very surprised that these safeguards are in place – always assumed there was nothing considering the lack of action on so many properties on the street. It certainly implies this.
-
May 25, 2005 at 6:57 pm #729183
Anonymous
InactiveHad you never read those regulations before?
-
May 25, 2005 at 7:18 pm #729184
GrahamH
ParticipantNo.
Was aware of the general content of the 2000 Act pertaining to protected strructures, and the establishment of the ACA concept, but that is all.
-
May 25, 2005 at 7:32 pm #729185
Anonymous
InactiveThe http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ site is an absolute gift for research once you know roughly what you are looking for and have the time to sift through the various sections.
Re “Even so, in the case of a building that is simply a bit tatty, eg in poor decorative order with just cosmetic problems, can the rather severe stipulation of ‘in the opinion of the planning authority, the character of the structure or of any of its elements ought to be restored’ be brought to bear?”
The vision behind this was that upon completion of a major plan such as The O’Connell St IAP or in the case of ACA’s such as Merrion Square if a small number of occupiers had not come up to standard that this mechanism would have been used. I imagine that it was genuinely felt when the plan was made that most owners and or occupiers would have reacted positively towards the generous incentives on offer to them, or maybe the incentives on offer simply were/are not generous enough to work as a carrot.
-
May 26, 2005 at 5:50 pm #729186
Anonymous
Inactive@Eircom.net wrote:
Cowen in plea to buyer of €]http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/breaking/5628206?view=Eircomnet[/url]
The anonymous buyer who paid €700,000 for Padraig Pearse’s 1916 surrender note should make it available to the State Archives, Minister for Finance Brian Cowen said today.
Mr Cowen told the Dail that he was unable to say if the Government had bid for the document at James Adam salesrooms in Dublin last night.
He said: “I only heard this morning that this historic document was sold for €700,000 yesterday.
“I can only hope that the buyer would be a person or institution who would be able perhaps to make it available for our own archives or artefacts for the future.
“I don’t know who it is. It was a private auction and it was anonymously purchased.”
Mr Cowen said he wasn’t in a position to say if the state had bid for the letter.
“I’m not aware of that. You’ll have to ask others,” he added.
The Pearse document, dated April 30th, 1916 had a guide price of about €80,000.
Several state organisations had viewed the historic letter, which was penned by the republican icon from his prison cell days before his execution by firing squad after the ill-fated Easter Rising.
The letter had been stored carefully by a private family for the past 80 years since a Capuchin priest, Fr Columbus, collected it from Pearse’s cell in Dublin’s Arbour Hill Prison.
The letter attracted interest from overseas, including American collectors, when it was displayed in a Bond Street auction room in London and in Belfast over the past few weeks.
An original copy of the 1916 Proclamation of the Irish Republic recently went for a record €390,000 at the same Adam salesrooms in Dublin’s St Stephen’s Green.
Pearse wrote the note before he was executed with 14 others captured in the battle to overthrow English rule.
Sure we just want a quick photocopy like!!!!!
-
May 26, 2005 at 8:08 pm #729187
GrahamH
Participant😀
Couldn’t believe the €700,000 price achieved – especially with one of the Proclamations not even reaching its reserve a few weeks ago.
As Greg F mentioned earlier, the O’ Rahilly plaque erected off Moore St recently looks very well; the fluted scroll-and-ribbon detail very much so of its time.
-
May 27, 2005 at 2:08 pm #729188
Anonymous
InactiveIt is a pity that it made such a high price from a State point of view but i’m sure that the vendors are delighted nearly nine times the guideprice. I can understand it to a certain extent in that it was a one off unlike the proclamation of which there are a number of copies and thousands of photocopies on many Irish pub walls both home and away.
Does anyone have any images of the O’ Rahilly plaque recently erected, I haven’t been ‘off Moore St’ in a while 😉
-
May 27, 2005 at 6:59 pm #729189
Jack White
ParticipantI hope no-one is suggesting that the government should of spent 700 grand on a piece of paper.
-
May 27, 2005 at 11:15 pm #729190
Anonymous
InactiveA pretty interesting piece of paper that obviously has been in a private collection for a long time, I for one would love to know what it said, I can only hope that a University has bought it.
-
May 28, 2005 at 10:29 pm #729191
Jack White
Participant@Graham Hickey wrote:
No.
Was aware of the general content of the 2000 Act pertaining to protected strructures, and the establishment of the ACA concept, but that is all.
What is an ACA?
-
May 28, 2005 at 11:05 pm #729192
Anonymous
InactiveACA
Architectural Conservation Area
Dublin City Development Plan 2005-11 wrote:10.2.3 Architectural Conservation Areas
The Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1999, introduced for
the first time in Irish planning legislation the concept of an architectural
conservation area. The Dublin City Development Plan, 1999, was amended
to designate O’]Part 2 to follow
-
May 29, 2005 at 2:46 pm #729193
Anonymous
InactiveThomond Park wrote:10.2.4 Approach to designation of Architectural Conservation AreasThe designation of areas as architectural conservation areas has to be considered in the context of zoning and other policies pertaining to the protection of the built heritage. The Dublin City Development Plan, 1999,
contains three zoning objectives for protecting the built heritage i.e. the Z2 zone (residential conservation areas), the Z8 zone (which represents primarily the Georgian areas) and the red-hatched areas (conservation areas). As it is proposed to retain these zoning measures in this plan, the designation of architectural conservation areas is considered to be a separate measure for protecting the built heritage. Architectural conservation areas will be designated where the Planning Authority is of the opinion that its inclusion is
necessary for the preservation of the character of an area.The following criteria will be applied when selecting areas for designation as architectural conservation areas:
•]
Areas of Special Planning Control in Architectural Conservation Areas to follow
-
May 29, 2005 at 7:55 pm #729194
GrahamH
ParticipantThe importance of O’Connell St being designated an ACA, just like so many other areas that have been designated as such, is that the character of the whole area is protected, regardless of whether certain buildings are protected structures or not.
As the ACA points out: “Owners and occupiers of non-protected structures located within the O’Connell Street
Architectural Conservation Area should note that the normal exemptions from seeking planning permission pertaining to certain type of developments under the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations 1994-1999 will no longer apply.”No doubt Thomond Park will bombard us with relevant Special Planning Control Scheme material :), so I won’t go into much other that it is defined as: ‘all or part of an Architectural Conservation Area that is of special importance to the civic life or the architectural, historical, cultural or social character of a city or town in which it is situated’.
In the case of O’Connell St, it elaborates in great detail on the content of the ACA. In physical terms it also covers the same area as the ACA. As you’d expect it lists and defines many types of uses that are deemed inappropriate and will not be permitted on the street in the future, and many types of future development stipulations such as signage, entrances, uses above ground floors etc.
But despite the pages and pages and pages of these very detailed (and of course important) stipulations, there is a single paragraph above all that really stands out as important given the current condition of O’Cll St, esp Upper O’Cll St. All of the planning content of the ACA and the SPCS refers to future development.
But in terms of the existing inappropriate uses, architecture and features, this tiny little paragraph is crucial:“Where non-desirable uses continue to operate in a manner and form that detract
from the quality and character of the street, the planning authority may seek to enter
into negotiations with the relevant owner/occupier. In this regard and depending on
the specific circumstances of each case, the planning authority may require the
owners/occupiers to either implement a programme of works to eliminate the
problems associated with such a use – or to cease operating the use.”Continues:
The programme of works required by the City Council may include the following:
. The remodelling and upgrading of shopfronts and associated signage
. The provision of imaginative shopfront displays for all premises with a ground
floor frontage onto the street. These displays should not be static or bland but
should be designed to create a lively presence on the street, while still reflecting
the character of the street. They should be subject to regular review.
. The installation and upgrading of air-handling systems
. The introduction of more effective and efficient litter and waste management
systems
. Strict compliance with Dublin City Council’s requirements for deliveries and
collections within the prescribed hours and outside the core trading period 10.00
a.m. to 4.00 p.m. within the O’Connell Street area. -
May 29, 2005 at 8:52 pm #729195
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
No doubt Thomond Park will bombard us with relevant Special Planning Control Scheme material
Well seeing as you asked 🙂
@Dublin City Development Plan 2005-11 wrote:
10.2.5 Areas of Special Planning Control in Architectural Conservation Areas
Areas of special planning control are designed to complement architectural conservation areas. An area of special planning control may be designated where a Planning Authority considers that all or part of an architectural conservation area is of special importance to the civic life or the architectural, historical, cultural or social character of the city.
Policy H18
It is the policy of Dublin City Council to prepare schemes for Areas of Special Planning Control, in instances where the schemes are important in the context of the city and not merely at local level.
Well I for one would consider that O’Connell St is the most important streetscape in the City on the basis of the scheme’s recent and ongoing expenditure.
It is very surprising that no moves have been made in relation to some of the worst shopfronts and signage on the Street given the powers they have. I must check out the Act to see what the exact position is in relation to this.
-
May 29, 2005 at 9:28 pm #729196
GrahamH
ParticipantThat’s kinda key to it all right!
-
May 29, 2005 at 9:44 pm #729197
Anonymous
InactiveP & D Act 2000 wrote:PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT, 2000 SECTION 81Architectural conservation areas. 81.—]
Section 82 to follow
-
May 29, 2005 at 9:46 pm #729198
Anonymous
InactiveP & D Act 2000 wrote:PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT, 2000 SECTION 82Development in architectural conservation areas. 82.—]
Section 83 to follow
-
May 29, 2005 at 9:48 pm #729199
Anonymous
InactiveP & D Act 2000 wrote:PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT, 2000 SECTION 83Power to acquire structure or other land in architectural conservation area. 83.—]
Section 84 to follow
-
May 29, 2005 at 9:58 pm #729200
Anonymous
Inactive@P & D Act 2000 wrote:
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT, 2000 SECTION 84
Area of special planning control. 84.—] (b) the preservation and protection of the environment, including the architectural, archaeological and natural heritage; [/B]
(c) the renewal, preservation, conservation, restoration, development or redevelopment of the streetscape, layout and building pattern, including the co-ordination and upgrading of shop frontages;
(d) the control of the layout of areas, density, building lines and height of structures and the treatment of spaces around and between structures;
(e) the control of the design, colour and materials of structures, in particular the type or quality of building materials used in structures;
(f) the promotion of the maintenance, repair or cleaning of structures;
(g) the promotion of an appropriate mix of uses of structures or other land;
(h) the control of any new or existing uses of structures or other land;
(i) the promotion of the development or redevelopment of derelict sites or vacant sites; or
(j) the regulation, restriction or control of the erection of advertisement structures and the exhibition of advertisements.
(3) A scheme prepared under subsection (1) shall be in writing and shall be consistent with the objectives of the relevant development plan and any local area plan or integrated area plan (within the meaning of the Urban Renewal Act, 1998) in force relating to the area to which the scheme relates.
(4) (a) A scheme prepared under subsection (1) shall indicate the period for which the scheme is to remain in force.
(b) A scheme may indicate the order in which it is proposed that the objectives of the scheme or provisions for their furtherance or attainment will be implemented.
(5) A scheme shall contain information, including information of such class or classes as may be prescribed by the Minister, on the likely significant effects on the environment of implementing the scheme.
(6) In this section, and sections 85 and 86—
“city” means a county borough;
“town” means a borough (other than a county borough), an urban district or a town having town commissioners that has a population in excess of 2,000.
Section 85 to follow
-
May 30, 2005 at 4:32 pm #729201
Jack White
ParticipantThanks I didn’t expect such a comprehensive answer
-
May 30, 2005 at 7:37 pm #729202
Boyler
ParticipantDoes anyone have any information on what is going on on O’Connell Street? Have they finished it yet?
-
May 30, 2005 at 8:57 pm #729203
GrahamH
ParticipantI wouldn’t know, but I think there are a few people here that are interested so they may be able to help…
Thanks for all that listing Thomond Park – the last posting of Section 84 in particular. It says it all.
Obviously one cannot just say right City Council, off you go now with files in hand to every property on the street.But at this stage I do not think it is too much to ask that certain key properties are taken in hand by the CC considering how much time has passed with nothing happening. An obvious target is the Joe Walsh Tours and ‘Come in And Visit’ block of three forming the corner with Henry St.
It has all five key elements in need of attention – appalling shopfronts, dilapidated upper floors – esp Joe Walsh, inappropriate signage, undesirable building uses, and protected structure status covering all buildings surprisingly with the exception of Joe Walsh Tours considering it is probably the oldest building surviving on the street.
Delightful sign upstairs too :rolleyes:…in breach of the ACA and SPCS.
It’s stuff like this that is so irritating – letting market forces improve things is one way of doing things, but seven years passing and no attempt made at all to improve basic problems with the very worst and most prominent properties is just not acceptable.
To improve this block alone would make the world of difference to Upper O’Connell St. The view above is also that of the first view of the Street from North Earl St, especially for many people visiting from the North via Connolly.Saying this, I wouldn’t want a paintbrish to go near those facades unless a proper restoration was going to be carried out. An owner or occupier will quite likely hire out a firm to smother the facades, crumbling render and window reveals and all in sunset yellow, and leave it at that for another ten years to appease the CC. That is not not acceptable either. A full programme of works needs to be carried out, even the possibility of revealing Gardiner’s Georgian brick ought to be investigated with the help of the CC.
Also Joe Walsh Tours needs to emphasise its corner positioning a lot more, with the possibility of creating a corner entrance like was there originally (pic soon), and decent frontage onto Henry St as well as O’Cll St.
-
May 30, 2005 at 9:02 pm #729204
GrahamH
ParticipantSorry for being smart Boyler, but come on – there’s 24 million pages of info here, even the odd one will give you what you need 🙂
Lower O’Connell St is largely finished in terms of public domain paving works etc, while Upper O’Cll St is just being started – in every sense…
-
May 30, 2005 at 9:08 pm #729205
Anonymous
InactiveIt is getting to the stage where it will be necessary to compile a thread called ‘O’Connell Street the index’ 😀
-
May 30, 2005 at 10:02 pm #729206
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
But at this stage I do not think it is too much to ask that certain key properties are taken in hand by the CC considering how much time has passed with nothing happening. An obvious target is the Joe Walsh Tours and ‘Come in And Visit’ block of three forming the corner with Henry St.
A block of three would have a dramatic positive impact.
@Graham Hickey wrote:
It has all five key elements in need of attention – appalling shopfronts, dilapidated upper floors – esp Joe Walsh, inappropriate signage, undesirable building uses, and protected structure status covering all buildings surprisingly with the exception of Joe Walsh Tours considering it is probably the oldest building surviving on the street.
Delightful sign upstairs too :rolleyes:All that signage is new, I would expect DCC enforcement to seek lease documentation to verify the length of tenancy and resulting illegal signage.
@Graham Hickey wrote:
…in breach of the ACA and SPCS.
It’s stuff like this that is so irritating – letting market forces improve things is one way of doing things, but seven years passing and no attempt made at all to improve basic problems with the very worst and most prominent properties is just not acceptable.
To improve this block alone would make the world of difference to Upper O’Connell St. The view above is also that of the first view of the Street from North Earl St, especially for many people visiting from the North via Connolly.This block is very visable from a long way out.
@Graham Hickey wrote:
Saying this, I wouldn’t want a paintbrish to go near those facades unless a proper restoration was going to be carried out. An owner or occupier will quite likely hire out a firm to smother the facades, crumbling render and window reveals and all in sunset yellow, and leave it at that for another ten years to appease the CC. That is not not acceptable either. A full programme of works needs to be carried out, even the possibility of revealing Gardiner’s Georgian brick ought to be investigated with the help of the CC..
Definitely that facade will need extensive restorative treatment to eliminate the underlying neglect.
@Graham Hickey wrote:
Also Joe Walsh Tours needs to emphasise its corner positioning a lot more, with the possibility of creating a corner entrance like was there originally (pic soon), and decent frontage onto Henry St as well as O’Cll St.
Given retail rents on Henry St vis-a-vis Upper O’Connell Street I’m sure JWT will make sure this never happens. 😉
-
May 30, 2005 at 10:20 pm #729207
GrahamH
ParticipantSuppose anyone would in their position 🙂
The interior of this shop is interesting in that there’s an unusual wall sticking out into the shop with a curved end to it that looks exceptionally old, or even just very strange in appearance. Have a look by pretending to get a leaflet of something, an effective excuse I’ve been led to believe by eh – ‘a friend’ 😀
It’d be great to be able to have a good root around upstairs, see if the building is as old as it seems to be, maybe c1748-50ish, and what if any original features remain.
Either way, this building out of all of the three is the most in need of immediate attention given it has two major elevations. -
May 30, 2005 at 10:31 pm #729208
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
Suppose anyone would in their position 🙂
The interior of this shop is interesting in that there’s an unusual wall sticking out into the shop with a curved end to it that looks exceptionally old, or even just very strange in appearance. Have a look by pretending to get a leaflet of something, an effective excuse I’ve been led to believe by eh – ‘a friend’ 😀 .
You mean you didn’t get your brochure already, and you didn’t ask about last minute deals. Tut Tut
They did great specials to New York at one stage 200 pounds in 2001 return, deal of the decade.
@Graham Hickey wrote:
It’d be great to be able to have a good root around upstairs, see if the building is as old as it seems to be, maybe c1748-50ish, and what if any original features remain.
Either way, this building out of all of the three is the most in need of immediate attention given it has two major elevations.I’d say you would have two chances of getting a look at the upstairs interior of that building, its hard to know what would remain, given some of the dreadful refits that would have occured to convert many of these O’Connell St buildings into offices post 1960.
But definitely the front and probably side elevations are in contravention of both the IAP objectives and the ‘Protected Structure Legislation’
-
May 31, 2005 at 9:35 am #729209
Jack White
Participant@Graham Hickey wrote:
A full programme of works needs to be carried out, even the possibility of revealing Gardiner’s Georgian brick ought to be investigated with the help of the CC.
What are the chances that the brick would be in decent condition?
-
May 31, 2005 at 7:23 pm #729210
magicbastarder
Participantapols if it has been mentioned already, but what is the purpose of the current road widening on upper o’connell street? is this for cycle lanes?
-
May 31, 2005 at 7:29 pm #729211
Anonymous
InactiveThere is to be road widening at the centre with the median being pruned a little and the side footpaths are to be widened, there will when its finished be two northbound and two southbound or a total of 4 lanes of traffic from the current six excluding the section where the taxi-rank is which will see the four lanes move in towards the centre. There will be new cycle lanes and more pedestrian space and at some stage the street will probably be designated public transport vehicles only to traffic calm the atmosphere, although that move will be easier said than done.
-
May 31, 2005 at 7:57 pm #729212
magicbastarder
Participantthey’re widening the road by eating into the footpaths, not the median – which seemed an odd thing to do when the entire street will be remodelled sooner or later.
-
May 31, 2005 at 8:11 pm #729213
GrahamH
ParticipantThe narrowing of the footpaths is a temporary measure presumably to funnel traffic while service laying and median works are taking place on other lanes of the street. They will be widened subsequent to the works.
@Jack White wrote:
What are the chances that the brick would be in decent condition?
Well that’s the key question isn’t it?!
I’ve heard of and seen the odd scheme where render removal has proved very successful, but the process can be difficult and seems to vary between individual cases.Obviously it’s not an issue to be treated lightly]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v219/Dublin1/SackvilleMallComparison.jpg[/IMG]
The two low, what appear to be commercial buildings, match the current day corner structures exactly, while the first of Gardiner’s houses steps up after five bays.
The ‘Come In And Visit’ building today is the very first of these two-bay merchant houses, that according to Tudor, stretched as far down as Dublin Bus, where a larger house or two houses on the site broke the march. From here on a mixture of two and three-bay houses predominated.
To be able to reveal the last remaining of what would seem to be Gardiner-built houses, as opposed to architect-built in the case of the RDH house, would be very significant. Of course other houses possibly remain behind Lynam’s Hotel, but it has a substantial and very attractive Victorian façade.
But with Joe Walsh on the corner, the window surrounds are at best poor and cheap-looking, and are comparatively insignificant. Personally I’ve always found their proportions rather ugly, presumably why it isn’t protected, but the blue property next door certainly has attractive surrounds on the first floor.
Interesting how the shop fronts of these two properties today match almost exactly those of two and a half centuries ago – with a door in the centre to access the upper floors 🙂As the buildings stand, their rendered facades on what is up to that point a street of quality ‘real’ materials of stone and brick jar somewhat with other buildings – especially how they’re sandwiched in between the distinguished GPO and National Irish Bank, and the fact that they’re corner buildings making them even more prominent. If quality brick facades were to be revealed, they’d look really magnificent on that site, particularly in relation to the GPO – they’d set it off.
The removal of render is a contentious issue and rightly so – too many period buildings are being destroyed by people ripping the render off rubble walls never intended to be exposed, and often losing attractive stucco features in the process.
In this instance, the walls appear to have been originally brick-clad, as intended as the final finish.
The Dept of Environment’s Architectural Heritage Guidelines state that “all original architectural detailing should be respected, as should later additions, embellishments or remodelling of definite quality. …the planning authority may consider it desirable to encourage the reversal of unsatisfactory alterations that disfigure or conceal earlier work of greater merit…â€It goes on to note that appropriate research should be carried out first to ascertain the original appearance of the building, and that tests be carried out to establish underlying conditions etc.
Either way, all of these buildings need serious work, and at the very least a decent restoration of all three in tandem with each other could make them look, if not spectacular, then at least charming and a worthy contribution to the street.
-
May 31, 2005 at 8:30 pm #729214
Anonymous
InactiveThat monochrome is a very pretty image possibly the finest print I’ve seen of Upper O’Connell St it really gives a sense of the planned nature of the Street and the way that every last detail of the time was thought out.
You are correct that all three need work particularly the JWT building that must have the most inappropriate door and glazing to ground floor level on the Street, it would be a high risk strategy for the owners to strip off the render as you say but seeing its condition there would be little harm in DCC making a modest grant towards examination of the restoration options. If the brick work is in very poor condition it can be re-rendered, there is as you say no question that at any stage that this building had an external plaster finish of any real merit. Most critically its current finishes and joinery are detracting significantly from the Streetscape directly accross from The GPO one of Irelands most historically important sites.
That plastic telephone sticker in the ‘Come In and Visit ‘ building has definitely not passed a retention timeframe and is detracting significantly from the value of a protected structure of considerable charm.
-
May 31, 2005 at 8:38 pm #729215
GrahamH
ParticipantIt’s always reminded me of a Lego brick that came with a train station set – had that exact symbol on it 🙂 😮
-
May 31, 2005 at 8:42 pm #729216
Anonymous
InactiveThat interest in lego models never left you 😀
It is a particularly anywhere style image although I’ve never seen such a plain image on such a scale.
I think that the Median as displayed in the monograph would have been appropriate for the street today, the symmetry is damn good. 🙂
-
June 1, 2005 at 12:38 pm #729217
Jack White
Participant@Graham Hickey wrote:
It’s always reminded me of a Lego brick that came with a train station set – had that exact symbol on it 🙂 😮
Was that the Citywest set?
-
June 1, 2005 at 8:59 pm #729218
GrahamH
ParticipantYes – I went out and bought a City West in Toymaster…
They’re flying off the shelves apparently 🙂Here’s a rather strange picture of a mock-up of part of the west terrace of Upper O’Connell St (attachment). Apologies as to the copy n’ paste nature of it, I’m not exactly a dab hand at Photoshop, but it’s better than some of the graphics in the IAP 😀
Despite it being rather crude, it is to scale. Note how all of the building plots even today are regular, two-bay Georgian widths right up to Dublin Bus. Interestingly even Dublin Bus today imitates the taller parapet height of the original large house/s on the site.
After Dublin Bus, the plot widths become quite varied, although not really evident in this pic as the building next door to themodern building was a two-bay house too.Apologies for the alarming subsidence Dublin Bus is experiencing 😀
-
June 1, 2005 at 9:04 pm #729219
Anonymous
InactiveThats a good bit of photoshop that I doubt any lense would be wide enough to capture from the far sdie of the road.
The NIB is the odd one out here isn’t it? In that the rest of the buildings are faithful to their original dimensions in Gardiners Sackville Mall.
-
June 1, 2005 at 9:17 pm #729220
ctesiphon
ParticipantTo rewind for a second:
Graham-
I always thought the oldest building on O’Connell Street was the Georgian building near the north end on the west side? Can’t think what flanks it, but I’m sure you know the one I mean: pedimented doorcase, sash windows, etc.
Maybe the salient fact is that it’s the only one that remains in anything like its orignal appearance.Open to correction… 🙂
-
June 1, 2005 at 9:34 pm #729221
GrahamH
ParticipantYes, the fact that it’s the only one that retains its original appearance does tend to lead you in that direction:
But as far as I know it dates from 1752 (as stated by the hotel’s literature and Frank McDonald etc), meaning that it wasn’t even built by the time the Tudor engraving was made!
Indeed it’s entirely likely most of the Upper street wasn’t even remotely finished by the time Tudor made his engraving.Whereas the buildings on the Henry St corner, although by no means set in stone, are perhaps likely to be older than the 1752 Castle house considering they’re at the bottom of the Mall, and were closest to the commerical Drogheda & Henry Sts.
Indeed I’ve often wondered if the origins of the buildings are even older than Gardiner’s scheme – maybe even being the last part of Henry St that remained following the demolition of other buildings on the street to create Sackville Mall?
Condsiering they’re lower than the dignified new houses, they seem a rather strange way to start off a new street unless perhaps they were part of the older one? -
June 1, 2005 at 9:58 pm #729222
ctesiphon
ParticipantI was misled by my old Art History lecture (who should remain nameless). 😮
Luckily, you were here to set me straight. 🙂
Thanks for that. -
June 2, 2005 at 11:16 pm #729223
Paul OMahony
ParticipantThe building on the corner of O’Connell Street (above the Travel Shop) was proposed by my company to be used as a pilot project as a suitable building to receive full funding under our proposed scheme ‘building-conservation sponsorship’. Following discussions with the owner of this building, the owner had agreed with our proposal that a full architectural conservation report would first be carried out on the building, and if found that it would be possible to remove the rendering from the brickwork without damaging the brickwork, a full and proper restoration of this building would be undertaken to return this building to its former glory. This included removal of PVC windows and returning the windows to teh original wooden sash windows.
It was proposed that this undertaking would be fully paid for by my company using the ‘building-conservation sponsorship’ scheme. Anyone not knowing what our proposed scheme enatiled please see my thread under ‘high specification shrouding’.
Our proposal to fund carrying out this work on this building in conjunction with having a proper architectural conservation plan carried out on the building was never replied to.
-
June 3, 2005 at 12:10 am #729224
Anonymous
InactivePaul,
my copy of Thoms is in the office so I am unable to identify the travel shop could you post a picture of same.
Thomond Park
-
June 3, 2005 at 1:23 am #729225
GrahamH
ParticipantPaul – how do you mean the proposal wasn’t replied to, by the City Council or the owners? Thanks.
That is nothing short of fascinating news regarding the proposal for the render to be removed to expose the brickwork!
It would be wonderful if it could be done – and yes the aluminium frames on the top floor suffice to say would have to go, amongst other things 🙂As for the idea of your company being the ones to instigate the works – whereas I fully commend your intentions, it would be nothing short of egregiously ridiculous that of all sites in the country that needed a privately funded incentive to get conservation works carried out, that this is the building going for that option.
This building, indeed this street has tax incentives coming out its ears!If the owner is proposing to restore the building soley on the grounds of your (good intentioned) private money coming in to fund it, above the incentives that have been sitting there for the past goodness how long, then frankly shame on him.
If this is not the case, then fair enough, but it does come across as just a little irritating when you’ve been following the lack of progress on Upper O’Connell Street properties for some years. -
June 3, 2005 at 6:20 pm #729226
Paul OMahony
ParticipantGraham,
tax insentives are all very fine and in some cases they do play an active role in encouraging property owners to do something about their buildings….however, becauseof the market economy that we live in today, they do not go even half far enough. The simple truth is that many property-owners do not care about the upkeep of the facade of their properties. They are concerned about the interiors only and that is only because it is the interiors which provide them with their vast amounts of income.
Our concept – like it or not – has the effect of suddenly getting the landlord to wake up and pay attention – why, because suddenly he/she sees a way of getting the renovation/restoration of the exterior of their building – in some cases – fully paid for.
Tax incentives are fine and they provide the property owner with a saving of a few thousand however the property owner knows that they will also have to spend large amounts of money by going down that road. The money created from our scheme is immediate…as the money comes in from the advertising sponsor, the money is paid immediately to the property-owner. That money must be used for the conservation work – the property-owner has signbed a contract tio that effect when he agreed to participate in the scheme.
The concept has the potential to raise Euro 5,000-Euro 70,000 for the conservation work to be carried out – this kind of money cannot be raised in any other way but this….past evidence has shown that it is not going to subsidised by govt.funding or by grants from anywhere else.
-
June 3, 2005 at 6:29 pm #729227
Paul OMahony
ParticipantThomond, the building I am speaking of is the building photographed earlier in this thread….I belive that it was called the Joe Walsh Tours shop.
-
June 3, 2005 at 7:11 pm #729228
GrahamH
ParticipantYes it is a sad reality that so few owners do not see it fit that their buildings be restored, or even properly maintain them, and less again that they should be the ones to pay for this fundamental element of property management!
In the case of the Joe Walsh building, it is a shame that from what you have said the owner sees it fit that this strategically important building, in the very heart of the city, framing the GPO and the Spire, and linking two of the busiest streets in the country, be restored as long as someone else pays for it. That’s at least the impression one gets, not least considering the building hasn’t even seen a paintbrush since about 1985.
I accept your point though that tax-incentives are not everything they can be made out to be – just a pity they’re not more appealing to owners. It seems they act as a mere added benefit for those who are intending to carry out works anyway, rather than encouraging the very worst cases to get their act together.
-
June 3, 2005 at 7:26 pm #729229
Paul OMahony
ParticipantGraham, I am surprised that you find this information somewhat surprising ? I have been at the cold face of tracking down and speaking with some of the owners of some of the worst blights of buildings currently on dublin’s streetscape. In the beginning I was surprised by many people’s attitude, now I am more hardened to the reality of cold economic facts. Nothing will be done to these buildings because the owners refuse to pay the kind of money that is needed to do the job right, they know that
there is no proper enforcement coming from the city council forcing them to carry out the necessary upkeep, so they choose to do nothing. However, in almost every case of landlord I approached, where I outlined our scheme and how it would work (if we were given permission from the council for our scheme that is), each and every landlord said that they would be interested in participating.It’s a terrible truth, but these unscrupulous landlords won’t budge unless a scheme like ours can provide them with the kind of substantial funding to cover the costs of carrying our proper conservation work on their buildings.
-
June 3, 2005 at 7:31 pm #729230
Paul OMahony
ParticipantAs well as the building on O’Connell street, we have proposed another 5 buildings (outside of the architectural-conservation area – all of which would have ben ideal for our concept
….unfortunately, it looks like I will have to look at these poor forgotten structures before my eyes for some time to come yet. -
June 3, 2005 at 7:34 pm #729231
GrahamH
ParticipantWould the ACA status ever even allow these shrouds?
Not so much surprised as just disappointed about property owners. Suppose you can have Celtic Tiger glitzy office blocks and flagship urban projects coming out your ears, but the good aul Dublin landlord is still living in 1973.
Sure why not do the whole of upper O’Connell St at once?! Transform it into Times Square for six months, and then the whole place will be sparkling upon removal of the shrouds 😀
-
June 3, 2005 at 7:46 pm #729232
Anonymous
InactiveDUBLIN CORPORATION V UNDERWOOD
183/1993 Supreme 12/12/96
Land Law
[1997] 1 IR 69
The final case is Dublin Corporation v Underwood,70 a case where the Supreme Court had to consider the level of compensation payable to an investor whose investment property was the subject of a compulsory purchase order. In the High Court Budd J held that the defendant was entitled to compensation by reference to the principle of equivalence and that he should receive neither more nor less than his total loss. The Supreme Court held that Budd J was correct, with Keane J adding: It would be patently unjust for the dispossessed owner to receive less than the total loss which he has sustained as a result of the compulsory acquisition: such a construction of the legislation would be almost impossible to reconcile with the constitutional prohibition of unjust attacks on the property rights of the citizens….It is accepted that the claimant held these properties as an investment and would have continued to hold them as such if they had not been compulsorily acquired. He wishes to replace them with a corresponding investment. The payment to him of the market value of the properties will enable him, so far as money can do it, to replace the acquired properties, but he will sustain additional expenses in the form of stamp duty, legal and agent’s fees. If he is not paid these latter sums, he will not have been compensated in full for the loss of his existing investments.Taken from: The Ninth Progress report on Private Property [2004]
The All Part Oireachtas committee on the Constitution
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/special/2004/propertyreport/index.pdf
-
June 3, 2005 at 7:58 pm #729233
GrahamH
ParticipantIn compulsory acquisitions is it not conventional for the state to offer market value plus 15% or so, or is that just with roads?
-
June 4, 2005 at 1:00 am #729234
Anonymous
InactiveBusiness decisions are made and yes over market value is usually offered to prevent litigation but the Underwoods are as the article suggests the litigious type.
-
June 6, 2005 at 12:34 pm #729235
dave123
Participantit interest to me to know how the hell do cars get back onto O’Connells street when its for buses and Taxi ?
surly you can tell the differnce when there are signs FOR BUSES TAXI ONLY, -
June 6, 2005 at 9:41 pm #729236
Anonymous
InactiveDave,
The intention was to eliminate the highest volume entry points onto O’Connell St but still provide access: The left turn from Parnell St to O’Connell St which fed the high volume Summerhill Dual Carriageway was banned as was the left turn from Dorset St onto North Frederick St (The continuation of Parnell Sq East) and direct access from Blessington St to Nth Frederick St. It is still possible to enter Parnell Sq East from Great Denmark St and Parnell Sq North and enter to O’Connell St directly from Cathal Brugha St. I think that southbound traffic on O’Connell St has been calmed reasonably enough for todays traffic volumes but the Northbound situation has a much higher traffic load and action should be examined. The reason for this is that there is no restriction on entry to Dame St from Christchurch and a large proportion of this volume of traffic continues on to College Green and O’Connell St.
-
June 7, 2005 at 12:33 am #729237
GrahamH
ParticipantIt has to be said though that these changes thus far have proved remarkably successful in reducing the volumes on the street overall – particularly as said the southbound eastern carriageway, which is often so empty (esp Upper O’Cll St), it is a doddle for pedestrians to cross the road pretty much anywhere – dangerously so at times if you you’re lazy enough to assume the roadway is always devoid of traffic.
Also the traffic light sequencing rather pleasantly makes large stretches of road empty of traffic by holding most of it up for decent periods 🙂
I read a statistic recently about pedestrians on O’Connell St, presumably from just prior to the works, that 40-45% of all pedestrians on O’Connell St are just there to get a bus!
Hopefully things have changed a bit since then, and will continue to do so. -
June 7, 2005 at 12:38 am #729238
Anonymous
InactiveThat should be an amazing statistic but it wouldn’t surprise me at all and I’d say that proportion of those using Westmoreland St is even higher.
How would you rate the effect of the bus-stops on O’Connell St as against Westmoreland Street?
-
June 7, 2005 at 1:01 am #729239
GrahamH
ParticipantIn the case of Westmoreland St, unfortunately there is an even a higher level of ‘use and abuse’; it is used even more so as a pedestrian and vehicular corridor.
If a ballot were to be held for the zapping into oblivion of Westmoreland St from the city of Dublin, probably 95% would vote in favour, in the knowledge that it serves no function at all other than to lengthen the journey from Henry St to College Green, or to act as an inconvienient place to get (off) the bus.
Unfortunately as said before, the closure of Bewley’s has merely added to this.It is extraordinary that the three most important streets in Dublin in spatial terms, are those that are most neglected in terms of use. Were it not for the historic importance of O’Connell St, D’Olier St is the one that really should have been the first to be tackled of The Big Three.
-
June 7, 2005 at 11:19 am #729240
JPD
ParticipantI agree Westmoreland is not a very nice place and I can’t remember ever buying anything more than a cup of coffee here because with bus lines during the day and the number of drunks at night it is not a very inviting place. I use Pearse Station to get from the Dart if I am going to the Dame St area or Temple Bar it is more comfortable.
-
June 7, 2005 at 4:37 pm #729241
Frank Taylor
ParticipantJust to return to the comparison of O’Connell Street with the Champs-Elysées. I previously posted images of this Avenue covered with wheat which was then harvested, with the dramatic backdrop of the Arc. This kind of exercise is great for the imagination, allowing us to see the space on the street in another context freed from the choking effect of motorised transport.
Anyhow, the French have been at it again, this time dressing up the Avenue to draw attention to their olympic bid. It would be great if we could close off O’Connell Street once in a while on a Sunday and hvae big street parties like this.
-
June 7, 2005 at 4:43 pm #729242
Anonymous
InactiveCreativity like that is what has made their bid a 1 to 6 on shot to land the olympics.
-
June 7, 2005 at 6:21 pm #729243
ConK
ParticipantI was in Closkeys on Dominick St (nice old pub) at the weekend. There is a black and white picture of o’connell bridge with a big white building on the bridge. What is it. I hadn’t seen it before.
-
June 7, 2005 at 6:33 pm #729244
GrahamH
ParticipantIs it this for the Eucharistic Congress in 1932?
There was another, more elaborate one in the centre of the bridge too for something else – possibly An Tostal before being replaced with ‘that’ flowerbed etc 🙂
-
June 7, 2005 at 6:44 pm #729245
Anonymous
InactiveThat is a very interesting image Graham, I had presumed that it was put in the median, but thinking about it putting the platform at one edge of the bridge would have allowed both quays be utilised by large crowds to view the proceedings which is most interesting. Although the same effect in terms of numbers could have been used by placing it in the median and allowing both D’Olier St and Westmoreland St by used. :rolleyes:
-
June 7, 2005 at 6:52 pm #729246
GrahamH
ParticipantThere was definitely a huge structure plonked in the middle of the bridge for something as there’s a picture of it in another pub 🙂 on Talbot St.
Really quite extraordinary – you’d never get that kind of thing today. Suppose these days if you want spectacle you just use fireworks, electronics of inflatable floats. In those days if you wanted big, you had to physically build it.Saying that, as Frank’s pictures show the French still have their own way of doing things…
-
June 7, 2005 at 10:00 pm #729247
Anonymous
InactiveThe eucalyptic conquest, give us a wipe Veronica.
-
June 8, 2005 at 1:19 pm #729248
TLM
ParticipantStory in todays Independent…
A major refurbishment of the Savoy cinema pays tribute to the cinema’s venerable history, yet signposts the start of an exciting new era. It’s back to the future for Dublin’s Savoy cinema with the wraps now formally being taken off a new €2m refurbishment today, marking the 75th anniversary of the landmark entertainment venue. The Savoy is Dublin city centre’s oldest remaining cinema. Designed in the same stripped Classical style as the adjacent Gresham Hotel and Hammam Chambers, the Savoy made its mark as one of the great ‘atmospherics’ – the massive interior decorated on a Venetian theme. The original safety curtain had a painting of the Doge’s Palace, the proscenium arch was in the shape of a Venetian bridge, and decorative Venetian windows and balconies looked down on the audience. Those days are gone now, as the cinema was split up to provide multiple smaller theatres some years back.
When I last saw the Savoy a few months back it was looking pretty unimpressive. IN particular the new tacky sign was dreadful! Have things improved since?
-
June 8, 2005 at 1:41 pm #729249
JPD
ParticipantThe Savoy could have done a lot better, putting money in to that new signage was akin to throwing money in to a river. 🙁
-
June 8, 2005 at 1:44 pm #729250
JPD
ParticipantDo you have any pictures for the Savoy interior?
-
June 8, 2005 at 2:10 pm #729251
GrahamH
ParticipantPaul – are you aware that the Indo article has been partially stripped word for word from Archiseek? Again?!
-
June 8, 2005 at 2:42 pm #729252
Anonymous
InactiveDesigned in the same stripped Classical style as the adjacent Gresham Hotel and Hammam Chambers, the Savoy was once one of the great “atmospherics” – the massive interior decorated on a Venetian theme. The safety curtain had a painting of the Doge’s Palace, the proscenium arch was in the shape of a Venetian bridge, and decorative Venetian windows and balconies looked down on the audience. All that is gone now, as the cinema was split up to provide multiple smaller theatres some years back.
Well spotted
-
June 8, 2005 at 3:37 pm #729253
Paul Clerkin
Keymasteryes I am…..
copped it last night….
http://www.p45blogs.net/pquarantecinq/archives/002107.html -
June 8, 2005 at 4:00 pm #729254
GregF
ParticipantJaypers ……that Indo is a right rag of a paper. Tis understandable when ye saw the cut of some of the so called journalists who drank in the Oval. Sir Anthony J, OBE MBE would be disappointed.
-
June 8, 2005 at 4:41 pm #729255
Anonymous
InactiveI usually like John S Doyle
-
June 8, 2005 at 5:48 pm #729256
GrahamH
ParticipantThe attention to architectural detail gave it away, esp ‘stripped Classical style’; the Times & Sunday Times are generally the only two papers that ever go into such detail – certainly not the Indo.
Anyway, the article does have some interesting information about the major restoration/refurbishment job undertaken by McCabe Design, including:
From the Irish Independent 8th of June 2005
Partially by Con Power 🙂“After some research in the Irish Architectural Archive, we managed to locate a number of images of the Savoy interior and exterior taken between 1933 and 1960,” the design firm relates. “Of particular importance from the design point of view were the images of the interior, as these would provide the conceptual springboard from where we could start any new interior design.”
The main image of the 1932 foyer showed highly decorative ceilings, columns and polished marble floors along with evidence of dark wood panelling around the walls. Most of this interior was removed during refurbishment to the cinema in the 1960s.
“While we did not wish to replicate the interior to the exact details shown, inspiration was drawn from the period styling and quality of the materials used,” McCabe adds. “During the initial strip-out, we found evidence of the original plaster ceiling rose centrepieces. We decided to replicate these as centrepieces in the new development from which the ceiling chandeliers could be hung.”
After some more research of chandelier designs from the 1930s and with the help of Falks Lighting, Terenure, a design was decided upon. The chandeliers were then custom manufactured in Italy to the specifications provided.
“We always felt the floor finish would be of major importance and after several samples provided we decided to use the Nero Marquina porcelain tile imported from Italy,” the designers add. It was felt from an early stage that the main staircases leading to the first floor would be a major focal point in the space. In order to give the visual effect of two grand staircases, Lough Construction spent considerable time providing different templates on step designs to give the feel that was required.
The flooring effect was continued up the staircases to the first level, along with a custom designed and manufactured carpet, manufactured by PFL carpets in Limerick. The carpet features a stylised version of a fan design inspired by research of the 1930s. “The evidence in early photos showed a dark wood panelling around the foyer space,” McCabe Design adds. “We decided to use walnut as the main wood material for all major joinery in the space. As the grain in walnut was so regular we designed the walnut wall panelling in its simplest form possible. We felt there was no need for unnecessary raised panel details.
“We accented the panelling with 5mm stainless steel strips which were rebated into its surface. This helped to visually link the wall treatment to the custom stainless steel hand rails which were placed to the interior as required to satisfy current regulations. All the lighting for the refurbished foyer was fitted with warm colour bulbs in an effort to replicate the warm tungsten light evident from 1930’s lighting.”
Ends
I was was in the Savoy a couple of times recently, and it is indeed a magnificent job. The walnut panelling really stands out as it has a very prominent grain which is just beautiful. Also the timber has just been lightly treated so it retains much of its natural quailities. And the rebated steel strips mentioned above offer it a contemporary twist whilst still retaining a classic look.
The plaster ceiling in the lobby, the glittering chandeliers and the black tiled floor are all very impressive, as is the carpeting throughout the rest of the building which generates a luxurious air in the corridors – again the design is appropriate to the origins of the building.
Overall a job very well done – perhaps the panelling has a slightly tacked-on appearance to it, but that could be just down to the impression one gets in light of the amount of cheap panelling jobs one sees nowadays.
The new ticket office is equally impressive, which makes it all the more irritating that such a botched job was executed outside, particularly on the shopfront of the ticket office itself which is just ghastly if you’ve seen it.
Just a large expanse of glass with yet more horizontal broad strips of that silver muck used on the porch tacked onto it.If this could be reversed, along with some quality timber entrance doors for the foyer, it would be a job very well done.
Also no mention in the Indo article of the proposals for the exterior alterations soon to get underway – assuming they’re happening… -
June 8, 2005 at 6:39 pm #729257
emf
ParticipantThere is a planning application in the ticket office window for some alterations externally but I’m not sure of the details. Perhaps they haven’t finished yet! I will have a look later on this evening!
-
June 8, 2005 at 6:59 pm #729258
GrahamH
ParticipantThese (rather limited) details were posted before if they’re of any help – the application may have changed a bit though in the few months since. The quality and extent of intended works is impressive.
…some of the details of their latest planning application.
In relation to the windows, there’s a wooden one in the centre as well as to the left of it that’s to be replaced with an original design, presumably in steel.
The tatty ticket office in the centre of the ground facade is to be replaced with a Portland stone pillar/centrepiece.
The mosic and illuminated adertisment-clad piers to each end of the facade are also to be removed and replaced with Portland stone piers ‘in character with the upper floors’.
Also it has applied for ‘maintainance in situ’ of existing silver-clad canopy. Why are they applying for maintenance?
Finally, the basement lightwell grids are to be removed and paved over with granite when the street itself is tackled.Also as J Seerski highlighted, the Gresham are upgrading and now have 2 vast applications in their windows.
One of the primary aims is to ‘remove all non-original windows in nos 20-23’ i.e. the whole facade of the hotel.
Presumably this means bye bye aluminum – hello double glazed steel…Also a pic of the upper facade, including the two windows on the second floor to be replaced – the centre one and the frame to the left.
It’s a magnificent piece of architecture – a perfect modern classical interpretation I think…
-
June 9, 2005 at 3:02 am #729259
Anonymous
InactiveThis section of O’Connell St is my favourite that particular period of architecture really appeals to me with the intention of clasicism being compromised by small deco touches. It is such a pity that the Country was so broke at this time when one travels to Cities that were booming in the late 1920’s the financial districts are a treasure chest of early corporate architecture.
-
June 9, 2005 at 3:04 pm #729260
J. Seerski
ParticipantJust when you thought it was safe to walk down O’Connell Street….
ANOTHER CARROLLS OF DUBLIN APPEARS TO BE OPENING!!!!! – beside the Irish Permanent Building.
Why oh why dont other stores/cafes/offices open up on the street…. This will be the FOURTH O’Carrolls on the street…. A pound-shop by any other name…. 😡
-
June 9, 2005 at 3:41 pm #729261
Anonymous
InactiveIsn’t there a section in the IAP that lists as an objective that higher value uses were desirable for the street?
I find it amazing that selling plastic paddies and leprachaun suits is such a profitable business
-
June 9, 2005 at 5:15 pm #729262
GrahamH
ParticipantIt is extraordinary all right – they have five stores within a 1/2 mile radius including two on O’Connell St, one at the top of Westmoreland St, one on Henry St and another again on Suffolk St! Whatever about the other 2/3 dotted about the place as well…
Yes there is a listing of ‘higher order’ uses – what a pompous phrase that is – in the IAP, ACA Plan & SPCS.
However Carroll’s doesn’t quite fit into any of these categories, not quite being a convenience store or an amusement arcade (though that’s open to interpretation :)).All uses that are banned full-stop for ground floors (and some first floors) are:
– outlets selling hot food for consumption off the premises
– fast food outlets
– night clubs
– newsagents/convenience stores
– phone call centres/internet cafes (only at ground or first floor level)
– Automated Teller Machines and Automatic Teller Machine Lobbies
– Amusement arcadesWith the the definitions of fast food and convenience store being:
Fast Food Outlet: An outlet that sells hot and cold food and drinks, served packed and wrapped and
without waiter service.
Newsagents/Convenience Shop: A retail outlet that sells a range of goods including newspapers and
magazines, confectionary, soft drinks, cigarettes, fresh and prepacked foods, prepared cold foods for
consumption of the premises.“Planning permission will be refused for any one of these uses or for an extension to one of these uses.”
Also:
“…the change of use of a shop or part of a shop to a premises trading as a newsagents/convenience store, supermarket, off-licence, pharmacy or sex shop will now constitute a change of use and will require planning permission.”The idea of the ‘interesting’ definition of a sex shop being draughted by a civil servant in a grey wool suit is rather amusing :). I won’t post it though, not suitable for such delicate eyes 🙂
There’s also a host of other uses like call centres and betting offices etc mentioned for change of use needing permission. Presumably it was under this provision that Paddy Power were refused permission for their proposed premises.
If Carroll’s are opening yet another store, there is no way thay should be allowed until they at least sort out their Upper O’Connell St store which is a disgrace in appearance. The worst element is the music blasting out of the premises – both out of the open doors and by a loudspeaker erected outside the shop!
This is expressly forbidden, with good reason, by the SPCS Plan which states: “No amplified announcements, music or other material should be played from any premises to advertise goods or services and no loudspeakers or other amplification apparatus should be affixed on or about the front of any premises for such a purpose. Any such sounds within the premises should be controlled so as to be inaudible from adjoining premises or at 2 metres from the frontage.” (emphasis added)
Not only can the music be heard more than 2 metres away from the premises, ‘A Nation Once Again’ can be heard at the other side of the flippin street outside the Savoy!
It really is bandit country up there on Upper O’Connell St – the CC ought to have been propagating the ‘pride & improvement’ culture only now materialising on Lower O’Connell St on the Upper end in anticipation of works.
Rather it is in exactly the same state, if not worse due to physical deterioration, as it was seven years ago.As the Special Planning Control Scheme highlights towards the end:
“The provisions of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 2000 will be used to safeguard endangered buildings and to seek the restoration of specified structures.”
-
June 9, 2005 at 5:22 pm #729263
Anonymous
InactiveI think Anne Summers could defeat the term ‘sex shop’ very easily should they seek a second outlet on the Street, I also note that a Centra opened in the last couple of years beside the Carlton building yet this rule was not taken into consideration by the planners and I’m not even sure that an application was made.
-
June 10, 2005 at 2:32 am #729264
GrahamH
ParticipantWell the definition of such a premises is very clearly defined now, so I doubt they could get around it on that front, but key is the fact that such a use is not ‘banned’ as it were, as it is with others such as arcades etc – rather one must apply for permission for change of use to that nature of shop.
How can the City Council refuse permission for this use, or indeed any other use that is listed as needing permission?
They can consider the following when making their decision as stated in the SPCS:– the number and proximity of similar outlets already operating in the area
– the scale of the proposed outlet
– the physical impact of the proposed use on the internal structure of the building in which it will be located,
– the quality of the shopfront design and associated signage…but can they reject it even if it suits these grounds? The High Court challenge Ann Summers initiated when first opened was that some of the CC’s grounds for rejection were based on ‘irrelevant’ matters, essentially morality, rather than sound planning principles.
As such a use is not apparently ‘banned’, what can be done, not just in relation to Summers which is hardly a contentious store anyway for most people, but other uses too?
Presumably it is the same ‘tool’ that was applied in the case of Paddy Power… -
June 10, 2005 at 1:41 pm #729265
Anonymous
Inactivehttp://www.dublincity.ie/shaping_the_city/future_planning/development_plan/tilee.htm?4&e&5
and
http://www.dublincity.ie/shaping_the_city/future_planning/development_plan/tilee.htm?3&e&5
Are the relevant zoning maps shoing the extent of the ACA (Architectural Conservation area, I was on North Earl St yesterday and noticed a row of three discount/convenience stores has emerged with the numbers being roughly 14, 15 & 16. The gang of three consists of Discount4U, Eurosavers and now a Centra. All of the shopfronts have been changed significantly since the IAP plan was written and the Centra is only open a matter of days and has replaced a different use.
The Paddy Power application was I believe refused partly on use and partly on the basis of the ancilliary development namely the term ‘sports cafe’ which could only have been interpreted as bar with sports memorabilia and multiple TV’s, a type of fit out that would have been entirely inappropriate to a heritage building. The definition sex-shop is too general to be easily enforced a further definition should be constructed to really take in all related product lines and ban the sale of any one of them. Sex shops have seriously damaged the southern section of South William Street which was really starting to acheive a good retail potential and have done exactly the same thing to Capel St.
-
June 10, 2005 at 2:20 pm #729266
emf
ParticipantCarrolls is deversifying, they have a B&B on Gardiner St now too! In a few years it’ll probably be 6!!
-
June 10, 2005 at 2:29 pm #729267
J. Seerski
ParticipantLook at the following Stats on O’Connell Street:
Centra – 3 Stores
Spar -1
Mc D’s – 2
Burger King – 2
Supermacs – 1
Eddie Rockets -1
Carrols – 3 – probably four by next week
Amusement Arcades – 4
Abrakebabra -1
Two ‘tat’ shops have opened in the last few months – at the old Gresham News shop and at the old Thorntons Jewellers.
There are now 5 net cafes on the street.What are the bets that the old BOI at the junction of Parnell Sq/O’Connell Street will be ‘Sparified’….
And to think Centra wanted to extend their space on the street already….
Others on streets directly off O’Connell Street (possibly a lot more!):
Spar – 4
Centra – 2
Carrols – 3
Mc D’s -1
BK – 1
Abra Kebabra -1If you went a little further you could say within a half mile radius of the street there are at least 30 Spars, 30 Centras, prob another 5 Carrols…
Has any other city got such a monotonous store-stock? Repitition, repitition….
Taking from good auld James Joyce, could anyone walk through Dublin without passing a Centra/Spar etc etc…. 😮 And to maintain the architectural nature of this thread, in design terms few if any of these stores have any merit in shopfront design or interior….. Bland Bland Bland….
-
June 10, 2005 at 2:33 pm #729268
Anonymous
Inactive@J. Seerski wrote:
Has any other city got such a monotonous store-stock? Repitition, repitition….
Pyongyang 😀
-
June 10, 2005 at 2:59 pm #729269
dave123
Participantlol, “for the way we live today”!!!!
don’t forget late night pharmacy too -
June 10, 2005 at 3:47 pm #729270
aj
Participanti know this has been discussed before but I was walking along Marlborough St today and you cant fail to notice the state its in especially the end closest to the abbey. Given that the national Cathedral, and theatre not to mention a government department are in this street you would think someone would deal with it!
-
June 10, 2005 at 10:00 pm #729271
Anonymous
InactiveThe Department of Education is fantastic, it is a terrible pity that the local security situation is such that the public aren’t allowed to use this little oasis. There are some very derelict buildings at the Abbey end of the Street which should face enforcement proceedings as you say, where else on the City-Centre sections of the Luas line (Excluding Tony Grants one) would you find buildings in such poor condition?
There is a planning application in for 16 North Earl St, I’ll post details later.
Daniel O’Connell his received his first bird droppings, unfortunately going right down his forhead, I suppose it had to happen sooner or later but the Statue looks well even still and I suppose it displays just how necessary the job was.
-
June 10, 2005 at 10:38 pm #729272
GrahamH
ParticipantIt’s a pity about all the seagulls – ‘normal’ bird activity wouldn’t cause the level of damage that the gulls do.
Yes I couldn’t believe it seeing Centra opening on Nth Earl St, but one door down from Spar! Talbot/Nth Earl St now has two Spars, two Centras and a Super Valu supermarket! Don’t know how they’re all staying alive – perhaps not for long…
And this new Centra is simply replacing a pound shop – ‘Poundstretcher’ to be precise.Yes the lack of public access to the Dept of Education is a great pity, it’s a crying shame when walking by to see the lovely grounds which look like a public space if nothing else, railed off like Fort Knox. I don’t see how the existing level of security isn’t enough to protect the area if opened to the public.
emf that Carroll’s guesthouse is something else all right – couldn’t believe it passing a few months ago! They’ll have all of Gardiner St consumed and the Custom House dome replaced with a leprechaun hat before we know it!
No doubt they were testing the waters with these… -
June 10, 2005 at 10:51 pm #729273
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
emf that Carroll’s guesthouse is something else all right – couldn’t believe it passing a few months ago! They’ll have all of Gardiner St consumed and the Custom House dome replaced with a leprechaun hat before we know it!
No doubt they were testing the waters with these…😀 lol
Nothing registered for Poundstretcher yet but it was in todays paper so I’ll post when its registered. I am shocked to see that permission was still being granted for Aluminium shutters in North Earl St as late as 1998.
-
June 11, 2005 at 3:35 am #729274
GrahamH
ParticipantArrgh – too late!
Those damn Carrolls don’t miss a trick do they… -
June 11, 2005 at 2:37 pm #729275
Anonymous
InactiveGraham would you not have used http://www.p45.net/general/?i=75
Your image is way to kind when one looks at the image placed at number 115 in the poll 😀
Paul where did you get that image I tried to located a plastic paddy on the net and couldn’t find one?
RE: The Guesthouse does anyone know how long it is open?
-
June 12, 2005 at 10:56 am #729276
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
It’s a pity about all the seagulls – ‘normal’ bird activity wouldn’t cause the level of damage that the gulls do.
Is there some special type of chemical sealant that is used on exterior bronze work to minimise the effect of avain activity? I found it interesting that you high-lighted seagulls as opposed to the more typical pigeon activity that one associates with the City Centre in General.
-
June 14, 2005 at 12:18 pm #729277
GregF
ParticipantAll the statues on o’Connell Street look really well, now that they have been cleaned!
-
June 14, 2005 at 12:41 pm #729278
TLM
Participant!!!!
This in todays Independent…….
Lapdance celebrity unveils plans for a €3m club off O’Connell Street
LAPDANCE supremo Peter Stringfellow plans to open an up-market club in Dublin, the Irish Independent can reveal.
The perma-tanned entrepreneur will shortly launch a major drive to attract beautiful Irish girls. These will work alongside a coterie of his international dancers in the new club which will be just off the top of O’Connell Street.
The flamboyant businessman said last night he planned to invest at least €3m in creating a luxurious lap-dancing emporium in a 12,500 sq ft two-storey building in the Parnell Centre.
“There will be a nucleus of Irish dancers,” he said. “They may have been reluctant in the past to set up in Dublin, and with good reason, but we expect to break down that barrier using the international name of Stringfellows.”
Mr Stringfellow said he already employs Irish dancers in his London club and he expects some of them will work in Dublin.
“This will be the full-weight Stringfellows with gourmet restaurant, dancing and top-rate decor,” he said.
Mr Stringfellow said he expected to sign the final contract for the premises just as soon as he finished sailing his yacht from Ibiza to Majorca.
At least 50 dancers on an average night, and up to 90 at the weekend, will work in the club which will hold between 400 and 500 customers.
“My kind of club will cater to the international traveller and the affluent end of the Irish business community – this is a very good thing for Dublin and it will have a lot of international appeal,” he said.
“There will VIP areas, champagne areas, a long bar at the beginning with pole dancers, an area for more exclusive dancing and a restaurant that should be very popular.”
It is third time lucky for Mr Stringfellow who has previously looked at two other sites in Dublin over the last two years, including one beneath the St Stephen’s Green shopping centre.
Mr Stringfellow said had always wanted to open a club in Dublin but had been wary of doing so because of some of the practices that some lap-dance operators had been able to get away with.
However, the Sheffield born businessman said he was now convinced that bad elements had been stamped out by the Garda in a move that had helped open the door to legitimate operators.
“I feel the police in Dublin have got their act together and sorted things out,” he said.
Mr Stringfellow said he had already met gardai to discuss the club.
He said a small consortium of Irish business people were supporting his move into Dublin. But until he signed the final contract he could not reveal their names.
Mr Stringfellow was advised by Dublin-based property experts HT Meagher O’Reilly while Morrissey Auctioneers advised the owners of the new property on the deal.
The site of Mr Stringfellows new venture was previously occupied by a bar and lap-dance club backed by Northern Irish businessmen which went bust in late 2003 with debts of €2.4m.
Tom Lyons
-
June 14, 2005 at 1:16 pm #729279
JPD
ParticipantIt is an ambitious move to try to convert a bar in Parnell St to a corporate strip club, the main worry I’d have is the mix between drunken suits and teenage girls coming out of the cinema. I think the cinema and the bar are next door?
-
June 14, 2005 at 5:41 pm #729280
GrahamH
Participantan area for more exclusive dancing
Exactly what is an ‘exclusive’ dance? :confused:
Innocence is a virtue I’m told…At least this is what Parnell St needs. Dublin’s most exclusive thoroughfare has become a bit too gentrified of late – needs taking down a peg of two with a joint like this :rolleyes:
Yes Sir John Grey & William Smith O’Brien have just been unveiled – hope to have some before and after pics shortly…
Here’s a image that might be of interest – it’s a stretch of Upper O’Cll St West taken from Shaws Pictorial Guide of 1850. I’ve just superimposed the current day buildings over all of the townhouses, including the last remaining Royal Dublin House. The Fingal Offices consumed another house that is out of shot to the left.
Of course some of the houses had already disappeared before modern development came along, notably with the building of Gilbey’s on the Fingal site.
Also, here’s the original Carlton Cinema from c1932 🙂
Shows a lot of the original Georgian streetscape, including some interesting Pearse St-like Edwardian shopfronts.
-
June 15, 2005 at 10:22 am #729281
manstein
ParticipantDoes anyone know what work they are doing currently at the top end of O’Connell Street ? Must be important to cause such disruption to traffic in the mornings…
-
June 15, 2005 at 12:19 pm #729282
GregF
ParticipantIt’s the continuation of the repaving of the street………….I hope! The central median here is up next for a makover!
-
June 16, 2005 at 8:28 pm #729283
GrahamH
ParticipantAnother detail here about Upper O’Connell Street.
The largest and grandest house ever to be built on the street was that evident in the middle pictured below (now the site of Burger King :rolleyes: on the corner with Cathedral St – one would wonder if the lane was put in place just to allow direct access to the house’s stables. It’d be interesting if Cathedral St has its origins in this)Six bays wide, it featured the original and best glowering birds up on the parapet – no PVC here 🙂
So we’ve Gardiner to blame for setting the trend…Well maybe not Gardiner, beacause he leased the site to a banker who built the house, who in turn sold it to none other than the Earl of Drogheda himself – so he ended up living in a house built on what would have been his street but a few years previously!
Here’s a great image of it in 1922 in all its forbidding burnt out glory:
It’s very easy to make out how early the house is in terms of Georgian design – the house was six bays wide so the entrance was placed off centre, a big no no later on. Also the doorcase itself still has a heavy baroque influence with that arched pediment. The window surrounds to the sides appear to be later.
It’s a great pity the house had survived 1916 up to 1922, but was obviously destroyed beyond repair in the conflict on Upper O’Connell St.Not that it hadn’t been altered earlier though: here it is in the late 19th century where the right-hand two bays have been chopped off and replaced with that fun Victorian turreted building J. Seerski mentioned before:
If you hadn’t seen this picture, the later 1922 image would have led you to believe the whole house was still intact!
At least some of the fine buildings of this end were replaced with equally if not more distinguished structures in the reconstruction, and a unified scheme at that. -
June 17, 2005 at 12:02 am #729284
-
June 17, 2005 at 1:24 pm #729285
Anonymous
InactiveThat six bay would have been a great feature on the street and it is a pity that it was lost
-
June 17, 2005 at 4:43 pm #729286
GrahamH
ParticipantWould’ve made something of a statement all right…
Yes good point about the trees, was wondering about that the other day. The time is drawing ever closer…
Bit late to say it now 🙂 , but the planes at this end aren’t as large as the trees at the lower end were… -
June 17, 2005 at 8:39 pm #729287
Anonymous
InactiveIs there any information on who the banker was, presumably this guy was pretty close to the entire Gardiner estate project, it would be interesting to see just how involved he was in relation to the over-all creation of Georgian Dublin.
The second point that is interesting is the second image of the Victorian infill, it would appear that the authorities were keen to re-instate the existing building line, I wonder was it some sort of wide streets commissioners hang-over as the building looks more late mid 19th century than anything else.
Great images I’m sure that there would be a great conservation thesis tracking changes on O’Connell St from the Mall years through to Civil War.
-
June 18, 2005 at 4:07 am #729288
GrahamH
ParticipantMost definitely – especially eastern Upper O’Connell St as its stock has all but been forgotten as a result of the 1922-29 reconstruction; there isn’t a trace of its past left.
As for the banker, according to Desmond Guinness, he was an alderman: Richard Dawson. Considering Gardiner was also a banker, it’s likely they knew each other rather well, which would explain a lot…I have a couple of other images of this Upper stretch to post, but to reel back a bit further, I thought it would perhaps be interesting to see how the upper stretch developed, and indeed O’Connell St in general, through some maps – it makes it all a lot clearer.
Suppose most of us know some or all of the info below already, and some of the pictures have been posted before, but the maps are of interest in their own right anyway :). Sorry this goes on a bit – some of it is of course already covered by Paul in this site’s section on the Gardiners. This is spread over two posts as the six the images won’t fit onto one.(Once upon a time :D) O’Connell Street was first born over 330 years ago with the laying out of Drogheda Street in around 1670 by the infamous 3rd Earl of Drogheda Henry Moore, along with Henry St, Moore St, Earl St and various other ancillary streets.
As can be seen in Brooking’s 1728 map below, Drogheda St was a fairly narrow, but nonetheless long thoroughfare. As far as I know it was a commercial rather than residential street, but I can’t confirm this. It may have been a mixture. (There’s a modern day street layout superimposition on both maps)It ran down from the present-day Parnell St to Abbey St, and was but a third of the width of O’Connell St today: roughly 50ft. It seems Henry St still reigned supreme in the fashion stakes however upon the completion of Drogheda St, as it was wider and closer to Capel St and the all-important bridge – O’Connell Bridge of course being non-existent for another 120 years. Henry St also had all buildings facing the roadway whereas Drogheda St was a bit of a mess.
In 1714 Luke Gardiner purchased the huge Moore holding, which in addition to the aforementioned streets included vast tracts of land to the north. However he didn’t get round to tackling any of these old streets until the 1740s.
Eventually in 1748/9 he demolished the western side of the upper part of Drogheda St down as far as Henry St (perhaps an indicator of its crucial importance as an access point).
As can be seen on the Bernard Scalé map below from the 1760s, he replaced the old Drogheda St terrace with fashionable new houses. It’s interesting to note how the houses get larger the further away they are from the busy Henry St 🙂What I’ve yet to discover is exactly how much of the eastern side of Drogheda St was demolished, and how much, if any was retained. In the map above, the houses at the very top with Great Britain St are very small – possibly the only remnants of it.
What can also be seen is the last straggling piece of Drogheda St to the south, which no doubt benefited greatly from this exclusive new development next door. You can see there are lots of buildings covering over what is now modern day O’Connell St. I’ve marked in the site of Clery’s as a guide to the location of the brick remnants of the buildings seen here, excavated just outside the department store during the Lower works two years ago.
Anyway, as posted before, here’s the 150ft wide Sackville St with Gardiner’s Mall in the centre. The Mall itself was 48ft wide, and later planted with elm trees – most likely the scene depicted here was a building site at the time of creation in 1750.
The Mall was lined with low (probably granite) walls, with obelisks topped with oil-fuelled globes. This must have been an extraordinary sight in pokey old Dublin of 1750! Also rarely commented on are the equally attractive bollards marching the entire way down the street lining the side pavements. I wonder where these all are today?
Here’s spooky view of what they would have looked like from the rear of the Rotunda in 1858. Maybe this is them – are they still there today?!Two interesting points to note between Joseph Tudor’s image and the map is that the present-day corner building with Henry St could very possibly pre-date the Mall, being a survivor of the terrace of neighbouring buildings on Henry St demolished to make way for the Mall.
The second point is fun – as I’ve always suspected, the first houses there on the right of the Mall never even existed! Look at the comparison – nothing but a derelict site, and this is roughly 15 years later! You’re a liar Tudor, a liar and a cheat!!! Thinking you can delude us romanticising old fools in our modern age that your time was such a classical utopia. 😀
Also it appears that some old Henry St buildings remained facing onto Sackville Mall; somehow I suspect they shot up in value 🙂
-
June 18, 2005 at 4:16 am #729289
GrahamH
ParticipantAnyway thankfully Gardiner lived to see his grand scheme come to fruition, and the beginning of Parnell Square, but he died in 1755 and Tsar Luke II took over 🙂
Little happened on the extending-to-the-river concept that Luke I had intended until the Wide Streets Commission seem to have taken matters into their own hands two decades later. In 1777 they received a grant from Parliament to extend Sackville Street to the river.
Work seems to have gotten underway immediately, involving the demolition of the remaining part of Drogheda St, part of Princes St, Tucker’s Row and Bachelors Walk – at least 100 individual properties.By the late 1780s the new development of marching terraces with unified façades was largely completed, and seems to have been finished in time for the opening of the new Carlisle Bridge for pedestrians in 1792.
And here’s a rather sketchy (literally :)) image of the magnificent new development by the WSC, dating from around 1820. Unfortunately the downside of this new scheme was the removal of the Mall at the upper end of the street at around the same time.
This new lower end remained very successful as an exclusively commercial development at ground floor level – predating Westmoreland St by over a decade which is a thoroughfare usually described as being radically commercial for its time in Europe – well Lower O’Connell St predated even this!One final and little known fact is that O’Connell St is wider at its southern river end than the northern original part! Gardiner’s Sackville Street was 150 wide, but the Wide Streets Commission’s commercial development is 165 feet wide!
This could just result from a desire for a wider street, but I like to think it was a deliberate clever little ploy by the WSC to add that extra little bit of drama to the grand new thoroughfare by increasing its perspective, and generate a ‘stretching into the distance’ effect.
Considering the street was completely devoid of any street furniture at all, not even the Pillar, it’s quite possible… -
June 18, 2005 at 5:47 pm #729290
JPD
ParticipantYou have to wonder why the trees weren’t taken down last winter when they didn’t look like much. I just hope that no one chains themselves to them now.
-
June 19, 2005 at 1:41 pm #729291
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
One final and little known fact is that O’Connell St is wider at its southern river end than the northern original part! Gardiner’s Sackville Street was 150 wide, but the Wide Streets Commission’s commercial development is 165 feet wide!
This could just result from a desire for a wider street, but I like to think it was a deliberate clever little ploy by the WSC to add that extra little bit of drama to the grand new thoroughfare by increasing its perspective, and generate a ‘stretching into the distance’ effect.
Considering the street was completely devoid of any street furniture at all, not even the Pillar, it’s quite possible…That is interesting Graham. Maybe it could also have been to open up the view of both D’Olier Street and Westmoreland Street aswell?
Thanks
Phil
-
June 19, 2005 at 2:49 pm #729292
Anonymous
InactiveOn that theme possibly it was because the College Green to Abbey St section was the most travelled section of Dublin and that the traffic load simply required this space. Thinking back to the days before traffic restrictions both Abbey St Middle and Lower were very heavily used.
One would wonder will any street paving scheme be implemented on Middle Abbey St as it stands the Street is neither one thing or the other but has buckets of potential. One would like to think that the City Council could take advantage of the massive investment about to be undertaken by Arnotts and lift the tone of the southern side of the Street.
-
June 19, 2005 at 6:42 pm #729293
Alek Smart
ParticipantIts great to get some form of historical perspective on the Main Street however my bile is still bubbling at the cack-handed manner in which the “Works” are being conducted.
For example the entire scheme appears to be operating on a Monday to Friday 0900 to 1700 basis with appropriate breaks for contemplation.
Yesterday (Sat) was one of the most glorious days a builder or farmer could wish for yet the ENTIRE OCS project lay silent with the tools and equipment lying where they were thrown on Friday afternoon.
In addition I have serious reservations concerning the manner in which the City Council are intent on maintaining a “Business as Usual” approach especially on the Northbound side from the GPO to Parnell St.
I regard the continuing operation of busy Bus Atha Cliath stops including Airlink and City Tour sa little short of Negligent Incompetence on the part of the City Council and the Gardai.
Have any of the Grandee`s of the City bothered to stroll down and observe the situation as several Buses arrive to unload and embark passengers.
It is a serious accident in the making and contributed to by the Hoarding which is still half constructed along the central median.
Dublin City Council in it`s more recent reincarnations have a somewhat tarnished reputation in relation to Public Safety in the O Connell Bridge/Street area.
The Civic Response to the two Cyclist Fatalities at O Connell Bridge was one of the most minimal and innefective that could be imagined as the Council resorted to washing its hands of the matter.
From a safety perspective alone surely SOME scrap of professionalism exists within the Council AND the Gardai which would allow for the Northern End of the street to be cleared of ALL Bus and Taxi stops (The Taxi Fraternity are resolute in their determination to face down ANY attempt to impose order on their activities,whether safety related or not).
Bus Atha Cliath are loath to be seen to ask their customers to make their way even a hundred meters further lest they be attacked on Marion or dragged into the Herald front page.
The fact that such a move would be in the passengers own interests would neve ebter the mind of the Cheap-Shot media mob,who in the event of an accident or fatality here will be found circling overhead like carrion crows.
This particular phase of the OCS programme would allow the Civic Authorities and Bus Atha Cliath an opportunity to display a degree of co-operation by agreeing a package of ALTERNATIVE Bus Routings through the City Centre.
For example:
Jervis Street is now a clear and adaptable street which has the potential for a Stance/Terminus adjacent to Wolfe Tone Park.
This street has the advantage of being able to cater for Buses heading both WESTWARDS and NORTHWARDS
It is also as close as OCS from many of the larger shopping precincts such as the Jervis centre itself.
Indeed with Mr Stringfellow`s desires for the Parnell Centre in mind perhaps BAC should be getting in there first and erecting it`s own (Bus) Poles before the area gets too congested.
On the other side we have Marlborough St and Gardiner St which also offer scope for both through running and terminating routes through the use of Bus Only Turns and Contra-Flow Bus Lanes.
I feel very strongly that OCS is presently creaking under the weight of Bus Routes being forced along it often with no point other than “sure is`nt it traditional”.
If the concept of the OCS scheme is to be fully realized then we must look at ways of reducing its TOTAL vehicle throughput not merely Private Cars alone.
The worrying point for me is the minimal on-street co-operation which appears to be evident between Bus Atha Cliath and the other responsible Civic entities.
As Minister Cullen alluded to in his press release on the Dublin Public Transport regulation issue,It an area littered with little empires and fifedoms none of which have the public interest or public safety to the fore.
The most useful aspect of Seamus Brennan`s tenure as Transport Minister was his invitation to Manuel Melis of the Madrid Metro (3 M as he is known) to visit Dublin and inspect our way of doing things.
Senor Melis was brief and succinct…
1. Devise and agree a simple plan of action.
2. Get all the required legals out of the way BEFORE commencement.
3. Commence work on a 24-7-365 basis and DO NOT STOP until completion.
It would seem that Senor Melis`s track record and advice did not impress our heirarchy unduly as NONE of his sensible points were acted upon….nor are they likely to be…
As Brian Cowen revealed on the Prime Time “Refurbish yer Yacht at the State`s Expense” documentary…..”Thats not how we do things here”………….Nuff Said ?? -
June 19, 2005 at 7:10 pm #729294
GrahamH
ParticipantEdit: Sorry didn’t see your post till after posting this Alek!
Yes that could’ve been the reason also Phil about the view of the southside streets and the width of O’Cll St – or indeed the WSC just wanted to create a wide entrance at the river which would give the impression that the whole street was that grand width! Viewd from the two southside streets it would look very impressive.
This map here from the IAP shows the street as being tapered:
It’d be interesting if you had one of those laser pointer measuring yokes and see exactly how the street varies along its width – if you were eh, so inclined….
All the same if the upper is 150ft and the lower 165ft, there’s quite significant implications there for the new works with a loss of the width of two traffic lanes at the northern end.
Just on the Gardiner obelisks – J Seekski suggested before that these famous Hugh Lane/Charlemont House obelisks may be remnants of the Mall, and certainly their size looks identical.
At the time I said that they probably weren’t the originals because when they were reinstated outside the house in the 1950s, after being missing for some years, they were done so according to an image of the house from 1780 in which they are already in situ.
But considering the WSC works don’t seem to have begun until around 1777, it’s perhaps possible the Mall was removed during this short period, just in time for them to be in place for the 1780 image!Either way, there was 32 of them originally, so at least some of them must still be kicking around! Wouldn’t be surprised if the odd one cropped up in a graveyard or two…
-
June 19, 2005 at 7:35 pm #729295
GrahamH
ParticipantAlek you seem to have a good knowledge on the operations of Dublin Bus.
What do you make of the cycle lane placed on the right-hand side of the northbound/western carriageway?
I have yet to see a single bus observe the white line on the road there. Is it generally accepted now that this cycle lane is non-existent in the eyes of bus/vehicle users?I would echo your sentiments about buses on O’Connell St – get rid of as many of them as possible, whatever about during the works. I’ve yet to see the temporary bus operations on the Upper street in action, so can’t comment, but in general the amount of buses on the street, both northbound and southbound is astonishing at times. I’ve literally seen corteges of buses pouring around from Parnell St, and at the southern end from the bridge & quays – it gets very congested outside Easons, especially with the two sets of Luas lights and pedestrian lights there.
Whatever about the virtues of public transport and the mode that is bus travel, diesel buses as vehicles are most unpleasant on city streets, and are even worse when lined up and doubled over on the dual carriegway that is O’Connell St.
I’d equate their presence on the street as worse than the median tree planting – now that’s something! 😀 -
June 19, 2005 at 7:47 pm #729296
Anonymous
Inactive@Dublin Bus press office wrote:
http://www.dublinbus.ie/news_centre/timetable_and_route_news.asp?action=view&news_id=461
O’Connell Street – east side bus stops
Dublin Bus wish to advise customers that due to path widening in O’Connell Street, the following bus stop changes will be implemented on the east side of O’Connell Street from Monday 20 June 2005 (date subject to change):
The last two bus stops (southbound, before O’Connell Bridge) in Lower O Connell Street outside the Ulster Bank and Hamilton’s Pharmacy will be removed. These two bus stops serve routes 5, 7, 7A, 7B, 7D, 11, 11A, 13, 13A, 40A, 70X and 116. These routes will in future stop and pick up passengers on Lower O’Connell Street outside Sony Shop from the above date.
Routes 10, 10A and the 46A will in future stop and pick up passengers on Lower O’Connell Street outside Clerys from the above date.
Routes 121, 122 and 123 will in future stop and pick up passengers on Upper O’Connell Street outside Beshoff from the above date.
Routes 1, 2, 3, 16, 16A, 19, 19A, 38, 38A, 38B and 38C will in future stop and pick up passengers on Upper O’Connell Street outside Burgerking from the above date.
Hardly comprehensive is it?
-
June 19, 2005 at 7:55 pm #729297
GrahamH
ParticipantBut on a different note, does this mean that the Lower south-east section is about to be tackled at last?!
-
June 19, 2005 at 8:01 pm #729298
Anonymous
InactiveTrue, but what do you make of the lack of changes to any section of Western side?
-
June 20, 2005 at 12:55 am #729299
JPD
ParticipantThe number of buses on O’Connell St has always been excessive its just like the route always went that way so it better not be changed. Dublin Bus has never had so many buses, I think they need to look at some routes.
-
June 20, 2005 at 3:33 am #729300
Devin
ParticipantRe: O’C St. Width
D’Olier Street is also narrower than Westmoreland Street by about 15 feet (this may also be seen in the IAP map posted above (though the map is inaccurate with the position of the (pre-1882) O’Connell Bridge, which should be shown more or less on axis with the apex of D’Olier/Westmoreland Sts.))~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whao, if you take your eye off this thread for a few days, it races ahead!
If I might just reply to a post from Thursday:@Graham Hickey wrote:
Another detail here about Upper O’Connell Street.
The largest and grandest house ever to be built on the street was that evident in the middle pictured below (now the site of Burger King :rolleyes: on the corner with Cathedral St – one would wonder if the lane was put in place just to allow direct access to the house’s stables. It’d be interesting if Cathedral St has its origins in this)Six bays wide, it featured the original and best glowering birds up on the parapet – no PVC here 🙂
[Perhaps they should have featured on every parapet in the country!!]
So we’ve Gardiner to blame for setting the trend…
Well maybe not Gardiner, beacause he leased the site to a banker who built the house, who in turn sold it to none other than the Earl of Drogheda himself – so he ended up living in a house built on what would have been his street but a few years previously!
Here’s a great image of it in 1922 in all its forbidding burnt out glory:
It’s very easy to make out how early the house is in terms of Georgian design – the house was six bays wide so the entrance was placed off centre, a big no no later on. Also the doorcase itself still has a heavy baroque influence with that arched pediment. The window surrounds to the sides appear to be later.
It’s a great pity the house had survived 1916 up to 1922, but was obviously destroyed beyond repair in the conflict on Upper O’Connell St.Not that it hadn’t been altered earlier though: here it is in the late 19th century where the right-hand two bays have been chopped off and replaced with that fun Victorian turreted building J. Seerski mentioned before:
If you hadn’t seen this picture, the later 1922 image would have led you to believe the whole house was still intact!
At least some of the fine buildings of this end were replaced with equally if not more distinguished structures in the reconstruction, and a unified scheme at that.I also find it interesting that this six-bay house had already been divided (as Nos. 9 and 10) before the Victorian replacement: The southern two bays where the turreted building was later constructed appear separately in this 1853 watercolour (the brickwork may have been stained a different colour to show the division, or even rendered). The 1847 OS map also shows a party wall dividing this portion from the rest of it.
Yet it was definitely one big six-bay house to begin with, as seen in the Tudor drawing and also on John Rocque’s great map of 1756, which is known to be very accurate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The 1866 turreted building which replaced the two southern bays was for my money one of the saddest losses of the troubles. It was an absolute delight, as good, if not better, than the ICS building at the D’Olier/ Westm. Sts. apex (though the ICS had the better site).
All in all an appalling loss!! 🙁
Incidentally, although the building is officially by T. N. Deane, it could have been by J. J. O’callaghan, the designer the ICS (in 1894), as he was working in Deane’s office at the time.
-
June 20, 2005 at 11:30 am #729301
Anonymous
InactiveThe image of the T.N. Deane building really displays one of his finer pieces of work it was as you say quite a loss when destroyed.
http://www.irish-architecture.com/architects_ireland/deanetn.html
“Sir Thomas Newenham Deane (1828-1899) was born in Cork – his father was also a noted architect and educated at Trinity College Dublin. He joined his father’s practice in 1850 and was made a partner the following year along with Benjamin Woodward. The firm then developed a gothic style based on the naturalistic principles as laid down by John Ruskin. This was to result in the practice playing an important role in the gothic revival in England. Their two most important building were the Museum building at Trinity College (1854-57) and the Oxford Museum (1854-60) in England. They also designed the Kildare Street Club in Dublin – interiors now mainly destroyed. In later years after the death of Woodward, Deane continued to practice as an architect and formed a partnership with his son Thomas Manly Deane in 1878. This practice was responsible for the design and building of the National Library and Museum complex beside Leinster House. He was knighted in 1890.”
-
June 20, 2005 at 5:14 pm #729302
GrahamH
ParticipantThat image is just fascinating Devin, thanks for posting it! You seem to have the most bizarre, almost Pythonesque collection of ancient An Taisce material from goodness knows when 😀
What a loss indeed – that turret is just a delight, both the conical roof and the shaft reaching down the corner of the building, a typical design in the UK maybe, but probably the only one in Dublin outside of the fairly similar College Green sandstone building.
What I find bizarre about it though is that an owner of such a small property, and merely one part of a sub-divided one at that, would have the both the funds and the ‘vision’ to come up with a building like this!
You beat me to it Devin with that 1853 watercolour; that was one of the other pics I was going to post 🙂
Here’s a close-up of the divided Drogheda House. The divided section does appear to be washed or painted – though in the burnt 1922 pic posted earlier, the larger side is also rendered…I wonder if the Wide Streets Commission developed that tall imposing terrace on the corner with North Earl St, certainly they drew up plans for one of the Earl St corners, I assume it was this one – the architecture seems to be that of the Commission, but it’s difficult to make out. The fenestration is a bit uneven too.
What I find very interesting though about the present day problems that Upper O’Connell St experiences, not least its commercial backwater status, appear to stem not from the 1960s or 70s, but right back to the very start – the 1780s and the opening of Lower O’Connell St!
The WSC did wonders for the city with this grand new scheme, but appear to have killed Upper Sackville St stone dead in the process, as it could no longer survive as a residential street while at the same time suffered the same problems as today in making a success of commercial activity – low footfall, nothing to attract people to the top of the street and Parnell Square, and a third factor startling similar today: a down-at-heel environment that detracted investors.
This extract from ‘A Summers Day in Dublin’ by William Makepeace Thackeray from 1845 offers a fascinating insight into the state of affairs up there, well over 50 years after the Lower end opened:
“The street is exceedingly broad and handsome; the shops at the commencement, rich and spacious; but in Upper Sackville Street, which closes with the pretty building and gardens of the Rotunda, the appearance of wealth begins to fade somewhat, and the houses look as if they had seen better days. Even in this, the great street of the town, there is scarcely any one, and it is as vacant and listless as Pall Mall in October.â€
When one considers the by then ancient, plain and heavy architecture of the 1740s combined with the bedraggled mixture of stores, second-rate offices, shabby residences and no doubt houses sub-divided into apartments, it is no wonder the Upper street never took off. No doubt things improved a bit in the boom of the 1860s (turreted building a coincidence?), but even so it seems the Upper end was destined to being an office dominated backwater for the rest of its days – the very problem we’re experiencing today seemingly having originated with the very plan that made the street as a whole such a success!
I wonder if the WSC ever intended to give the Upper end the same treatment?
And just two quick comparison pics here, the very tip of Upper O’Connell St in c1903 with a delighttful grouping of carved timber shopfronts with elaborate Corinthian columns:
…and the terrace in 2005 :rolleyes:
I mean people nowadays can’t even be bothered to dress like the lady above.
Sigh – I don’t know….🙂
-
June 20, 2005 at 5:25 pm #729303
Anonymous
InactiveDo the women of Ireland have as much time these days as they had then?
That end of the street must be the most depressing, I really look forward to the day someone does something with everything from Findlater house down.
The former BOI on Parnell St is the only remenant left. 😮
-
June 20, 2005 at 7:06 pm #729304
ctesiphon
ParticipantI see in the black and white picture that the fascia to the right of no. 35, just above the cloth swatches, seems to display the base of a shamrock (just in shot). Perhaps Carroll’s have had a foothold in the street longer than any of us realised? :p
-
June 21, 2005 at 1:25 am #729305
Anonymous
InactiveI had another look at the end building in the flesh this evening and it is actually 1920’s granite and is quite attractive.
The rendered finish was however much more pleasant.
-
June 21, 2005 at 12:18 pm #729306
Paul OShea
ParticipantThe bus stops on the street are a complete shambles Alek you hit so many nails on the head
-
June 22, 2005 at 1:05 am #729307
GrahamH
ParticipantIt certainly seems out of place to have bus stops lined up along the side of the road on what is largely becoming a pedestrian oriented avenue of sorts, or boulevard to use that irritating 80s term.
I’m not sure if this criticism is well-founded; perhaps it’s just strange seeing Dublin buses pulling up in such an architectural public domain, as one is more used to them halting pretty much anywhere on tatty Dublin streets and as MG memorably once said vomiting out patrons onto the pavement.
To have this happening on the capital’s main street, with tall noisy buses clogging up the narrow roadspace, blocking the views of buildings that the removal of the trees was supposed to expose is an unsatisfactory arrangement.Perhaps the blocking of buildings arguement is a tad far-fetched :), but the cliff-like nature of rows of buses on a newly pedestrian-engineered and architecturally landscaped streetscape is not desirable. Also being constantly interrupted trying to take photographs by the 16A and its six-part entourage is most frustrating 🙂
@Thomond Park wrote:
I had another look at the end building in the flesh this evening and it is actually 1920’s granite and is quite attractive.
The rendered finish was however much more pleasant.It’s a fine angular building on the corner all right – and with original sashes! :eek:.
Had a picture somewhere but seem to have lost it amongst the 476 others in the O’Connell St file 😮 …I’ll get another…
I prefer the granite building to the previous have to say, not that much is evident in the black and white above anyway…
As was said before, the site of Eircom seems to have had a matching building – what a shame it was lost. -
June 22, 2005 at 7:13 am #729308
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
Perhaps the blocking of buildings arguement is a tad far-fetched :), but the cliff-like nature of rows of buses on a newly pedestrian-engineered and architecturally landscaped streetscape is not desirable. Also being constantly interrupted trying to take photographs by the 16A and its six-part entourage is most frustrating 🙂 .
I totally agree on the six part entourage part, the quantity of buses that use O’Connell Street can only be described as An T-Lar-ism gone mad. Why does literally every cross city bus need to come within 10 yards of the Spike? Is it that a bus doesn’t really serve the City Centre unless it has passed the Spire? Why can’t other cross City Routes be used such as Capel St- Parliment St or why can’t Streets such as Marlborough St and Gardiner St be incorporated? What really sticks in the throat is that the Luas wasn’t joined up because it would take up too much roadspace but yet convoys of up to 10 buses are fine for the O’Connell St boulevard. 🙁
@Graham Hickey wrote:
It’s a fine angular building on the corner all right – and with original sashes! :eek:.
Had a picture somewhere but seem to have lost it amongst the 476 others in the O’Connell St file 😮 …I’ll get another…
I prefer the granite building to the previous have to say, not that much is evident in the black and white above anyway…
As was said before, the site of Eircom seems to have had a matching building – what a shame it was lost.Well original from 1925-ish 😉
The old Finlater building on the corner of Cathal Brugha St was of a similar construction although I’m speculating that the shopfront was probably more interesting from the buildings description in the D of D.
-
June 22, 2005 at 9:26 pm #729309
Daragh
ParticipantThis doesn’t concern O’Connell street directly, but I read with interest today that two of Grafton Street’s current vacant premises are going to be occupied by … wait for it… a Mace convenience store and another mobile phone outlet! The mobile phone outlet will be run by Vodaphone, which already has TWO shops on Grafton Street alone! As for the Mace convenience store, does anyone not think that we already have enough of these bloody shops in the city? Can Dublin City Council, or whoever the hell ‘manages’ the city, not place some type of restrictions on the type of shops that open up on our main thoroughfares?
We’ve only just begun to realise the damage that was done to O’Connell Street by allowing all those tacky shops, convenience stores and fast food outlets to open on it. And yet the Council now seems to be prepared to stand idly by while the same happens to Grafton Street! I really dispair with this city sometimes.. -
June 22, 2005 at 10:03 pm #729310
DublinLimerick
ParticipantI completely agree with you, Daragh. Those two outlets are just so ……… naff. I would love to see a branch of Galeries Lafayette in Dublin – it would be very successful I feel.
It would also be nice to see Carrefour enter the supermarket arena in Ireland as a serious alternative to the god-awful Tesco. -
June 22, 2005 at 11:10 pm #729311
GrahamH
ParticipantIs it simply the footfall of Grafton St that shoots rental values through the roof, or is there a prestige factor in there too?
Is it really that profitable for a Mace to operate on Grafton St?! As it is, the Bus Stop? newsagents about mid-way down the steet is tiny, presumably for this reason… -
June 22, 2005 at 11:40 pm #729312
Anonymous
InactiveWe have a Bewley’s in the O’Connell St ACA
-
June 23, 2005 at 8:44 am #729313
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
Is it simply the footfall of Grafton St that shoots rental values through the roof, or is there a prestige factor in there too?
Is it really that profitable for a Mace to operate on Grafton St?! As it is, the Bus Stop? newsagents about mid-way down the steet is tiny, presumably for this reason…Firstly that stretch of Grafton St doesn’t command anywhere near the same rental levels as the pedestrianised stretch of the street and even on the street itself there is a hierarchy of rental values with the stretch from Wicklow St to South Anne St being at the pinacle.
That stretch is probably not that well suited to high-end comparison retailling unless the retailler has a very high brand awareness. I am however a little concerned at the potential signage implications down the line in what was the one time HQ of the Dublin & Limerick savings Bank as taken over by PTSB, this building is an attractive period building and is of a period where signage could have potentially have a detrimental effect. In the absense of Grafton St being designated an ACA it is probably premature to raise concerns as to the use but I do believe that the objective in the new development plan to make Grafton St an ACA should be implemented as soon as is possible.
-
June 23, 2005 at 5:38 pm #729314
GrahamH
ParticipantIt is extraordinary that Grafton St has yet to be designated as such – arguably it needs it even more than O’Connell St.
Didn’t know the Mace was going into this stretch – is it the fine polished granite-columned building near College Green?
Seem to have lost pictures of that too :rolleyes: -
June 23, 2005 at 10:26 pm #729315
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
It is extraordinary that Grafton St has yet to be designated as such – arguably it needs it even more than O’Connell St.
Didn’t know the Mace was going into this stretch – is it the fine polished granite-columned building near College Green?
Seem to have lost pictures of that too :rolleyes:Its about the only one it could be.
Grafton St should be conserved and probably is more of conservation area in the usual sense of the word inso much as it mostly only requires watching. At the start of the O’Connell plan it could have been called the O’Connell St remediation area. Any thoughts on how this has gone?
-
June 23, 2005 at 11:02 pm #729316
GrahamH
ParticipantJust on that building on Grafton St – I pass it nearly every day and every time have to marvel at how graffti is attracted like a magnet to derelict/vacant buildings. How is it that this single building on an otherwise ‘respectable’ and exceptionally busy street manages to get itself covered in graffiti simply because the entrance door is bolted shut with a board over it?!
Just extraordinary, not to mention a shame considering the stonework has just been cleaned as part of the magnificent restoration.
As for O’ Connell Street’s planning needing more than just the occasional glance, it requires an armed guard and surveillence equipment to monitor every property on the street 24/7 😀
Although on Upper O’Cll St there seems to be something of an anti-progress culture up there – lets not do anything and keep the place in a dismal state so that standard planning practices for any ‘normal’ street won’t have to be enforced.Hopefully the sparkling new public domain will show up the state of the properties there for what they are.
-
June 23, 2005 at 11:05 pm #729317
Anonymous
InactiveIt is true that end has some buildings that have not been maintained well and that a new public domain will expose this dis-investment very clearly, there is even one where granite facing has been removed to reveal heavily spawlding concrete. Its been in this state for months now.
Re: Grafton Street it is amazing how graffiti artists always conform towards timber hoardings in their vandalistic non-conforist statments. I wonder are they just confused?
-
June 24, 2005 at 1:14 am #729318
anto
ParticipantI was surprised to see Centra open on stephen’s green last year as well. they really are a virus!
-
June 24, 2005 at 4:53 pm #729319
Anonymous
InactiveShopping certainly is becoming more homogenous by the day.
-
June 24, 2005 at 9:21 pm #729320
GrahamH
ParticipantHere’s a few bits and pieces about the Hotel Metropole that used to stand right next to the GPO on Lower Sackville Street – probably the most well known by name of institutions on the street, but perhaps not by building.
The life of the site first started out as four individual Wide Streets Commission buildings in a terrace, but these were amalgamated to form the hotel.
Here it is in about 1880, with an either rendered or stone-clad facade. Window surrounds have been added but their placement remained the same:And here it is in its glory years in about 1900 (Laurence Collection) – wow!
It has been completely remodelled (if not the original building completely demolished) with a highly elaborate high Victorian French-style facade with magnificent ironwork in the form of vast balconies on the first and second floors and smaller window-specific balconies on the third.
An attic storey has also been added with a mansard roof, as well as some very impressive chimneys.Also a fine entrance canopy has been built over the pavement – you wouldn’t get away with that today…
Here it is again in about 1903 where the ironwork has been painted black:
…and again collapsing in 1916…
..aaand again 7 seconds later 😀
What a loss to the street though :(. It was hit by a shell intended for the GPO next door – which would you have preferred, the GPO or it?…
Here’s its replacement – a fairly standard exercise in modern neoclassicism, looks like it matched Eason’s etc very well:
It’s the building Frank McDonald gives out about being knocked for, well, this :rolleyes:
That BHS building is just so inappropriate from any northern viewpoint in the street – look how it crudely pushes forward into the streetscape, so arrogant. I must admit to having always liked its blue limestone window bays, but this does not in any way make up for its shameful impact on the terrace it is located in, nor its harsh lines next to the GPO.
At least we didn’t end up with the Ilac facade proposed… -
June 24, 2005 at 9:43 pm #729321
Anonymous
InactiveThe 1900 image looks half-way between a Brighton Hotel and a wedding cake and would have been far more suited to Bray than Dublin. The 1920’s version was a really good replacement insomuch as there was almost as much continuity between trhe various replacements as there was in say 1820 or so.
The BHS is dreadful and I have to disagree on the Bays the symmetry does not work at all for me, Davitt House on the corner of Adelaide Rd and Earlsfort Terrace does a similar concept much better and with little impact beyond the loss of fabric and continuity. Also BHS on Princes St in Edinburgh was executed in a much better.
-
June 24, 2005 at 10:43 pm #729322
GrahamH
ParticipantAgreed about the c1920 building; that terrace mus have looked very fine all executed in limestone and a similar syle, the most unified post-1916 block in fact. The BHS causes so much damage to the character of Lower O’Connell St which is by and large neclassical in design – it beggars belief that the Metropole was permitted to be demolished. let alone be replaced with this.
And as said before, the upper two floors are used for storage! No wonder they wanted pre-cast concrete panels all the way when originally proposed.I like the windows, but obviously not in this context – look at the image there, nothing but a token gesture on an otherwise blank wall and not even an acknowledgement of the cornice line. Wouldn’t be surprised if the upper windows are false :rolleyes:
It’s interesting to see in the 1900 image how the street is gradually turning into a modern day Westmoreland Street architecturally.
-
June 25, 2005 at 12:18 am #729323
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
And as said before, the upper two floors are used for storage! No wonder they wanted pre-cast concrete panels all the way when originally proposed.
I think Pennys learned from this on their new mega-store on Parnell St, Which concentrates retail on huge floorplates on less floors put storage primarily to the side of the building on Jervis St which has for very obvious reason got no profile whatsoever and they use the upper floors as offices.
What is so tragic about this design is that although the building has frontage onto the main Boulevard in the City the elevation has no windows which would makeit useless as office space or in its most valuable potential use as retail with a cafe with the best view of Central Dublin as the main attraction. It is the cafe with prime views of Henry St more so than anything else that has made Roches change from sub-Boyers to above Cleary’s in the Dublin retail hierarchy. Manequins just don’t work from that far up.
-
June 25, 2005 at 7:14 pm #729324
Paul Clerkin
Keymastervery Parisian boulevardish wasn’t it
-
June 25, 2005 at 7:44 pm #729325
Boyler
ParticipantAin’t nothin’ wrong with that. 😀 😀
-
June 26, 2005 at 12:53 pm #729326
Anonymous
InactiveI really feel that the Metropole design was entirely unsuited to a main street type setting and I think that the elimination of a unified Georgian Terrace to build it was a s bad as anything done by Patrick Gallagher during the 1970’s. It really smacks of what I would describe as UK South Coast ‘Railway Tourist Hotel’ and was a very good example of same but has no urban credentials whatsoever.
If anyone likes the Metropole building purely because it is a little eccentric then the one below fits the bill better:
Image taken from https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=3156&highlight=dublin+bread+company
-
June 27, 2005 at 1:42 am #729327
Devin
Participant@Graham Hickey wrote:
Thanks for the succession of pictures of the building pre & post 1916, Graham.
Isn’t it amazing how much mileage you can get out of four brick facades?!
I’m fairly certain it is the four original WSCs buildings underneath all that frilliness. All the positioning & sizes of the windows are the same (and line up with the other original buildings on the extreme left), except that the top floor windows have been heightened, and of course a roof storey has been added.It was a seriously elaborate remodelling from head to toe, and fitting for Dublin’s “boulevard”. I’m salivating at the thought of walking up O’Connell Street from the bridge and the buildings gradually becoming posher as you approach the GPO!! 😮
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another picture of the Metropole Cinema (as it became), taken in about 1960 from the top of the Pillar. It had a nice stepped feature in the centre of the parapet. Disgraceful demolition! :
-
June 27, 2005 at 12:57 pm #729328
Anonymous
InactiveThat is a fantastic image Devin, it really displays what was lost in architectural terms both in terms of the actual building and the continuity of the terrace.
The loss of the canopy was also a major loss on a wet day and it amazes me just how few canopied or collanaded buildings there are in Dublin considering the wet climate.
The other thing that this image displays very well is the impressive nature if the chimney stacks on the building that forms the apex of D’Olier and Westmoreland Streets.
-
June 27, 2005 at 2:44 pm #729329
GregF
ParticipantThe BHS (now Penny’s) was a poor replacement. I remember when they pulled the Metropole down in the 70’s. It’s sad the way O’Connell Street was butchered for the worse since the 60’s.
-
June 27, 2005 at 6:47 pm #729330
GrahamH
ParticipantCan something be butchered for the better?! 🙂
Yes it’s a poor replacement, essentially an oversized box shoved in to fill the hole. It reminds me of a poorly fitted washing machine or fridge that sticks out from underneath the worktop in a kitchen 🙂
Impressive image there Devin; very few of the 20s Metropole Cinema widely available. In the one above it looksd much more appealing – rather like a mini Clery’s. There’a lots of 1920s mini-pediments and stepped features on O’Connell St – hope to get some pics in the next week or so.
Not to drag the whole issue up again, but I really think a decent 1920s style facade is appropriate for this building should Penneys ever be thinking along these lines. Considering the architecture of this stretch of the street, and that of this building’s terrace, I think it would be by far the best move for this site.That picture also highlights what I think is the sole poor feature of the reconstruction: that awful Eason’s mansard roof – don’t know how they got away with it at the time. It looks a million times worse on Middle Abbey St now too as the whole thing has been clad in all-singing lead or maybe even zinc.
And why does it have to be so tall? What are they hiding up there?! -
June 27, 2005 at 6:59 pm #729331
Anonymous
InactiveI agree but would you go for a slavish recreation or a modern interpretation of same?
-
June 27, 2005 at 7:21 pm #729332
GrahamH
ParticipantPossibly the latter as it affords the opportunity to unify the terrace fully by utilising vertical elements reflecting the vertical emphasis of the fluted columns of Manfield Chambers and the lovely pilasters of Eason’s.
The Metropole did not do this fully – no doubt something Horace O’Rourke would have insisted on had he been in charge at the time.@Devin wrote:
If the vertical elements were positioned on the first and second floors, with the third and forth’s emphasis placed horizontally, along with a new cornice line I think it would work superbly.
Dividing the new building up into two parts by having a dominant corner and a subservient plain part between it and Eason’s to the left like the current situation on the opposite side might be going too far, but it would look even better!
-
June 27, 2005 at 7:29 pm #729333
Anonymous
InactiveFrom a retailers point of view it would make little difference as with improvements in structural technology the exterior is almost subservient to the internal space. I agree from a conservation viewpoint that this would be best practice and would respect the GPO more than any other option. I would also like to see something done to obscure the Easons Mansard roof. You would wonder why Pennys have retained this building it never seems to be that busy and there is definitely room for growth if a better format were introduced.
There is just something about 1900’s to 1920’s commercial architecture that has never been eclipsed in producing a wow factor that actually lasts. The BT move across the Street was the best thing any Irish retailer has ever done in terms of creating a really high end emporium to intimidate the punters into spending. 😀
-
June 28, 2005 at 1:32 am #729334
Devin
ParticipantIt’s true, Eason’s mansard roof does look bloody awful! I think it’s because the adjoining buildings are flat roofed. The awful Abbey Street view:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
@Thomond Park wrote:That is a fantastic image
It’s from a great book of photos called Dublin and Cork (the majority of pics are of Dublin) by R. S. Magowan, published in 1961. The photos are of very high quality & catch Dublin at an interesting point just before the ‘60s boom. Paul (administrator) posted some photos of neon signs from this book before. The National Photographic Archive would do well to try’n get their hands on this collection – would make great material for exhibitions.
[align=center:3o6vqluq]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[/align:3o6vqluq]
There’s some more info, a front-on pic & an original elevation drawing of the Metropole Cinema in F. O’Dwyer’s book, Lost Dublin (1981).
Getting the right replacement there for BHS/Pennys would be a treacherous job!
The brutalist ’70s predecessor to Schuh was identified in the 1998 O’Connell St. IAP plan for replacement, and now there is a contemporary building there. But reactions to it, on this board anyway, have been mixed. -
June 28, 2005 at 1:43 am #729335
GrahamH
ParticipantMost certainly 🙂
Yes that is one view of the mansard roof which is awful, but unfortunately not the Abbey St one I referred to!
The Abbey St elevation of Eason’s itself has a much longer mansard that stretches along its long facade length and it’s clad in a horrible silvery material. Railings, pipes and other clutter up there merely add to it 🙁But yes, is the slate-clad mansard on O’Connell St original? Aso did Eason’s originally own the attractive plain limestone link building in the pic there or was it a later acquisition, perhaps when the granite shopfront was added in, when – c1990??
-
June 28, 2005 at 2:15 am #729336
Devin
ParticipantThe shop area at the O’C St. front of Eason’s has been the same for as long as I can remember, certainly before 1990 anyway, so they must have that plain one longer (perhaps from the beginning?).
I know the Abbey St. roof as well – it’s pretty poor; but at least it’s off the important thoroughfare.
The slate-clad one must be quite early or original, since it’s in the circa 1960 pic – bit of a slip up if it is original! Is it possible that it was built on the basis of a precedent set by the higher roof of the gabled building in roundabout the same position seen in the Laurence pic of the Metropole Hotel?
Speaking of mansard roofs, it’s quite surprising to see a fairly prominent roof storey in pictures of the GPO before its 1916 thrashing, much bigger than its current roof. Graham, have you one to hand (I would have to go looking)?
-
June 28, 2005 at 2:34 am #729337
GrahamH
ParticipantPerhaps the Metropole did set the precedent. Always been annoyed that there’s no picture of the newly completed O’Connell St facade on the escalator picture wall inside 🙂
I can list every sepia picture on that wall at this stage! :o, but that isn’t one of them unfortunately.Here’s the curent day facade which is one of my favourites on the street – beautifully proportioned with pairs of Georgian sashes. As mentioned before many retain the original 1919 glass::
As for the GPO, I always thought the recostructed roof was much higher, not least along Henry St rather obviously, which looks very poor joining with the O’Connell St facade when viewed from Nth Earl St – the building loses a lot of grace as a result.
These pictures aren’t the best in the world for showing the old O’Cll St roof height, but might have better ones to root out.
Still, at least they show it was low from this perspective at least. One thing for sure though is the amount of chimneys it once had, just like the Custom House and City Hall etc that all accumulated with the Victorians: -
June 28, 2005 at 2:46 am #729338
Devin
ParticipantThe high GPO roof I’m thinking of may have been quite late, perhaps added just before 1916, because I know the building had had a lot of refurbisment work just before its destruction (!). Then again, maybe it was just the picture I saw (of the above left roof) made it look big. I will have a look out for it.
Precedent could be the reason alright for the Eason roof. I remermber you noting a while back that the Dublin Bread Company’s destruction gave rise to a slightly higher building in its replacement.
-
June 28, 2005 at 2:58 am #729339
GrahamH
ParticipantYes the brand new GPO public office was finished barely six weeks before being destroyed! Not to mention huge rationalisation works to the rear carried out since before 1910 up to 1916!
Here’s a rare attractive image of the GPO 🙂
It’s not a favourite of most people, and does come in for a lot of criticisim, but you do get an unusual glimpse here of a grand stately building:…something that occasionally hits you unexpectedly in real life from certain angles on the street!
There’s a very rare piece of Regency architecture for Dublin in behind the portico that is pretty much ignored – a very fine facade that I always enjoy seeing peeking out from between the columns when ‘walking the plaza’ (well, scurrying off more like for being so exposed :))
Just a pity about the remaining 70% of the building 😀
-
June 28, 2005 at 6:26 pm #729340
Anonymous
InactiveWhat would you consider are the main differences between the original and what was rebuilt?
-
June 28, 2005 at 11:59 pm #729341
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
There’s a very rare piece of Regency architecture for Dublin in behind the portico that is pretty much ignored – a very fine facade that I always enjoy seeing peeking out from between the columns when ‘walking the plaza’ (well, scurrying off more like for being so exposed
In relation to the replacement what regency elements are missing from the 1920’s rebuild?
-
June 29, 2005 at 9:37 pm #729342
GrahamH
ParticipantWell I’m no Dan Cruickshank so here’s some pics that help things along – most taken from the so-glossy-it-blinds ‘Building for Government’.
First the Edwardian styled public office that was completed just weeks before being completely destroyed.
It features a lovely top-lit barrel vaulted ceiling and a heavy dentilled cornice. The room was elegantly divided up into three parts with two pairs of columns either side of the central vaulted section.
The whole design looks like it was taken straight out of the White Star Line design handbook of the age – very Titanic-like!Lovely pedimented doorcases in the background there.
Interesting that the arches under the portico seem to have steel windows fitted in the pic – surely one of the first uses in this country?Below is a plan of this pre-destruction public office. As can be seen the main entrance was restored to its rightful position underneath the portico after being closed up since 1870:
As mentioned on a previous occasion, the Royal Coat of Arms in the pediment to the exterior was removed post-1916 – presumably when the reconstruction got underway.
It can still be seen here in the days after the Rising:But today – nothing but some neatly slotted in blocks of Portland stone!
According to the OPW book, it wasn’t until 1924 that it was finally decided to even retain the building! What was going on in the intervening eight years God only knows :rolleyes:
Not included in the book is that the £50,000 rebuilding contract went to Alexander Hull & Co. Below is the image of the new Henry St elevation designed by T J Byrne.Interestingly the door in the 1818 block that now faces onto Henry St doesn’t feature in this image, similarly with the new entrances either side of the portico.
You can see here how crudely (I think) the mansard roof joins the original block – a shame there was such an effort to cram as much office space as possible into the new building.Very attractive façade to Henry St nonetheless, with many of its Custom House-like windows retaining their original wavy glass as can be made out here:
This section appears to have been finished first, followed by the public office in 1929.
Where did this clock for the central table in the new office go?!
Indeed in the c1930 image of the completed office, the table is devoid of it then too – did it ever even exist?!
Another fairly significant change to be made was the blocking up again of the central bay entrance under the portico, just as in 1870! – favouring new openings to either side of the portico. Why had the pre-1916 plan suddenly changed?
It’s such a shame that you cannot access the public office from underneath the portico, and looks even more unlikely now with The Death of Cuchulainn statue in behind.
When you’re inside the public office, it’s very strange to have the arched windows separating you from the public outside – they’re crying out to be reopened.And of course the other more architectural change to be made to Johnston’s original design is the blocking up of the centered entrances to each of the wings of the building – again a shame that those focal points have been lost, replaced with a series of windows and making the wings uninteresting:
Oh yeah – there’s a cupola that was never built too :D. This is the image Paul Clerkin posted before of Johnston’s original design!
-
June 30, 2005 at 1:01 am #729343
Anonymous
InactiveI find the adaptation of the ‘Principal Sorting Office’ to a public telephone room an exemplary piece of on the ball thinking from a facilities management point of view.
The side elevation was a tragic loss with the mansard excepted, some of the unauthorised signage changes to the current incarnation have caused concern, particularly the footlocker retention situation.
The clock was a fine design that reminds me of a folly in terms of the attention to detail and over-specification in relation to the function performed; it would have been a great piece of eccentricity were it to have been completed.
I am also happy that the cupolla was never built it really compares poorly with both the Four Courts and Custom House Cupollas and as such the GPO does retain a uniqueness as one of Dublin’s great set-pieces.
-
June 30, 2005 at 1:40 pm #729344
Anonymous
Inactivehttp://www.irish-architecture.com/news/2005/000127.html
“There is speculation that the former Carlton Cinema on Upper O’Connell Street, Dublin 1, will be redeveloped to link in with the Ilac centre on Henry Street, if Dublin City Council is ultimately successful in its Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) of the site. Following a failed High Court challenge to the CPO by architect Paul Clinton of the Carlton Group – which secured planning permission to develop the site in late 1999 – the case is currently under judicial review. Depending on the outcome, Mr Clinton has the option of appealing to the Supreme Court. Dublin City Council moved in with a compulsory purchase order (CPO) in 2001 after officials became concerned that the Carlton group would be unable to complete the redevelopment. This was later confirmed by An Bord Pleanála.” Ends
-
June 30, 2005 at 4:51 pm #729345
J. Seerski
ParticipantWell Well… though I wouldn’t put any bets on this happening any time soon – It is breathtaking that this huge site has been a monumental blunder considering its location and the economic boom over the last 10 years.
Back to the GPO – it was mentioned earlier about the vile shopfronts used on the Henry St elevation – if one looks at the flat arched openings above the door you will notice that in years gone by signs were placed in situ of the limestone (you can still see shadows where the lettering was – this was for all shops on this GPO strip) – something akin to the restrictions on shop signage one would see on Regent Street in London today – a little thought on henry street would really improve this vast shopping strip – one that is generally in perfect nick till you look at ground floor level….
The Eircom/Findlater House building is deteriorating fast at Upper O’Connell St. – I noticed some smashed stonework recently and it is generally filthy.
Hopefully when the O’Connell Street works are complete it might shock the property owners into action, but experience tells me not… here’s hoping!!! 🙂
BTW about the Metropole, it is sad to think of its demise – suprising really when it was less than fifty years old when demolished! It was a classic 1920s revival peice. How on earth such a thing was demolished says a lot about the people of the time and how preservation was seen as a dirty word in the way of ‘progress’….
-
June 30, 2005 at 8:03 pm #729346
GrahamH
ParticipantWith the Carlton, one would wonder if the scheme would now be completed or nearing such a state were Clinton to have held onto the site….
Agreed J. Seerski about the GPO – I know those shadows of lettering studs on the limestone lintels only too well 🙁
In this pic of the 1950s from the ever-useful IAP 🙂 you can just barely make out the discreet mounted lettering on the shopfronts in the distance. Lovely polished black granite pilasters separating the units:Saying that, you can already see how things are falling apart with the stores in the foreground, so poor signage certainly isn’t a problem exclusive to post 1970. Indeed it was the 50s that started so much poor development like this.
-
July 1, 2005 at 1:03 pm #729347
Anonymous
InactiveI would imagine that the Carlton would in have been completed long ago if the CPO had not been made, I am sure that Clinton would have had the option to find a joint venture partner similar to the British Land entries to the Ilac and Stephens Green centres. It is worth noting that retail as a sector thrived during the parrallel business space dip.
Re the signage I agree the 1950’s probably were the start of the signage problem in relation to signage for both cultural reasons such as it was ‘new & modern’ and for procedural reaons such as the absence of real planning legislation which subsequently arrived in the form of the 1963 act.
-
July 2, 2005 at 5:29 pm #729348
JPD
ParticipantThe bridge end of O’connell st has been cleared and the new space that has been stripped out looks perfect for a luas line, does cullen have the balls to run luas across college green and O’connell St?
-
July 2, 2005 at 6:26 pm #729349
kefu
ParticipantHow do you merge two railway lines when they’re running at right angles to each other though?
When they talk about a Luas link, do they really mean putting the lines sufficiently close together that you can hop off one tram and get on another? -
July 2, 2005 at 10:12 pm #729350
Anonymous
InactiveIf the staute of Sir John Grey were moved back up towards the O’Connell monument a turning circle could be forced in, but just becuase it is possible doesn’t mean that this should be done.
The pro’s
1. Linked Luas lines
2. O’Connell St has LuasThe cons
1. The eastern footpath would remain the same size.
2. The median would become a luas platform
3. Safety implications of a blindspot at the O’Connell Monument
4. The lines can be linked elsewhereI am in two minds on this one and probably favour Dame St, Capel St and on to Broadstone and Ballymun as the solution
-
July 3, 2005 at 3:29 pm #729351
JPD
ParticipantI dunno all the design work is done for the link-up and it wouldn’t need to go back for planning again as a new line would. I thinks that Luas would look great on O’Connell St and Grattan bridge is too narrow to take a luas.
-
July 3, 2005 at 9:17 pm #729352
Boyler
ParticipantIf they pedestrianised the area of Dublin within the canals, it would be easier to build Luas interconnectors. Ideally, the city centre should only accessible by the Luas, metro, train and bikes. There would be more open spaces to allow Dubliners and tourists admire the city. This will never happen, as there are probably more cons than pros, but it’s an idea.
-
July 3, 2005 at 9:41 pm #729353
Anonymous
InactiveIt wouldn’t be possible because the public transport system outside the canals couldn’t support the numbers that would require entry to the centre if cars were banned. Of course on the other hand the City would be a much more pleasant place to be and travelling from Grafton St to O’Connell St wouldn’t be such a hassle. I noted Garret Fitzgerald’s article in yesterdays Irish Times in which he he said:
“Some of these difficulties derive from the layout of Dublin, which has only one north-south route across the city centre, that between the Bank of Ireland and Trinity College. Moreover, access from both northern and southern suburbs is somewhat restricted because of the need in both cases to cross a river and canal.
Even more fundamental, however, is the fact that Dublin is an extraordinarily low-density city. As little as one kilometre in almost any direction from O’Connell Bridge, houses with gardens are the principal form of residential accommodation”
If this is the critical access corridor for Central Dublin then it is absolutely clear that it should be reserved exclusively for public transport and that the Calatrava bridge should be pushed through to provide capacity for North – South traffic.
In relation to the “Luas Interconnector” these are actually two seperate projects with ‘Joining the dots’ being a connection of two of the three promised Luas lines whilst the ‘Interconector’ is an Iarnrod Eireann plan to build a tunnel between Heuston and Spencer Dock in the Docklands with three intermediate stations on route, the genius of this plan is that the four main rail routes in the City are paired off to avoid time consuming reversals which take up a lot of track time, so if you use the Southern line your train will be paired off with Maynooth and if you use the northern line your train will be paired off with Kildare.
Luas as a solution internationally generally relates to short City Centre routes such as College Green and possibly O’Connell St. It is an interesting question as whether the Boulevardisation should be curtailed on the Lower end of the Street to accomodate Luas. It is clear that something will have to give and the question is will it be Luas, buses or pedestrians?
-
July 4, 2005 at 2:11 pm #729354
Punchbowl
ParticipantWhat a pity Garrett Fitzgeralds days of power are over.. He actually seems to have an informed opinion on matters and doesn’t subscribe to the theory that ‘Infrastructure and development=Motorways’ ( and nothing else ) that our esteemed leaders do today.
Regarding Dublin’s low density and by proxy, low rise, I think the days of saying that this is charming and should be protected is a bit of a cop out. There is simply too much sky in this city, and when skies are as dull as they can be ( Present and recent weeks aside ) the absence of a couple of grand edifices to break the monotony is certainly noticed. Wouldn’t O’Connell st benefit from an extra story or two all over?
Does anyone think that development size in Dublin in the 19th and early 20th centuries was kept deliberately small ? In case we got a bit ahead of ourselves?
-
July 4, 2005 at 2:44 pm #729355
Anonymous
InactiveSurly the biggest problem with connecting the the two luas lines is the huge amount of wires and posts that would obtruct the view of Trinity and the Bank of Ireland. Posts would also have to be used as its unlighly that that you could attacth wires to the bank or college considering their importance.
Another more practical reason that it should’nt happen is that 1/3 of Dublin Bus routes go through College Green and by only allowing luas through you would reduce the number of people being given direct access to College Green.
Another smaller short term point is, do we really want to see 0’Connell St. dug up again for another god knows how long?
If there to be connected at all they should go possibly via Pearse Station, but that is problimatic in itself. -
July 4, 2005 at 7:02 pm #729356
GrahamH
ParticipantAh the link raises its contentious head again 🙂
That’s the biggest problem for me too crestfield about the wires and poles on College Green, not to mention the completely open span of O’Connell Bridge. Of course if the original trams had never been removed in 1949 we’d think nothing of the wires now – although I suspect by this stage, if not some time ago, there would’ve been a big push to electrify the rails and rid the city centre of wires, notably architecturally rich areas like College Green.I think it would be a severely retrograde step to put these wires on College Green and across the Bridge; they’d be a lot more conspicous then the likes of Harcourt St, with poles being necessary and the wires spanning across white facades.
And what of the mess of Lower O’Connell Street? In the IAP plans from 1998, from day one I could never get over the impact this link would have on the street – essentially it is turned into a Luas tram station, with all the pavement widths altered, the regular tree planting out the window, the median transformed into a platform with kiosks and vending machines, and the wires overhead, no doubt merging in a complicated mess with the Abbey St ones.
Essentially O’Connell Street in landscaping terms would only begin with the post-Abbey St stretch. And the IAP even acknowledges this; the area is mostly left blank – ‘ah we’ll deal with that when we come to it’.
Coupled with the short nature of the post-Abbey stretch before meeting the plaza and the irregular trees on the median here, the concept of O’Connell St as a grand thoroughfare simply dissolves away.
The view from the bridge of the street (whatever about the bridge itself adorned with wires and industrial silver poles) would be a muddle rather than the grand view it should be.
On Lower O’Cll St alone there’s be three different schemes, with the Luas stop on the southern third, a straggling bit of boulvard as the middle third, and the plaza as the final leg of the stretch – supposedly the focal point of the street by being different from the rest…Personally I feel this link route is an almost redundant idea at this stage – a pet project to be completed at the cost of tens of millions for very little gain. Both the north and south city centres are now served by Luas, and unless the fundamental drive behind this is proposal is to physically link the two lines so that trams can be used more efficiently over the routes, then I find this route it utterly pointless.
Perhaps if asked six of seven years ago I’d be a little less hostile towards the idea, but walking this exact route every day I think it ridiculous, extravagant and architecturally damaging if the aim is simply to bring the lines closer together. -
July 5, 2005 at 12:28 am #729357
Anonymous
InactivePretty convincing argument in relation to the difference between mounting overhead wires on coloured brick vs portland stone and granite. I’d say that the College Green alignment and onto O’Connell St is highly problematic in a non-visual sense as well i.e. the way it competes with other users of what is very finite road/path/boulevard space. Of all the interventions made onto Dublins streets over the past 5 years the RPA has made the biggest mess by a distance in my opinion. How do other people rate the RPA’s Harcourt St works vs DCC on O’Connell St?
-
July 5, 2005 at 1:41 am #729358
GrahamH
ParticipantIn terms of public domain finish or the use of roadspace?
The street is eerily empty for the most part now anyway, a lot of excess capacity it seems.
As for the paving etc – good quality but obviously not a good as O’Connell Street. -
July 5, 2005 at 1:58 am #729359
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
In terms of public domain finish or the use of roadspace?
I think the fact that most of us have thought that it has always been a case road or path in the past has let the visual down in a major way as conventional solutions were always employed according to the scale of the paved area remaining. This is an area in which we are far behind the continental countries as the standard finish applied was always conventional, predictable and generally for a small area with this further being compounded by our national trait of placing as many poles as is possible in the most visible places for motorists which often happen to destroy pedestrian amenity.
This for me is where the O’Connell St plan is a revalation in that it took a streetscape with sufficient scale and tore up the Dublin paving rule book. The quality of amenity that is provided by adding new finishes and minor features such as kiosks is what will create a first class public domain. The careful selection of what traffic is permitted onto the roadspace is a major part of this and I don’t think that a Luas line at this point of the street would be helpful. Personally I feel that Suffolk St and onto the Northern side of Dame St would be better suited to a luas line and would sever College Green at just the right point for a continuation of the boulevard.
-
July 5, 2005 at 12:53 pm #729360
jimg
ParticipantI disagree. In this case, I’d put function over aesthetics. The environmental advantages of trams, in terms of noise as well as exhaust fumes, will mean tracks running down Westmoreland St. and O’Connell St will bring huge benefits to both. Serving public transport will always be an important role for O’Connell Street/Westmoreland St. and I’d find the sight of a two lines of slender poles supporting overhead wires far less offensive than a half mile queue of back to back noisey smokey buses.
It would provide some counter to the weird north/south city divide and would link the two main shopping areas of the city centre. The centre needs everything it can get to maintain it’s importance in terms of retail over out-of-town developments.
The Luas could be what finally makes O’Connell St. “work” again and make it a destination instead of a throughfare. Grafton St. and it’s environs has gotten even busier since the Green line opened. If it continued to O’Connell St, then I’m sure that that area would get a massive boost too. I’d guess that few of the hordes of southsiders, who pile into the Luas at weekends to do a bit of shopping, ever cross the Liffey.
Also, the Luas in Dublin is still mainly a mode for commuters (i.e. for journeys between the suburbs and the centre). In other European cities trams are also used to get around the city centre. For the Luas to support this type of usage, it needs to provide links between the busy parts of the city.
-
July 5, 2005 at 1:19 pm #729361
J. Seerski
ParticipantI disagree – the city centre is far too small – one of the great advantages of the Luas (as is) is that it broadens the area what we would call the city centre now from Heuston to Docklands. Bringing the Luas to O’Connell Street would just crowd an increasingly congested space. It would be preferable to have the link away from this area – preferably bygoing down Merrion Square then back up to Customs House via butt bridge (why does everyone it seems confuse Butt Bridge with the loopline?!!!!) It would create less congestion and increase the area of the city centre- in a grid sense – than just one or two streets – not every bloody thing has to cross onto O’Connell Street…. 😮
Also, southsiders do shop on the Northside – stats show that more money per head is spent on Henry St. than on Grafton St., unless you are suggesting southsiders earn less/spend less than the northsiders, in which case they can stay south of the liffey!!! :p
I noticed that the windowsa above Beshoffs were repainted lately – nice job! Same cant be said for Burger King (have to mention it was the one near O’Connell Bridge) – many of the original casement timber windows were removed just recently from the top two storeys and replaced with the usual lovvvvely PVC…. I notice these things – pity the council doesn’t….
-
July 5, 2005 at 1:26 pm #729362
asdasd
Participant” Of course if the original trams had never been removed in 1949 we’d think nothing of the wires now – although I suspect by this stage, if not some time ago, there would’ve been a big push to electrify the rails and rid the city centre of wires, notably architecturally rich areas like College Green.”
but what about the childers? wouldn’t this kill people?
-
July 5, 2005 at 2:12 pm #729363
jimg
ParticipantI disagree – the city centre is far too small – one of the great advantages of the Luas (as is) is that it broadens the area what we would call the city centre now from Heuston to Docklands.
I don’t see that at all; the Luas as it stands doesn’t extend the centre in my mind – the red line represents a commuter route with a number of central end destinations; Arbour Hill is not suddenly part of the city centre as a result of the Luas.
What constitutes the “centre” for me is not defined by arbitrary shapes on a map, wishful thinking on the part of city planners or by the existance of tram lines but by the collection of streets which offer enough attractions (whether retail, cultural, amenity, hospitality, etc.) which suck in a critical mass of pedestrians which results in a busy and lively atmosphere. On the northside, this would be the area bounded by the Liffey, O’Connell St., Parnell St. and Capel St. with fingers extending out for short distances (especially eastwards). It’s a bit more difficult to define on the southside because Trinity and Dublin Castle intrude and the shape is more irregular but a similar area can be defined (e.g. the eastern boundary includes Tara St. and Kildare St., south it’s Stephen’s Green, west is North Edward St., again with a number of “fingers” extending down High Street, Camden St, etc.)
What’s interesting about this whole area (which represents the busiest part of the the city) is that there are just 3 Luas stops and a single DART stop in the entire area. This represents a TINY fraction of the DART and Luas systems. Besides that the only way into it from the the rest of the sprawl that is Dublin using public transport is by bus. This is remarkable given that this area is where I imagine over 90% of the people want to get to when they talk about going into town. It may seem like a relatively small area, but try walking from Henry Street to the Stephens Green Luas stop with a couple of bags of shopping. Linking the lines through Westmoreland St. and O’Connell St. will integrate and strenghten this central area and would support more pedestrianisation and hopefully re-routing of many of the bus routes.
-
July 5, 2005 at 2:55 pm #729364
kefu
ParticipantI really don’t see how it would be possible to actually link the two lines unless the St Stephen’s Green line merges with the Tallaght line at Connolly/Point Depot at some point.
It simply doesn’t make any sense to have two tram line running at right angles to another. Would we for instance have one tram from Sandyford to Heuston, then the next from Sandyford to the Point, then one from Tallaght to St Stephen’s Green.
Logistically, I don’t see how the network as it stands could support it when they can hardly get the full complement of trams out on the Tallaght line because of congestion.
I totally agree with Graham about this.
The whole thing has taken on the classic mantle of the “pet project” and in terms of its cost benefit, it just won’t add up.
They’ll build it and then find that people are actually unwilling to pay E1.30 to go from O’Connell Street to St Stephen’s Green.
I reckon the walk between OCS and the Green takes at most twenty minutes.
On a purely practical basis, who will queue for three minutes to buy a ticket, then wait another three minutes for a tram that then takes six or seven minutes to travel between the two places.
None of this, however, will dent support for this project because it’s one of those things politically, which sounds like it makes perfect sense when it makes no sense at all. -
July 5, 2005 at 3:47 pm #729365
emf
ParticipantI notice that the old bus stop signs have started to creep back onto O’ Connell St.
They’ve plonked one right in front of the GPO and another for the number 10 outside the Centra on the other side.
Looks very ugly!I think they should have tried to keep the area between Abbey St and Henry St clear of all this clutter. It looked really good just after it was finished with no signage at the sides or motor bikes, for that matter, in the central median.
-
July 5, 2005 at 8:51 pm #729366
GrahamH
ParticipantThe clutter is increasing all right, though much of it is unfortunately necessary. At least all other poles going up thus far match with the polished steel finish.
Agreed with much you say jimg, not least how Luas is essentially a suburban commuter service, not one that links the city centre together. But to build the Luas link now to O’Connell St serves little purpose considering how small the city centre is.
Certainly there is a basic appeal in extending the Green Line to O’Connell St in terms of getting commuters that bit closer to the northside of the city and the Red Line. But this is the sole benefit, to bring southsiders a liitle further on, a 15 minute walk at most (or 8 if in a rush :o).To build an extension at the cost of millions for this sole purpose (because it’s not going to be used just to get from O’Cll St to the Green) is wasteful and unnecessary, not to mention visually damaging. If nothing else surely it benefits the city to have people walking through it rather than using the Luas. It has been mentioned that Grafton St has benefited enormously from the Luas – well think of the amount of people avoiding the Green stop to get off closer to their destination on the Northside. If you use Grafton St regularly you will note the huge volume of ‘power walkers’ walking to their destinations down the street, College Green, Westmoreland St, Dame St, O’Connell Bridge etc.
I fail to see how people, having arrived in the city centre via either Red or Green cannot walk through the very small city centre, generating trade and benefiting the city centre overall, not to mention their own health! We go on about car dependancy, well this smacks of public transport dependancy!
I can see Lower O’Connell St being transformed into a horrible St Stephen’s Green-like senario, with the Luas dominant in all its various elements. Likewise the collection of poles and brackets as per the Green will have to be used on College Green because of the nature of the streetscape – it’s much more than just wires: there’ll be poles, brackets and perhaps even cable junctions to deal with the angles – all in front of Trinity’s West Front and the BoI.Kefu’s final comment I think sums it up very well:
@kefu wrote:
None of this, however, will dent support for this project because it’s one of those things politically, which sounds like it makes perfect sense when it makes no sense at all.
-
July 5, 2005 at 9:14 pm #729367
Anonymous
InactiveI have to agree with Grahams arguments save one, I feel it would that it would be beneficial to connect the two lines but I would add the provisio that the line should be extended beyond the red line and offer at least one new destination. Given the cost of the RPA metro is going to come in at around 4.6bn if it is built to proper international broad gauge metro specification I really can’t see the Department clearing it, nor can I see too many paople ourside Dublin being happy with so much being spent on a single stand alone project.
My own view is that the Luas should follow the route of the existing buses on to College Green and then head for Dame St and cross the river at Grattan Bridge and cross the red Luas line on Capel St. This line should also continue onwards to Ballymun and the airport with a second rail service to the airport and Swords being provided from the Northern line beyond Howth Junction.
At least this way O’Connell St is preserved and tyhe Northside proper can experience the Luas effect without having any negative effects on its principal ACA.
-
July 5, 2005 at 10:22 pm #729368
JPD
ParticipantCullen would want to cop himself on after the number of mistakes he’s made, no more bluster it is past time to start listening to common sense.
-
July 6, 2005 at 12:37 am #729369
jimg
ParticipantOk looks like I’m on my own here, but that’s never stopped me before. I’ll leave aside feelings about Cullen or the suggestion that there is something nonsensical about the proposal just because he’s involved. Nor do I agree that “None of this, however, will dent support for this project because it’s one of those things politically, which sounds like it makes perfect sense when it makes no sense at all.” is a reasonable summary of the arguments for and against the idea.
Also I don’t think it’s worth wasting effort arguing about the precise technical details of the extension – i.e. whether it goes further north terminating in Parnell Sq. or what routes are implemented on the joined up system – given that the nature of the extension is still largely unknown.
TP makes a reasonable point that there may be alternative routes which would be worthy of consideration.
Besides that, the only argument I can discern from the voices in opposition is that joining the lines has limited utility. I disagree strongly with this. I don’t think it’s at all reasonable to dismiss the utility of the extension because a healthy young(ish) person can walk between the Stephens Green stop and the red line in 15 minutes (a distance of over a kilometer by my reckoning). This seems to form the real basis of Kefu and Grahams opposition to the idea. You must have a very narrow view of what sort of people the city centre should accomodate! Imagine trying to do that distance with children in tow or with three bags of groceries or shopping. Add a bit of Irish weather to the mental picture – a damp rainy day in November or a freezing gale in March. Would you just suggest that an elderly frail person who isn’t the fittest, walk that distance? What about if you’re a tourist and have a load of luggage? I believe there is plenty utility in linking the lines and in fact linking them in fact creates synergy; it will be practical to get from anywhere to anywhere on the two lines even if burdened with children, luggage, heavy shopping, a disability, fraility or just laziness no matter what the weather is like.
The only issue for me is the aesthetic one and for me, in terms of improvement to the environment along the route, the utility delivered, it’s a price worth paying and in fact I believe any negative aesthetic impact can be minimised with a bit of imagination.
-
July 6, 2005 at 2:04 am #729370
kefu
Participantjimg wrote:This seems to form the real basis of Kefu and Grahams opposition to the idea. You must have a very narrow view of what sort of people the city centre should accomodate! Imagine trying to do that distance with children in tow or with three bags of groceries or shopping. Add a bit of Irish weather to the mental picture – a damp rainy day in November or a freezing gale in March. Would you just suggest that an elderly frail person who isn’t the fittest, walk that distance? What about if you’re a tourist and have a load of luggage? I believe there is plenty utility in linking the lines and in fact linking them in fact creates synergy]I sympathise with all of what you have written above.
However, I don’t think any of these factors could ever justify spending the E100 million that [even the Green Party Join the Dots campaign admitted this] it would cost.
A dedicated Luas-to-Luas bus service with bus only lanes in both directions would use up the same amount of road space and cost the tiniest tiny fraction of that E100m figure
Elderly, frail persons have free travel in this country and you won’t find too many of them complaining about the Luas lines not joining.
I would also question how many tourists with heavy luggage are actually trying to travel from Ranelagh/Sandyford to Tallaght or Heuston/Connolly. It is not like Luas exists in a vacuum either. There are good bus services in this city that serve many of these routes quite exactly. -
July 6, 2005 at 2:14 am #729371
Anonymous
Inactive@jimg wrote:
The only issue for me is the aesthetic one and for me, in terms of improvement to the environment along the route, the utility delivered, it’s a price worth paying and in fact I believe any negative aesthetic impact can be minimised with a bit of imagination.
Jim, I totally agree with your entire post before the above quote and can see the very valid points that you are making and I agree with them but in relation to the above I respectfully request that you read post No. 1530 above and consider the micro-aesthetics very carefully.
It is entirely possible to acheive the exact result that you seek either via a Capel St alignment taking in Dame St or by a Marlborough St alignment taking in Pearse/Hawkins St. I note that no-one proposes running Luas down Grafton or Henry St I would in light of the messy overhead wire situation I would suggest that people would consider the effects on TCD/BOI College Gr and O’Connell St in their considerations.
-
July 6, 2005 at 2:34 am #729372
GrahamH
Participant€100 million?! You’re having a laugh kefu! I thought it was around €50m as was suggested on the Luas Central Corridor thread last year!
As mentioned on that thread, if a bus service running the same route was prosposed costing that sum it’d be laughed out of it.
I take into account what you’re saying jimg, and I too in the past often thought of the convenience of getting from O’Connell St to the Green via tram, thinking the distance rather long. And yes there is simply no doubting the appeal of such a concept and there’s no point in my running down the (limited) element of utility it would bring in order to reinforce an aesthetic arguement. I think both have certain merits.But :). My primary concern is the aesthetic implications – there’s no point in diluting that. For College Green, O’Connell Street, O’Connell Bridge, the House of Lords part of College Street, and lower Grafton Street if Trinity’s wall is removed.
However of equal concern is the fact that a vast, almost incomprehensible amount of money is being proposed to be spent on a service that does nothing other than to make an existing service a teeny bit better, that is all. As kefu says, very few people would have a special need to use this link, and those that do could be accommodated on existing or slightly altered bus services. A good start alone would be just to make free the final stage on Dublin Bus from say Dawson St to Westmoreland St, at a negligible if not zero cost to Dublin Bus.
What I would like to see is the money better invested in a Luas line that earns its way – as suggested linking to the proposed Ballymun line (though there’s also aesthetic implications for the vista of City Hall :)). I don’t know if it is possible to mix both the overhead power system with the (safe asdasd :)) rail powered system as described on the Corridor thread – I’m doubting it somehow…
Or to use an alternative city centre route that links with another area of the Northside, i.e. why does O’Connell Street always have to be turned into the centre of the universe?But even if there was no overhead wires I’d still question the spending of such a vast vast sum on such a small project that does little to nothing to alleviate the transport problems of the capital.
-
July 6, 2005 at 2:41 am #729373
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
What I would like to see is the money better invested in a Luas line that earns its way – as suggested linking to the proposed Ballymun line (though there’s also aesthetic implications for the vista of City Hall :)). I don’t know if it is possible to mix both the overhead power system with the (safe asdasd :)) rail powered system as described on the Corridor thread – I’m doubting it somehow…
It would be entirely possible to hang the overhead lines from either/each individual side of the street in specific places therebye protecting Dean & Woodwards AIB, City Hall and eliminating the need for a huge overhang of the Central Bank Plaza.
Given the current thinking on the RPA metro costings at the Dept of Finance I genuinely believe that Luas represents Ballymuns only chance of a high capacity public transport system. I would further add that the path to Ballymun does not have the population density either current or potential to support anything above a light rail route.
Luas appears to be the perfect solution and a Dame St/Capel St routing appears to be the line of least resistance and would accelerate the invest westward where it is probably most needed as opposed to an eastern alignment which is already very close to the Dart line.
-
July 6, 2005 at 3:01 am #729374
Devin
ParticipantWell said jimg.
Delighted to see the ghastly error of not linking the Luas lines is finally going to be righted.
In good European cities trams go through the heart, through civic spaces. I am baffled that people are worried about visual effects.
-
July 6, 2005 at 3:03 am #729375
GrahamH
ParticipantWould the Luas be able to negociate Suffolk St and Andrew St?
Here’s an image of O’Connell Bridge’s poles and wirescape from 1922 – difficult to make out much though:
Also just Burger King’s windows mentioned earlier; they’ve been PVCed of aluminiumed 🙂 for quite a few years now:
-
July 6, 2005 at 3:15 am #729376
Anonymous
InactiveI believe it would, as a bus can get into the right lane even with a car in the left lane, coming out of Church Lane if the tracks were placed on the northern side of College Green it would supply a very wide turning circle. It would also have the effect of making College Green as far as City Hall effectively public transport only due to a dramatic reduction in road space. That part of Cullen’s speech I have great respect for.
Re Burger King’s Freshely baked baguettes, who did I meet in Wexford St on Monday only Fido he was wrapped around the Cornerstone bar on a grandscale, these wraps have genuinely gone beyond a joke someone should contact enforcement.
-
July 6, 2005 at 3:17 am #729377
GrahamH
ParticipantDevin if it were proposed to suspend telephone wires in the same fashion through the city centre, there’s be absolute uproar on the impact on the city’s architecture and streetscapes, not least on the part of the heritage/conservation lobby – but because this is being seen as a ‘Barcelonaisation’ project it is welcomed with open arms.
Yes is important not to exaggerate this issue, and to deal with it as objectively as possible, and impact images would help in this regard, but it is not an issue to be taken lightly at all. It should be given as much anaylsis as traffic implications and projected user benefits.
-
July 6, 2005 at 3:20 am #729378
Anonymous
InactiveThat is a very well considered point, the visual clutter implication could be extensive and under no other circumstances would of any of us agree presuming that anyone does that is.
-
July 6, 2005 at 3:57 am #729379
Devin
ParticipantWell Graham we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one. While I am only too aware of the chronic mess of signage, poles and other clutter in the city centre, the main problem for me is that it is uncoordinated. Having seen trams in operation in central squares/spaces of various European cities, I find that their dedicated pole/wirescape is not nearly as obtrusive as you imagine it would be.
As everyone knows, College Green at present is disgusting; left in a “1970s timewarp†as you rightly put it recently – the heavy traffic, narrow pavements and horrible street furniture. To put Luas through there is to do right by the city. -
July 6, 2005 at 10:43 am #729380
Anonymous
InactiveWhat the pro lets fill the city with wires lobby is forgeting, is that nearly half of all Dublin Bus routes go through College Green. By only allowing Luas go through the Green you are depriving more public transport users then you allow by leting Luas on the Green, as many people as possible deserve acess to what is to many the most central of locations. As well as this the poles used for Luas cables are far wider in circumferance then the trams of old as show in the earlier photo.
Also can anyone explain why the cost of the extention is so high. In Spain they would build several kilometres of metro for 100E. -
July 6, 2005 at 11:31 am #729381
kefu
ParticipantJust in case you thought I was spoofing:
http://www.greenparty.ie/en/news/news_archive/green_party_urges_government_to_join_the_dots_as_new_luas_red_line_opens
If the Green Party says E100 million, I can only imagine what the Railway Procurement Agency will be saying and there is no question of a contribution from local businesses a la Cherrywood/Citywest extensions.
Another point completely ignored here is whether we want another three years with the city centre looking like a bomb has hit it. -
July 6, 2005 at 4:29 pm #729382
jimg
Participantdoes nothing other than to make an existing service a teeny bit better
I simply disagree with this and it seems, like I said earlier, the central issue of dissagreement seems to be whether integrating the lines offers much utility. I contend that it offers a great deal of utility. I’m happy to concede that there will be an aesthetic price to pay but I think it is disingenious to try to present a picture of the link up as offering nothing more that a way to get from Stephens Green to O’Connell St. That gives a false picture of what the link-up will achieve.
Integration means that you more than double the utility of the existing infrastructure because the number of reachable destinations from any point in the system is approximately doubled. Given that the existing unintegrated system cost 800 mil to build, doubling its usefulness is cheap at 70 million (which is what I’ve heard is the estimated cost of the project). In case anyone is interested, I did the sums and there are 662 different start-end point combinations possible on the existing system (506 on the red line, 156 on the green). If the lines were joined and assuming 3 new stops were added then the number of possible journeys on the system would be 1482.
Suddenly it becomes practical to get to Connolly from Ranelagh even with luggage. Or someone arriving on an intercity train to Heuston can use the tram to get to Sandyford. A tourist can get the tram from outside their hotel in Charlemont to the national museum in Collins Barracks. At the moment, the Luas does not offer a compelling alternative to taxis or private cars for these sorts of journeys even if the weather is good and you’re happy to do a fifteen minute walk in the middle. As the system is extended (down through the IFSC) the value of the integration will be amplified.
Crestfield, we’ve heard all the scaremongering before when the current lines were being planned: the Luas would choke the city, interfere with buses, cause the mass slaughter of cyclists and pedestrians, damage businesses near the lines, the path near Heuston would cause 6 mile tailbacks along the N4, etc., etc. Despite all these dire predictions the Luas has been a huge sucesss and has complimented other public transport modes (buses and trains).
-
July 6, 2005 at 7:20 pm #729383
kefu
ParticipantJim G – I simply can not see a situation where you will be able to get a tram from Heuston to Sandyford without turning Lower O’Connell Street into a giant on-street tram terminus/interchange.
How do you propose running the two lines into each other in such a way that these 1482 options are a possibility?
When the government talks about a link, they are talking about running the lines close together. You will still have to get off the Tallaght tram and get on another one.
Then again, I could be wrong – but I’ve yet to see any workable proposal.
It’s also incredibly disingenuous to even utilise this 1,482 figure as it presumably includes hundreds of one or two-stop journeys. For instance:- Connolly to Busarus and Busarus to Connolly.
I would also again pose the question of how complicated the routings on two joined Luas lines can be when Connex have been unable to run the proposed ‘shorts’ from Heuston to Connolly due to congestion.
Tram jams are a regular feature at rush hour in the Abbey Street/Gardiner Street area already.
The system is already running near full capacity and complex routings won’t be logistically possible. -
July 6, 2005 at 7:41 pm #729384
Anonymous
InactiveI totally agree with your analysis kefu it is a case of linking the lines and possibly introducing a third track at Stephens Green to terminate a good number of the Sandyford trams there and connecting a smaller number of them as far as Heuston and the Point.
In the longer term it is expected that the Sandyford line will be both extended to Shangannagh to meet the DART line and upgraded to metro, if this occurs in 10 to 15 years it is entirely probable that Luas will terminate at either Charlemount/Ranelagh or Beechwood with the Metro going underground to join the rest of the rail network somewhere else.
It is absolutely imperative that we get the Luas routing right because it will be the only North-South connection that will be built over the next ten years. O’Connell St is just too problematic and if the objective is to complete the Luas plan it will involve a line to Ballymun, if Luas goes up O’Connell St it will destroy both the O’Connell St IAP and ensure that the Parnell Sq IAP is never implemented. As someone said earlier just because Arbour Hill is on a Luas line doesn’t make it anymore City Centre, I would draw a similar conclusion to area between North Freederick St and Phibsboro if the line is run on street to this alignment.
-
July 6, 2005 at 9:16 pm #729385
GrahamH
ParticipantWhen one reads the various proposals on P11 for the north-south Luas, it is nothing short of farcical to propose an extension to Lower O’Connell Street for €70-100 if not plus, if the sole aim is to stop the line at Abbey St. It is an obcene amount of money to be spending if it does not offer real linking of the Red and Green Lines.
So yes, again it comes back to the utility derived, but as kefu highlights jimg many of the journey combinations you list are not exactly relevant, as not only do they include short journeys as described, but also journeys like Sandyford to College Green, and Sandyford to Westmoreland St – a negligible difference, and the same pattern repeated for every single stop.And how many tourists with heavy luggage travel from the suburbs into town?! Okay it’s unfair to pick on a micro example like that, but I still do not think that this single link line is remotely, not remotely worth the price tag and potential aesthetic damage for the level of utility gained.
You’re certainly correct on the one kilometre from the Green – I measured it on an OS map from the middle of the Green platform down Grafton St to behind O’Connell Mounument and it is exactly 1 kilometre! :).
But considering the tram would take at least three minutes anyway from the Green, if not more, I think the short walk through the centre for those few who need to do that (a crucial point to make), makes the scheme a non-runner for me, andin light of the two other factors mentioned.I note a lot of people on P11 are hellbent on it going up O’Connell St and Parnell Square etc, it being the most direct route to Broadstone – but again what of the wirescape? In this case the Luas lines would be preserved for the western carriageway, resulting in either wires stretched the whole way across from the east to hold the cables (in themselves passing the GPO) or a host of shiny new chunky poles the whole way down the central median!
Again I emphasis I am questioning rather than openly criticising the wirescpe as I’d like to know what the impact would be more than anything else – but personally I have never been enamoured by those two elements of European cities that others seem to find so charming – number one: tram wire and pole systems, and two: bicycle parks openly placed in architectrually significant areas which look awful.
Without having images or an idea of the impact, one thing at least can be said for certain, and that is that the city centre would be better off without these cables, and better off without a Luas terminating station on Lower O’Connell Street, if that is the plan being floated.
-
July 6, 2005 at 9:36 pm #729386
Anonymous
InactiveThe real gem on the P11 site was copped by a guy called Phillip who spotted the filled in canal bed from ariel photos of Dublin 7, this stretch runs all the way from Constitution Hill directly opposite Broadstone to the canal and could deliver travel speeds equivelent to the old Harcourt St line as far as the existing canal. How the line gets there is a moot point and I feel that College Green O’Connell St is already so close to both the existing lines and the Dart that no-one can claim any real level of inconvenience. There is also the fact that the northern retail core has shifted westward and that Capel St would in fact be more convenient than O’Connell St to Luas users.
I think it worth bringing the point that Graham made in his original analysis of this namely the differing impacts of wirescapes between brick facades and light coloured stone facades which dominate most of this stretch. It will be technically impossible to hang wires from only one point between the end of Grafton St and the Westin hotel. The reality is that the choice will be
1> Wires being fixed to both TCD and Grattan’s Parliment or
2> Polls being erected at what constitutes a major traffic pinch-point even without Luas.Either way the result will be extremely negative from a both a visual clutter and a heritage point of view. The situation is that sexed up montages will be done against a white sky background showing minimal visual impact, the reality will be extremely different as 20:20 eliminates the blandness that montages can create in relation to real perspective.
-
July 6, 2005 at 10:06 pm #729387
GrahamH
ParticipantThe canal idea certainly seemed inspired all right – was reading about it too, and I think it highlights the much broader context in which this Luas link must be held.
Obviously all options are being considered by the RPA, no doubt with DCC and other bodies’ input and it’s up to their expert opions to decide what to do, but to make a rather obvious point, the idea of extending the Green Line solely to terminate at O’Connell Street in light of the greater transport needs of the city seems rather short-sighted, whatever about the visual impact on the city’s core.Still I do find it quite amusing how pople can be diametrically opposed on aesthetic grounds to exactly the same idea – either being concerned about the wirescape, or wanting sleek trams running through the streets 🙂
-
July 7, 2005 at 1:16 pm #729388
jimg
ParticipantFirst of all, could I suggest that maybe the debate about the Luas link be somehow moved out of the O’Connell Street thread?
Kefu & Graham, it is nonsense to suggest that I am being “incredibly disengenious” to include short journeys in my calculation. I did it for simplicity and in actual fact it understates the advantages of having a linked up system. If you restrict the analysis to longer journeys, the relative advantages of integrating the system actually increases. For example, if you only consider journeys of five stops or greater in length, then there are almost THREE TIMES as many journeys possible on the linked up system.
I can’t believe that people are refusing to accept this? It’s almost an axiom of transport systems that when you increase integration, the utility of the entire system increases. Imagine what trains/the DART would be like in Dublin without the loop-line bridge (ah sure, it’s only a twenty minute walk from Connolly to Pearse!). Imagine the London Underground if they hadn’t developed every opportunity to provide interchanges between lines where they come close to each other.
-
July 7, 2005 at 2:38 pm #729389
Anonymous
InactiveBut short journeys are actively discouraged by Luas themselves due to the high cost of traveling within zone 1 (a very steep 1.30 compared with Dublin Bus at 85c). It only becomes value for money if your coming all the way from the suburbs.
-
July 7, 2005 at 2:44 pm #729390
Anonymous
Inactive@jimg wrote:
First of all, could I suggest that maybe the debate about the Luas link be somehow moved out of the O’Connell Street thread?
if you only consider journeys of five stops or greater in length, then there are almost THREE TIMES as many journeys possible on the linked up system.
I can’t.
Jim,
Just before we move this discussion off the O’Connell St thread can we first fix up the myth that the O’Connell St routing is the only one on the table. For once the public will have a chance to see six options before the route is chosen.
To my mind this central routing is the wrong choice for a number of reasons not least the points that Graham made in post 1530 and in terms of congestion the pinch point at College Green and its effect on the median as evidenced by weehamster’s map taken from http://www.platform11.org
-
July 7, 2005 at 3:45 pm #729391
jimg
ParticipantSure TP. There are a number of active “fronts” in the discussion, only one of which (the choice of routing) is germane to O’Connell St. The one I seem to be most active in is the question of the utility of integrating the system. Whether the green line is extended via O’Connell St or any other route does not have a huge bearing on my argument in that regard. Obviously if you don’t see any value in joining the two lines, the question of route is almost moot. Also if you see no utility in joining the lines, then any aesthetic cost (or financial cost for that matter) associated with doing so will seem excessive.
-
July 7, 2005 at 6:20 pm #729392
GrahamH
ParticipantContinued on Luas Central Corridor:
https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?p=36550#post36550
-
July 7, 2005 at 7:01 pm #729393
Anonymous
InactiveFido is gone
-
July 8, 2005 at 10:20 am #729394
Anonymous
InactiveI was wondering what happenend to the proposed bridge from Marlbourgh St. to Hawkin St. I think it was discussed some pages ago but I don’t have the time look through the prevous pages (there are 63 you know ! 😮 ) I have a copy of the annual report of the O’Connell St. IAP 1999-2000, and it says regarding the bridge, “going to tender in the new year”
-
July 8, 2005 at 10:34 am #729395
Andrew Duffy
ParticipantWhen the new section of
junkie seatingboardwalk was being built there was a gap left in it at about where the bridge would go for a long time. It may have had nothing to do with it, of course. -
July 8, 2005 at 3:03 pm #729396
Anonymous
InactiveThe new bridge will be most welcome when it is built it will really bring a new dimension to Marlborough St which will hopefully mimic what happened on Lower Liffey St. Retention of the Abbey onto this site is crucial.
-
July 8, 2005 at 4:56 pm #729397
Anonymous
Inactive“the new bridge will be most welcome when it is built”, Are you just supporting the idea Thomond Park or do you have confirmation that its going ahead? If so, is there a time table? or has a design been choosen yet?
-
July 8, 2005 at 5:09 pm #729398
Anonymous
InactiveNo specific news,
when do people think this will be built?
-
July 8, 2005 at 5:19 pm #729399
emf
ParticipantI see that Eircom have installed WiFi in their payphone at the edge of the new boardwalk on O’ Connell Bridge. I don’t think I would fancy ‘surfing the net’ sitting on the boardwalk at that particular location!
-
July 8, 2005 at 6:16 pm #729400
Anonymous
InactiveAs if there wasn’t enough visual clutter as it is….
-
July 9, 2005 at 12:54 am #729401
GrahamH
ParticipantNot to mention the riverscape – is a new bridge really needed here?
At the risk of using the term ‘gimmicky’ too many times, one gets the feeling that this proposal is if not that term, then at least another pet-project that will add yet more clutter to the riverscape with the Boardwalk alongside.There is an attractive simple model at work on the Liffey of roughly evenly-spaced bridges spanning its width. To stick yet another metal bridge literally within yards of the landmark O’Connell Bridge seems unnecessary and unfair to the rightful dominance it holds in this area.
If sheer quantity of pedestrian flow is the problem, were the tight corner of O’Connell Bridge and Eden Quay to be addressed then the problem would be solved.
From a regenerative point of view, there is no doubt there’s a certain appeal in having a bridge linking Marlborough St with Hawkins St, but it could be argued that a steamroller is being used here to fold a piece of paper – i.e. the most basic of measures have yet to be taken on Marlborough Street to improve its public domain and building stock, in fact nothing at all has happened.
Building a bridge linking one dead street to another is not going to solve Marlborough’s problems. I think it is being used as another unnecessary ‘iconic’ symbol of regeneration, an ‘innovative’ ‘forward-thinking’ scheme that could have a negative impact on the riverscape and at the same time do little to improve the streets it is directed at.By my measuring, it is exactly 100 metres from the corner of O’Connell Street/Bridge to Marlborough Street, less than the distance walking from the GPO Henry St corner past Penneys and Easons to Abbey Street.
Marlborough Street can be regenerated without a bridge; were we to build a bridge to solve the problems of every dump along the Liffey we’d have no river left. I’d have to see the river properly on location to make any sort of final judgement on it, but it seems ever so faintly ridiculous to build a new bridge for regenerative purposes 100 metres away from one of the widest city bridges in Europe.
-
July 9, 2005 at 4:04 am #729402
Anonymous
InactiveThe real question for me is not is a bridge required but more is it a a Luas/Bus or pedestrian bridge?
-
July 10, 2005 at 2:16 am #729403
JPD
ParticipantI was on the street today and crossed the road at a new set of traffic lights near the Savoy, it looks like the council are taking more account of the public this time around. That has to be a good thing, how long do people think the works will take?
-
July 10, 2005 at 5:15 pm #729404
Anonymous
InactiveGraham Hickey wrote:Marlborough Street can be regenerated without a bridge]That is an interesting perspective,
To make a valid comparison to the Millenium Bridge I wonder what the distances were to Grattan bridge and the Ha’Penny bridge as opposed to the 100m you are talking about above.
Eden Quay is not a particularly appealing pedestrian space either and I think that the visual seperation of the Quay from the streetline by buses is not helping this stretch of boardwalk at all.
I am coming to the conclusion that the ‘bridge project’ has been a very convenient excuse for the state that many buildings on Marlborough St have been allowed deteriorate into.
-
July 11, 2005 at 6:28 pm #729405
GrahamH
ParticipantWell here’s a rather sultry view of this stretch at dusk (sorry best I have):
The Ha’penny-Grattan stretch is longer, though admittedly not by very much. I don’t have an OS map with the Millenium Bridge on it so can’t compare!
Just personally I’ve always like the O’Connell-Butt stretch: it feels like a big pool of water trapped between the two bridges, with that nice curve into the distance – wouldn’t like to see it disrupted, especially considering the Boardwalk already makes quite a, eh – ‘statement’….There always seem to be a desire in cities to ‘conquer’ their rivers – within reason I think they ought to be left alone.
The Ha-penny to O’Connell stretch is perhaps the best example of a river ‘preserved’; it has never been tamed and nor should it.
Indeed probably the only reason it hasn’t is that there aren’t any major streets terminating at the river along this stretch…Seeing the location, the Marlborough stretch is probably capable of accommodating a bridge, but I for one wouldn’t like it, and the impact on O’Connell Bridge from the east is difficult to make out.
-
July 11, 2005 at 7:28 pm #729406
Anonymous
InactiveI’m not so sure that allCities are hell-bent on conquering their rivers, Frankfurt is a great example of how a river should be with a river level linear park on one bank and a wide pathway on the other with the Quay wall acting as the other boundary.
You are correct about the obsession with proposed bridge building that has prolifferated in recent times, some were necessary such as Joyce, Millenium & Calatrava but I can’t see the need for O’Casey and I’m starting to off the idea of Marlborough St unless it were a Luas Bridge and then I would have difficulty with anything more prominent than the Millenium bridge.
The river level park was never going to be possible in Dublin due to the tidal nature of the river and I can accept the concept of the boardwalk as offering some level of interaction with the river that otherwise wouldn’t be possible by reason of natural limitations.
The major problem I have with the Liffey Quays are the stretches without the board-walk, with the South Quays being a glorified bus-stop as far as the civic offices and the North Quays having car-parking on them from Grattan Bridge to O’Donovan Rosssa Bridge at Church St.
I would like to see Devin post the section of Dubinspirations that deals with the Liffey Quays.
On a totally different note the road markings have not been re-instated at College Green after a road resurfacing, I saw a guy on a bike ploughing into a few pedestrians who crossed late after being obstructed by cars who had no indication of where to stop for the lights.
-
July 12, 2005 at 8:40 pm #729407
Anonymous
Inactive@crestfield wrote:
I was wondering what happenend to the proposed bridge from Marlbourgh St. to Hawkin St.
It’s actually Hawkins St 😀
-
July 12, 2005 at 10:01 pm #729408
GrahamH
ParticipantNot to treat the bridge issue as ‘covered’ or ‘cleared up’by changing topic, but I’ve some images here to get rid of :). It can be hard to avoid agenda setting due to the nature of the board, so just to say on my part at least – any change in topic isn’t an indication of something seemingly being ‘finished’ as it were!
Anyway, I finally got round to making up ‘before and after’ images of O’Connell Street’s monuments. The finished articles are quite simply sublime.
I held off saying anything about them till I got some pics, which in turn was dependent on my getting a new camera, with a ridiculously large 12x optical zoom. I was quite surprised how nobody but Greg in the interim commented on their finish – it is truly outstanding, especially O’Connell Monument, one of the best conservation jobs I have ever seen. But we’ll save that best part till last :).Just to say at the start, all ‘before’ images were taken on film in March of this year, whilst the ‘afters’ were taken, well, today, on digital so they have slightly crisper advantage. Some more later of Parnell and Fr Matthew and the Upper Street, but somehow I think these’ll do for now… 😮
So to begin with, here’s Sir John Gray before and after:
This image doesn’t do the change justice; the marble is bone white now, compared to a very dirty grey appearance beforehand. Arguably the most elegant statue on the street, it was unveiled in 1879.
A closer shot of the very fine detailing:
William Smith O’Brien next; the change more noticeable in this pic. I was never a fan of the tea-like stains on the granite plinth, unlike those of antique paving where they’re more suited 🙂 – so now I think it looks much better. Again the marble is now gleaming in the sun, an extraordinary change:
As we know, he was originally erected at the entrance to D’Olier St in 1870, but moved to O’Connell Street in 1929 to facilitate increasing volumes of traffic.
Here’s some detail:Finally some views of them at their best at a raking angle:
Overall a magnificent job, especially Sir John Gray – he really has to be seen to be believed!
-
July 12, 2005 at 10:03 pm #729409
GrahamH
ParticipantNow for the big one :). The work executed on O’Connell Monument is as magnificent as was the scale of the task in hand. It has been transformed beyond recognition, no exaggeration. If you weren’t overly familiar with its condition prior to the works, you can still see here how splendid it now is.
The limestone plinth now has a much warmer buttery glow, whilst every element of bronze now has a scandalously luscious silky black finish :D. Perhaps a little too much, but looks great all the same.Here’s a before and after of the winged Victory Fidelity and the drum in the background:
What a difference! The same can be said of the limestone – look at the change in its appearance!:
And a comparison of the Monument as a whole:
…followed by O’Connell himself – got some detritus running down his head already :(:
-
July 12, 2005 at 10:04 pm #729410
GrahamH
ParticipantMost impressive of all perhaps is the level detail originally sculpted, and how intact it still is today. It’s in pristine condition. Here’s some wonderful up-close details from the drum – this little fella’s my favourite 🙂
A rather pompous-looking man here:
And either a bishop representing the Church, or St Patrick 😀
The drum has always been my favourite feature, a lovely classical feature. It must have been painstaking cleaning all of the frieze figures, nearly 30 of them up there:
Just below is the Vitruvian scroll in all its crisp bronze glory – I always thought this was part of the stonework it was so dirty!
Here’s the magnificent level of detailing on Patriotism – the folds and pleating are so lifelike, and the finish is so rich and glossy as to border on indecency 😀
Finally to finish off, here’s what is really a trademark feature of the Monument, an olive wreath-adorned head of one of the Victories – this pic is of Fidelity. It perfectly reflects the Monument as a whole, the beauty of Foley’s design, the quality of execution, and one of the most splendid and worthy conservation projects in the city in recent times.
Congratulations Dublin City Council and Contractors!
Some of the dates are taken from Yvonne Wheelan’s insightful ‘The Iconography of Sackville Street/O’ Connell Street’
-
July 12, 2005 at 10:11 pm #729411
jimg
ParticipantYeah, I like the way the river is treated in Frankfurt too but it feels like the river is on the periphery of the city which contrasts with the relationship between the Liffey and Dublin – it’s the central artuary of the city.
The river park idea ‘though reminds me of a photomontage in one of the Sunday newspapers recently (in the last few months) where they showed what it would look like if Burgh Quay were covered in grass. It was startlingly attractive and oddly enough didn’t look at all unnatural. It’s an unfortunate fact that the quays in Dublin are vital for traffic which severely limits what can be done with them. The boardwalk plan annoyed me when it was announced – it affirmed that the quays are reserved for traffic and suggested that the planners were too timid to remove some of the roadspace for pedestrians.
-
July 12, 2005 at 10:43 pm #729412
GrahamH
ParticipantYes, that’s what I get from the Boardwalk concept too. Were the images printed from An Taisce’s ‘Dublinspirations’ Jimg? As fanciful as some of them are, it still looks as natural as anything to have grass covering up the roadways and running right up to the quay walls!
-
July 12, 2005 at 11:02 pm #729413
jimg
ParticipantHi Graham. Sorry for cutting you off on the O’Connell St. statues; we must have started typing simulataneously. I haven’t seen the Dublinspirations publication; it looks very interesting – I must get a copy. From reading a description of it after a quick google, it seems likely that it’s the source of the image.
Now, back to admiring the monuments.
-
July 13, 2005 at 1:56 am #729414
Anonymous
Inactive@jimg wrote:
Now, back to admiring the monuments.
That is always the danger of releasing so many high quality images at once.
It is too late to discuss them now I’ll do it tomorrow 😀
You should talk to desire media about having a lot of the images uploaded into the buildings of Ireland section of http://www.irish-architecture.com
-
July 13, 2005 at 8:57 am #729415
emf
ParticipantThat’s that then! – All the trees at the top of O’Connell St have been cut down. I was walking over Parnell St and had to look twice before I realised what had happened. I got a bus on Parnell Sq and it looks strange, as it headed down O’Connell St, being able to see straight down the full length.
I can’t wait to hear the frenzied debate on the likes of ‘Liveline’ today!
-
July 13, 2005 at 10:44 am #729416
GregF
ParticipantIn this instance the trees had to go ….its a venial sin……whats unforgiveable are the Green Party twats who chained themselves to them claiming that they were great buddies of Padraig Pearse. Would have been awful for the street had they put the new paving around the gnarled old things.
-
July 13, 2005 at 10:54 am #729417
TLM
ParticipantI agree, it would have looked pretty ridiculous to keep the old trees on the upper street now that the planting on the lower part is complete. According to the Indo phase 2 of the improvement works will take 10 months to complete.
Also a story about Joe O’Reilly acquiring the Royal Dublin Hotel, I wonder if it’s now going to be refurbished as well as had previously been planned. Wasn’t the Gresham also to be upgraded to a five star?
-
July 13, 2005 at 11:05 am #729418
dodger
Participantsorry to go back a few posts but I have to say that there is plenty of grounds for justifying the O’Casey bridge (opens todays btw). the distance between phase 2 ifsc and pearse st station will be halved by the new crossing not to mention the improved access to the docklands.
The uninterrupted river stretch between the Matt talbot and the east link was far too long and added to the artificialdivision of the city between North and Southside. -
July 13, 2005 at 11:35 am #729419
Anonymous
InactiveIf any one is interested theres an exellent survey and history of the statues of O’Connell St., that you can get free at http://www.dublincity.ie/images/O’Connell%20Street%20Statues%20Survey_tcm35-10452.doc, it can be downloaded. It has detail and quality, if it were in book format and sold in shops you could expect a high enough price.
If the direct link dos’nt work just go through the website its easy enough to find. -
July 13, 2005 at 7:57 pm #729420
GrahamH
ParticipantYes this is a good document – though Yvonne Wheelan’s is more extensive and offers a better context. Both works though could do with a little more detail about the structures themselves.
Sob – I can’t believe what you’ve just said emf, so they’re finally gone :(. Has to be welcomed in the context of the street as a whole of course, but it’s still a sad day.
Still a bit shell-shocked though, cause the images below were only taken yesterday with no knowledge of their impending demise! Spookily probably the last photographs ever taken of O’Connell Street’s London Plane Trees……….A view from the south:
From Parnell:
A view mid-way down the line:
And poignantly the straggling remains of the Christmas lights that so much delight to children and adults alike :(:
http://www.fantasyjackpalance.comEDIT: Just seen weehamster’s pics on the Trees thread! 😮
I wonder were they chopped overnight/early morning? -
July 13, 2005 at 8:36 pm #729421
Paul Clerkin
Keymasteryesterday evening 4ish onwards i believe
-
July 14, 2005 at 3:17 am #729422
lexington
Participant@jimg wrote:
Yeah, I like the way the river is treated in Frankfurt too but it feels like the river is on the periphery of the city which contrasts with the relationship between the Liffey and Dublin – it’s the central artuary of the city.
Agreed, Frankfurt seems very removed from the Main. Indeed the city uses its river very actively, perhaps more-so than Dublin – it offers extensive restaurant-ferry facilities, walkways, waterside parks etc – but it never feels like an active particpant in the city’s day to day life. The city seems unbalanced in favour of the Northern Bank.
The Liffey is very much at the heart of Dublin, though its usage seems less extensive, its presence is undeniable. The development of the city over the centuries has given a good sense of balance and allowed for a rich architectural tapestry to evolve on both banks.
-
July 14, 2005 at 4:17 am #729423
t.scott
ParticipantI wonder what ever happened to the idea of putting a salmon weir into the liffey!!?!! Never mind anymore bridges for now, It would have been great to have a means of keeping the water level at a certain mark to keep the shopping trolleys n sludge below the water (better again – dredge that muck out & install a weir) as far up as heuston station. that would make a great difference to the way people look at the river. i know its tidal and there would still be low tide and high tide marks below the weir but i for one thought it would be great.
as for the river and amenities go, i believe CHQ is opening soon and i guarantee as soon as the grand canal basin starts to come online there will be a big change. if the event centre/theatre and so on get built, there will a lot to see and do on the quays and about time too.
plus on the opposite side around the point depot, crosby has plans for a massive development too with apts cinemas bars etc etc…so things are looking up!!! -
July 14, 2005 at 1:19 pm #729424
Anonymous
InactiveCouncil View:Moore Street’s future, according to Dublin City Council’s executive planning manager, Ciaran McNamara, is dependent on the redevelopment of the Carlton cinema site on O’Connell Street, currently the subject of an appeal from the High Court to the Supreme Court.
Dublin City Council has a duty to get it right for Moore Street, he says, and has done everything possible “to advance the Carlton site. Once it’s sorted things will begin to happen,” he says. “Moore Street has always been a central plank in the O’Connell Street development plan, a very important facet. But our hands have been tied.”
Rose is a damn good journalist to extract those comments from a little local consultation
-
July 14, 2005 at 2:48 pm #729425
TLM
ParticipantI think after the current O’Connell Street area IAP is finished one should be drawn up to tackle the quays. They could be a great feature of the city but are largely a mess at the moment. Unfortunately it would be hard to deal with the traffic that chokes them up, though the port tunnel should help on that front.
-
July 15, 2005 at 10:24 am #729426
urbanisto
ParticipantBTW a fab collection of pictures of the statues Graham, thank you for posting them. Doesnt the street looks so strange without its trees. It will be 40 more years before you see it looking so lush…..I can feel the arthritis in my neck as I strain to look up at them
-
July 15, 2005 at 3:16 pm #729427
Anonymous
Inactive@StephenC wrote:
BTW a fab collection of pictures of the statues Graham,
The detail in the O’Connell monument is particularly fine and I’m sure that most observers will have spotted something new from the images that you posted.
-
July 15, 2005 at 5:46 pm #729428
GrahamH
Participant@StephenC wrote:
I can feel the arthritis in my neck as I strain to look up at them
Don’t even go there – don’t want to even think about it! 🙂
I’m still in complete awe of O’Connell Monument – I pass like a grinning eejit every time! 😮
The change is simply spectacular. Of course it’s simply not sustainable to be constantly cleaning these structures, which only makes even more significant just how lucky we are to see them all at their very best in this not even once-in-a-lifetime conservation job.And there is of course an equal charm of having lichen or verdigris stained monuments that show their age etc, which no doubt will emerge again over time, so we of this generation get the best of both worlds 🙂
-
July 16, 2005 at 7:24 pm #729429
JPD
ParticipantDo you really think it will be 30 years plus before the statues are cleaned again?
-
July 17, 2005 at 11:59 pm #729430
Devin
Participant@jimg wrote:
The river park idea ‘though reminds me of a photomontage in one of the Sunday newspapers recently (in the last few months) where they showed what it would look like if Burgh Quay were covered in grass. It was startlingly attractive and oddly enough didn’t look at all unnatural.
Didn’t want to post this too soon after the stunning photographs of the O’Connell Monument and other O’C St. statues.
jimg, this is prob the pic you’re referring to, which appeared in the I.T. weekend supplement a few months ago, from the An Taisce report mentioned.
I know the image is a bit ‘photoshoppy’, the way the grass is just plonked on the road, but it was just to get the idea accross of creating non-traffic space on the Quays. I think it is very deeply ingrained in Dubliner’s minds that the Quays are for traffic only. We need to reverse that psychology. In comparison, some parts of the Cork Quays have heavy traffic, but they’re not an artery from one end to the other like Dublin, so you’ve got some very pleasant sections of quayside, particularly Pope’s Quay / North Mall.Funnily, the Temple Bar 2004 report (by Howley Harrington architects) which came out at around the same time as our one, said the same thing; that once the Port Tunnel was open, most of the traffic could be removed from the Temple Bar Quays and the area could be planted with appropriate trees and used for pleasant riverside walks.
-
July 18, 2005 at 2:45 am #729431
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterI really like that idea – shades of the Parisian quai beach but more permanent.
-
July 18, 2005 at 12:35 pm #729432
Anonymous
InactiveThere are images of the Paris Plage in the report it is as devin will tell you much of the inspiration behind the above image, I think that a few kiosks along the lines of the surviving phonebox on Dawson St would look really good in the image.
-
July 18, 2005 at 1:45 pm #729433
Rory W
ParticipantPity they chose a North facing quay for that image – as I remember Merchants Quay is definitely one of the colder quays…
-
July 18, 2005 at 11:44 pm #729434
GrahamH
ParticipantBut Rory the sun always shines in the happy world of Photoshop 🙂
Yes it’s that image that appealed greatly to me too – the grass flowing up to the river is a delightful notion, especially on a quay with one of the finest building stocks.
It’s extraordinary how the pedestrian in Dublin almost completely rules out the quays as a means of getting through the city – they are totally traffic dominated. Merchant’s Quay in particular has alwyas appealed to me as a quay to be closed off or restricted for traffic- it has a lovely old world charm that really comes though when the lights hold up the traffic way back at Grattan Bridge – there’s a hushed silence that hangs over the quay, that combined with the Four Courts view and the overhanging trees feels like a different city for a moment or two. And then the lights turn green…Some comparative pics here of the Parnell Monument – difficult to note the change objectively because the light is different. First up is a wide:
The major difference is the colour of the granite – it has turned from the original attractive rust colour to a dusty pink. I preferred the former have to say… Saying that, the highly polished surface wasn’t noticable before the cleaning, whereas now it is like glass.
A tighter shot here showing the ontrast in condition of Parnell himself; similar to O’Connell the statue is now jet black as opposed to a seaweed colour previously :). Ironically the lettering is now more difficult to read:
The upper part of the monument – from certain angles like this one it can appear paper thin due to the triangular shaft. Great chimneys on Parnell Square too:
The newly cleaned ox skulls:
…and the wonderfully crisp and elaborate classical swags:
-
July 19, 2005 at 12:03 am #729435
GrahamH
ParticipantHere’s the base of the monument where you can perhaps best appreciate the newly cleaned polished granite. The bronze detailing is exceptional:
…especially evident here, look at that fringed cloth! :). The classical capital has always been a favourite for me:
This used to be illuminated by a white spotlight on the last 1988 heritage lamppost on the median – now I think an entire floodlighting is in order somehow…
Finally Father Matthew – wasn’t possible to get direct comparisions because of the building site in front, but the difference is stark all the same:
It was a complete revelation to most people (myself included) that the statue was of marble rather than the limestone of the base – a remarkable transformation! He was the grubbiest of all the statues on the street I think.
Here’s a (slightly over-exposed) wide of him, including the now-attractive blue-tinged plinth:
The facades behind look very fine too 🙂
-
July 19, 2005 at 10:53 pm #729436
Anonymous
InactiveAnother batch has landed
The images of the Parnell Monument are stunning and it amazing at how legible the inscription has become, I must confess that I never really looked at the monument in any great detail before possibly becuase of it being marooned on traffic island that filters a hell of a lot of traffic. The one detail that surprises me most is the copper detailing that looks like a blanket I’ve never thought that the monument in question contained such detail.
The image of the plinth looking back towards the bank is interesting and from that banks interior I would say that the green marble detailing inside is no small way linked to the Parnell Monument.
Re: Father Mathew I think he was fine the way he was I’d have let him go brown in keeping with what he would have worn.
-
July 19, 2005 at 11:27 pm #729437
GrahamH
ParticipantOr a couple of tins of Sadolin 🙂
I think the contrast between the marble and limestone is very striking.The one detail that surprises me most is the copper detailing that looks like a blanket
Yes, the fact that Parnell had a blanky will be quite a revelation to most people 😀
There must be so many traffic planners just itching to move the Parnell Monument – it has to be one of the biggest obstructions in the city.
But from a non-traffic perspective it is also one of the most perfectly sited monuments, standing at the confluence of a number of major arteries, as well as perfectly tying in with the O’Connell St median of statues.
I like the way it is in a world of its own up there – standing proud in the midst of everything going on around.As Devin pointed out before, the seemingly original cobbles and swirls of granite are a lovely feature:
…with circles too:
And here they are in 1911 seemingly being laid!
It is perhaps the iconic nature of the monument which is most impressive; this classic 1916 image being most memorable:
And 1911 with the planes a nice size :), and Gilbeys evident…
-
July 20, 2005 at 9:46 pm #729438
Anonymous
Inactivewas in town today. i love how the cleaned statues look but i am a bit disappointed at how long it is taking to complete o’connell street. it seems like it is taking forever. way down near the gardens hasn’t even been started on, well from what i saw anyway.
-
July 21, 2005 at 1:04 am #729439
Anonymous
InactiveRe The Irish Rebellion Picture are any of you familiar with the ‘New Ireland Assurance’ print from 1922 its colour works so well. I have always wondered is it simply a print or was it the upper half of a calender?
-
July 21, 2005 at 2:17 am #729440
JPD
ParticipantThe Parnell Monument has scrubbed up well but I still prefer O’Connell
-
July 21, 2005 at 2:55 am #729441
Ciaran
ParticipantIt’s amazing I used to go by the Parnell monument every day, to and from school, I never knew it had so much detail. Thanks for the images Graham.
-
July 21, 2005 at 10:09 am #729442
Anonymous
InactiveIs it just Grahams good photography deceiving me, or has the restoration included the reinstatment of Fr. Mattew’s fingers that were broken off. I have to agree that I was surprized, but pleased by the colour of the stone.
Good work Graham.
-
July 21, 2005 at 11:32 am #729443
kefu
ParticipantThe original plan was that they wouldn’t fix the fingers.
-
July 21, 2005 at 12:19 pm #729444
urbanisto
ParticipantLook closer…. the fingers ae still missing.
Its chaos on OC St at the moment but hopefully this time next year we will see the whole street laid out. Work has also started the remaining section from Abbey St to the Bridge.
Its a shame to see the creep of visual clutter along the street however. The new bus stops plonked right in the middle of the plaza are a good example. if they are temporary then why not use moveable posts set in concrete. If they are permanent (and lets face it this is likely) then why were the works done in such a crude manner. Add to these stops the signage. electrical boxes , bike stands and now the army of bollards that have been put in on the median between Abbey and the Bridge. Obviously there to stop motorbikes parking over the service traps but are they really necessary!
-
July 21, 2005 at 12:27 pm #729445
Anonymous
InactiveHow sad the fingers were not put back. The City Heritage Officer told me, that he believed due the damage being so prominent, that reinstating them would be best.
-
July 21, 2005 at 1:02 pm #729446
urbanisto
ParticipantI got the impression that the Heritage Officer (isnt he a she?) was of the opinion that repairs such as these and the bullet holes in DO’C would be inappropriate as they are part of the history of the monuments. However the fingers should probably have been put back.
Anyone know if the taxi drivers statue of Jesus will be going back once the works have been completed. Judging by the paving line (this is the first spot to have kerbs laid) the taxi rank will still be in place once the median is completed.
-
July 21, 2005 at 4:32 pm #729447
Anonymous
InactiveThe Heritage Officer was very much a man the last time I spoke to him, his name is Donnacha O’Duling (I know I spellt that wrong by the way). Perhap Stephen, you are thinking of the City Conservation Officer who is a she.
The opinion that he expressed was that interference is undesirable, but in the case of Fr. Mattew the fact that the hands were so prominent he thought repair wass nessisary, or he did think that at one stage anyway.
-
July 21, 2005 at 6:39 pm #729448
Morlan
Participant@StephenC wrote:
Anyone know if the taxi drivers statue of Jesus will be going back once the works have been completed. Judging by the paving line (this is the first spot to have kerbs laid) the taxi rank will still be in place once the median is completed.
Oh please god I hope it gets ‘misplaced’. I hate that shaggin’ thing, it’s a hideous eye sore.
-
July 21, 2005 at 6:44 pm #729449
GrahamH
ParticipantHow exactly were they lost – was told before but forgot. It wasn’t either of the conflicts on the street as far as I know…
I was wondering about Jesus too – notably this wasn’t included in the monument conservation programme 😀
Perhaps the CC are waiting for a bit of the old Divine Intervention to zap the PVC to oblivion….Judging by the paving line…the taxi rank will still be in place once the median is completed.
Surely this isn’t being plonked back in the middle again is it?
-
July 21, 2005 at 7:01 pm #729450
Morlan
Participant@Graham Hickey wrote:
How exactly were they lost – was told before but forgot. It wasn’t either of the conflicts on the street as far as I know…
I was wondering about Jesus too – notably this wasn’t included in the monument conservation programme 😀
You’re wrong, Graham, it was included.. it was removed completely! 😀 Great improvement.
As for the taxi rank.. where are those O’c redevelopment plan PDF files.. I seem to remember looking at them some time ago and now I can’t find them. They might give an indication as to where the taxi rank will be.
-
July 21, 2005 at 7:08 pm #729451
GrahamH
Participant@Morlan wrote:
it was removed completely! 😀
Ah, but is he in cold storage somewhere ready to be reinstated – that’s the question….
Yes those files did show the Upper layout – goodness only knows where they are amongst all the posts. Think Peter posted them…
From what i can recall, the taxi rank was to be preserved along the median. -
July 21, 2005 at 7:28 pm #729452
Morlan
ParticipantProbably discussed before but what about seating on the central median? It’s non existant. What would you think to having single seating arranged much like on Barcelona’s La Rambla? At present there isn’t really any incentive for people to congregate on the median, you either sit on the ground or stand. The ones on la Rambla are arranged nicely. Two centre seats with one at either end facing at a slight angle to the two centre seats. Maybe the median is cluttered enough though!
-
July 22, 2005 at 7:05 pm #729453
Anonymous
InactiveThe first thing would be to remove the bicycle parking stands and introduce parking control in relation to the illegal parking of motorbikes and two wheeled hair dryers.
I would be in favour of seating if one or more of the kiosks trades as a cafe?
I do however hope that the trees are kept at a limited stage of development and never mature anymore than the size in your picture. I saw the Gresham yesterday for the first time since the trees came down and even with a building site in front it looks exceptional and it can only be enhanced by the planned refurb.
-
July 22, 2005 at 7:20 pm #729454
GrahamH
ParticipantAlways presumed that seating would go onto the median once it is was finished, but as time went on it just never materialised.
I do hope though that it is not intended that the street’s public seating will be made up of chairs provided by a private operator of a coffee kiosk, where one is obliged to buy something first.Permanent public seating would certainly be welcome on the median once the bikes go – though if that taxi rank is going along the median again, I’d rather not have to sit with them gawping at you the whole time – bad enough as it is walking past them.
The Plaza the other day – traffic enforcement is definitely needed, and fast before a culture develops (not that it hasn’t already). To say it again, the cheek of some people….:mad:
-
July 23, 2005 at 3:25 am #729455
GrahamH
ParticipantJust came across the contractors that cleaned the O’Connell Bridge balustrading:
http://www.pmac.ie/stone_cleaning.htm
Needless to say, they’re highlighting with pictures what was an excellent job it was. Thank you P.MAC Ltd!
I think this cleaning went by rather quietly, yet it has transformed this area of the city. The difference between the former drab, not to mention disgustingly stained, Portland stone is astonishing, especially when viewed now in the sun.
It projects a warmth out to the pedestrian passing by, and into what is to be honest a rather cold grey city centre and riverscape.The difference was really remarkable.
The cleaning also helped hugely in reducing (if not quite eliminating :)) the dirty Dublin image. Despite pedestrians and tourists brushing right past every single day for years they were so close, the stone was never touched for cleaning.
It should have been done 10 years ago, but better late than never.
-
July 23, 2005 at 11:52 am #729456
magicbastarder
Participanthas anyone else noticed the yellowing of the leaves on the trees opposite the GPO? spotted it yesterday morning, it’s quite visible.
-
July 23, 2005 at 2:14 pm #729457
Anonymous
InactiveYes the Ballustrades scrubbed up very well on the Bridge as only portland stone can to that extent.
What is the storey with the Bus-Stop on the middle of the southbound section of the Bridge?
The company operating it travels from Dublin to Galway, I really fail to see how this could have been considered let alone sanctioned as this service is not like a Dublin Bus where people get on, pay and sit down (if possible) but this involves the driver getting off and loading luggage under the bus requiring the bus to stop for a period of time in a section of road that is already heavily congested with other buses, Taxis and cars. It presents a significant risk to cyclist safety and it should be removed and transfered to a much more appropriate location.
-
July 23, 2005 at 4:35 pm #729458
kefu
ParticipantAn absolute joke from every point of view.
Not only, do you have loads of traffic coming from the quays and O’Connell Street, you also have other double decker buses turning left from the contraflow lane on Eden Quay.
There’s an interesting thread here on the type of chaos it can cause: http://p201.ezboard.com/fbustravelirelandfrm8.showMessageRange?topicID=859.topic&start=21&stop=35
You would have to question Dublin City Council’s decision on this especially considering what happened on Wellington Quay.
It’s also offensive from a purely visual point of view in having a bus stop with a block of concrete as its base on the city’s most important bridge. -
July 23, 2005 at 6:56 pm #729459
Anonymous
InactiveI tried to register for that site but to no avail, can you post some of the best comment?
-
July 28, 2005 at 12:45 am #729460
Anonymous
Inactive@www.irish-architecture.com/news/2005/000140.html wrote:
O’Connell Street locked in legal wrangles
Archiseek / Ireland / News / 2005 / July 25
The Irish TimesCompletion of the O’Connell Street regeneration project has been delayed to “an extraordinary degree” by the ongoing legal proceedings over the former Carlton cinema site, Dublin city manager John Fitzgerald has said. The disused cinema and an adjacent derelict lot have been described by Mr Fitzgerald as “the most important site in the entire city”, yet it remains undeveloped because of legal wrangling between the owners and the council, and involving the owners themselves. The council made a compulsory purchase order of the site in December 2001, after determining that the Carlton Group of landowners, who had secured planning for the site in 1999, had neither the finance nor expertise to advance the project.
It is so disappointing to see this situation continuing still further, can someone not make a business decision and forget about the rights and wrongs of who said what for just once, from a civic point of view the outcome of this case will have no long term effects but it could be the long term before an outcome does finally emerge.
Between this section and the Royal Dublin the street has two real eye-sores, I never thought I’d say this but the old Fingal HQ is starting to grow on me, it has certain qualities of its period.
-
July 28, 2005 at 12:00 pm #729461
kefu
ParticipantThis picture is from the thread on All About Buses and gives you an idea of just how stupid putting a bus stop on a bridge is.
-
July 28, 2005 at 12:06 pm #729462
urbanisto
ParticipantIts cracked isnt it…. especially after Wellington Quay and how this highlighted the need for safe location of bus stops.
-
July 29, 2005 at 1:05 pm #729463
Anonymous
InactiveIt is amazing how short memories can be for transport regulators.
Today is the 25th anniversery of the Buttervant rail disaster
-
July 29, 2005 at 1:14 pm #729464
urbanisto
ParticipantIts amazing how long memories can be for chatforum-posters!
Never heard of it.
-
July 29, 2005 at 3:00 pm #729465
-Donnacha-
ParticipantThis is digressing a bit, but the location and positioning of Dublin bust stops generally is woeful. There’s a bus shelter on Dorset Street that has a bank of phone booths right in the line of sight for oncoming traffic. It’s a really busy stop, and people are frequently forced to walk out into the traffic to hail their bus. I’ve never seen anyone use the phones.
There’s another opposite Whitehall Church stuck right between two mature trees. Six inches further out and it would be usable. Instead, it’s not used at all because you can’t see anything. -
July 29, 2005 at 11:40 pm #729466
Anonymous
InactiveThere was a picture of the Bank of Ireland on College Green in last Sundays Business Post taken I suspect about 1992 or so and the lack of visual clutter was noticeable. I’ll try anmd scan it up next week in work but in the interim the image is taken from about Foxes at the Start of Grafton St and there isn’t a traffic sign, phonebox or telcoms box in sight just a Bombardiar bus and the building and thats it.
In other news an RPA crew were spotted measuring up Westland Row yesterday so the ‘six options received by the minister’ must have been a long way short of the ‘ready for railway works order’ we were led to believe.
-
August 2, 2005 at 1:31 am #729467
GrahamH
ParticipantYes, and interesting details about the Westland Row bridge creating eh ‘difficulties’ for fitting a Luas underneath…
Here’s a pic that’s been kicking about for a while – does anyone know if the brickwork of Frazer’s on Upper O’Cll St is original or just pastiche? The facade is made up of two merged properties that from a distance look whole.
But as can be seen below, the left-hand section has clearly modern brickwork while the right-hand two-bay section has a pre-1940s formation, and a crumbly old appearance too.
The very top of the uppermost floor appears to have been rebuilt recently.Anyone know what was here before Frazer’s moved in?
And considering we’ve never had any pics of this terrace between 1922 to c1960 posted here, does anyone know if this terrace was even damaged in 1922? (save the corners which appear to have been rebuilt)And just on 1922, I saw archive footage during the week of Deane’s fairytale building being blown up after 1922. It seems to have survived the events themselves but was subsequently demolished due to irreversible damage – there was a slight upward blast and then the upper floors all came showering down into the street 🙁
@Devin wrote:
-
August 2, 2005 at 1:43 am #729468
Anonymous
InactiveHow could they have made no effort to salvage at least the facia stonework?
It makes the blood boil just how short-sighted people were at various times, surely someone would have had a back garden capable of taking some form of folly based on the materials.
I had a squint at the back of Fraziers recently and it all looks new build, I suspect it is all new build from any contact I have had with the building and sadly the interior is worse than the exterior.
The corner building at the end of the terrace is the only decent building for virtually all of the block bounded by O’Connell St and Cathal Brigha St back as far as Bord Pleanala (I am not too sure on the Parnell St buildings and suspect a few of them should be on a risk list). The thing that surprised me most was the size of the surface car-park to the rear of Findlater House, Fibbers and Fraziers.
-
August 2, 2005 at 2:05 am #729469
GrahamH
ParticipantYikes – it’s huge! 🙂
No doubt of great appeal to whoever snaps up Findlater House next – a very valuable relic from the car-happy age. What a waste of city centre space.
As for the Deane building – have to emphasise that it seems to have been blown up afterwards. The film was grainy but I’d be 99% sure it was deliberate as it all seemed very controlled, not least as there was a camera set up in the centre of O’Connell St directed at that building at that moment, and which I very much doubt was done with bullets and shells flying about overhead 🙂
-
August 3, 2005 at 1:20 am #729470
Alek Smart
ParticipantIts worth asking in relation to Andrew P`s reflection on Bus Stop positioning,as to what exactly is the present status of the “Safety Review” of ALL Dublin Bus stops which was promised in the immediate aftermath of Wellington Quay.
Such a review would certainly be well worth having when seeking explanations from such luminaries as Dublin City Council as to their corporate Self-Confidence in positioning a Long Dwell Inter City Coach Stop adjacent to major junction.
The same City Council (And of course their supportive arm,An Garda Siochana) had no qualms about reserving the Very last stop Northbound On The O Connell St Building Site for Aircoach,yet another Long-Dwell operation which requires the driver to leave the cab to attend to porterage duties.This means that any vehicles which manage to successfully get that far MUST then form a line behind the driverless coach,which usually has its engine left running. Safety First ?Gimme a Break. -
August 4, 2005 at 1:05 am #729471
Anonymous
Inactive@Alek Smart wrote:
Its worth asking in relation to Andrew P`s reflection on Bus Stop positioning,as to what exactly is the present status of the “Safety Review” of ALL Dublin Bus stops which was promised in the immediate aftermath of Wellington Quay.
I think that is exactly the point when the divy up was done on O’Connell St to reduce the number of stops for the renovation works; this shouldn’t have been allowed to be placed here and it would be interesting to find out who if anybody sanctioned the positioning of this bus stop for this type of route at this position.
Who sanctions bus stops would it be The Dept of Transport & DCC or DCC in isolation?
-
August 4, 2005 at 4:05 pm #729472
ctesiphon
ParticipantAren’t the Gardai the traffic authority for the city? Perhaps not in isolation, but they surely would have had an input.
Pearse Street, AFAIK. -
August 4, 2005 at 4:54 pm #729473
JJ
ParticipantBus stop positions are subject to Garda approval.
jj -
August 5, 2005 at 12:26 pm #729474
Alek Smart
ParticipantAm I misguided or is it looking like the “Old” Taxi Rank on OCS is being reinstated in the exact same place as before ?
-
August 5, 2005 at 1:28 pm #729475
urbanisto
ParticipantYes, I noticed this a couple of weeks back. Its the first area of paving being laid. I suppose the taxi stand has to go somewhere. It would seem a bit unfair to victimise the taxi drivers seeing as everyone else is being more than generously catered for in the median – motorbikes, cyclists, street signage manufacturers, bollard makers.
-
August 5, 2005 at 11:08 pm #729476
GrahamH
Participant😀
And there was me thinking the powerful, consistant, unbroken vista of Upper O’Connell St was going to be the saving grace of this Area Plan :rolleyes:
Why do the taxis have to go back here?!
-
August 5, 2005 at 11:37 pm #729477
Anonymous
InactiveI agree and add that it will be a lot harder to restrict private car use with a taxi rank remaining on the street as the space “obviously isn’t needed for pedestrians” or “if you moved the taxi rank the pedestrians would have a better environment” this is typical local politics interfering in urban planning yet again. One wonders just how much or little lobbying had to be done before DCC caved in?
What was required was for DCC to think creatively on how to create new ranks in a way that would minimise traffic movements on O’Connell St and serve the middle of the street (Sackville Place) and serve the top and the Lower ends of the Street. To do this most effectively the ideal situation would have been to minimise the distance travelled to the rank on the Street
From the North the Gate is perfect as there is ample space and it would have drawn more people up in the Parnell Square direction an area that is developing well. The driver then has the choice of Parnell St for North/West or O’Connell St South.
At the other end of the Street Middle Abbey St could have accomodated a taxi rank that would have been both convenient to O’Connell St and Abbey/Liffey Sts. Access would be from Lower O’Connell St ensuring a large reduction in the number of Taxi’s travelling the entire length of the Street to get to the rank, it would also all but eliminate the u-turn at Cathal Brugha Street.
Retention of Sackville Place would allow taxis entering from Marlborough St to continue doing this.
Given this latest intrusion on the plan I am coming to the conclusion that O’Connell St despite the excellent forward planning is simply going to be a horribly cluttered place that will yield only a moderate quality amenity value. Of course it is better than it was but issues like:
1> The Taxi Rank
2> Bike / Moto clutter
3> Traffic signs
4> Lax planning enforcement on window and other fenestration replacements
5> Few incentives being taken up by occupiers
6> Additional call shops
7> Additional convenience stores
8> Increased bus routes stopping
9> The Carlton
10> illegal hoardings
11> Failure to remove amusement arcades/ fastfood outlets
The list goes onFor me the only real acheivements have been the Spire, Staue cleaning and the section of plaza in front of the GPO when it isn’t totally cluttered with motorbikes.
-
August 6, 2005 at 12:08 am #729478
Alek Smart
ParticipantOh ThoMo we aint seen nuttin yet……
The reinstatement of the Rank appears to be largely based on the fact that ….”Its ALWAYS been there” no doubt heavily emphasized by a Junior Transport Minister or somesuch.
The infuriating manner in which supposed LEADERS in Civic and National terms simply refuse point blank to grasp the opportunity to be forces for REAL change for the better in the City is what marks this country out as a basket case.
Just as Dublin remains a largely “Ground Floor City” with virtually NO central zone resedential use being actively stimulated so to is the Centre City dying a death from the Council`s refusal to deal with the simple requirements of Traffic Management.
Since the advent of Bobberty Molloys Deregulation Irish Style one of the best free events was to be found at the OLD O Connell St Taxi Rank each day as occasional Garda Traffic Corps Motorcyclists would suddenly swoop on the Quart load of taxi`s all attempting to squeeze into the Pint Pot of the Rank.
Street Theatre at its finest with shouting,gesticulation,pathos,bathos,and displays of stoic resignation being shown by both sides.
Of course Bobser and his fellow traveller Seamus B expanded the City`s taxi Fleet overnight by a factor of at least 4 whilst in real terms reducing available on street Rank space by approx 5%.
Bizzarrely the state continued to pay these pair Ministerial salaries for this piece of far sighted traditional irish music and craic….
Thankfully things have changed and we now have a Taxi Regulator…..well an INTERIM Taxi Regulator who will no doubt ensure that the NEW IMPROVED O Connell St rank will operate to the Highest International Standards etc etc …..
Why oh why for just ONCE cannot some so called civic leader not grasp an opportunity and make a grand gesture which would be supported by the Citizens who after all are expecting some BIG Changes after all the O Connell St work is finished !!!! :confused: -
August 6, 2005 at 12:22 am #729479
GrahamH
ParticipantA comprehensive summary TP – though of the negative points it’s important to note, as there are a great many pluses too.
But I think it can be argued that the pluses are run of the mill and are to be expected as a given in any urban space – improved paving, less traffic, greater pedestrian priority, better public lighting, an excellent level of cleanliness being maintained etc.The negative aspects are those I think that could have made O’Connell St, or rather could be making it right now in relation to inappropriate uses and decrepit properties that have not been acted on.
Specifically in relation to the taxi rank – one question.
If it is not visually damaging and not a pedestrian obstruction – why not put it on Lower O’Connell Street?!
Why not narrow the Lower median behind the Monument and pop the rank in there – the cars could make a neat U-turn between William Smith O’Brien and the Luas line. Why not put it outside Eason’s and Clery’s with a U-turn just before the Plaza – I’m sure these flagship stores would be delighted with this new level of accessibility?Why not? Because Upper O’Connell St is still very much so out of sight out of mind.
Who cares if there’s a huge rank up there impinging on the aesthetic and taking an amenity space away from the pedestrian – it’s only the Upper Street, up there with all those tacky, lower order, noisy, cheap stores and run-down buildings.
Never in a million years would the taxi rank be put on Lower O’Connell St, it’s too important. But the Upper stigma lives on as bouyant as ever, in spite of the admirable notions of this IAP.
The Upper street as has always been the case is not of real concern and so gets whatever is chucked at it.
-
August 6, 2005 at 12:59 am #729480
Anonymous
InactiveMaybe I was a little critical above but we are all looking at the best IAP ever put together in the City being compromised still further and again this is another major alteration that the planners have been unable to stop as they have obviously been over-ruled or failed to have been consulted in this matter. Alek is spot on both Callely who did represent the taxi drivers at the time of deregulation and Molloy who is mentioned more than once in the Destruction of Dublin.
Upper O’Connell St is as you say viewed in a very different light by DCC, the quality of retail offering beyond CIE/Burger King is abysmal by any standard and there appears to be no leadership on this. What is most tragic is that there are some fantastic buildings on this stretch not least the Hammam Buildings and The Gresham. Yet between the two the Savoy received permission to errect as blocky a signage arrangement as was possible despite this area being an ACA.
From a circulation point of view this end of the street will be little better than before once the taxi rank is reinstated as there will still be five if not six lanes of moving/stationary traffic. The real success of Lower O’C St has been the central plaza feature in design temrs and the section between Abbey St and the Spire in circulation terms. As Notjim said on another thread earlier the synchronised lights are great. This will not work if there are one if not two lanes of stationary taxis blocking passage/ moving slowly as you attempt to cross.
As there has been talk of a new body to oversee the new NDP (i.e. a second attempt to get beyond 25% on the original one) it is worth noting that John Fitzgerald was mooted as supremo of the then to be created ‘National Infrastructure Body’ back in 2000; he was perceived as a man who could get things done. If O’Connell St is any indication one thing is certain; even someone who is as capable as Fitzgerald can do little if central government doesn’t disburse funds as promised; if he is offered this job as a similar post is being mooted again as being available I wonder will he be offered it again?
-
August 6, 2005 at 1:20 am #729481
GrahamH
ParticipantYou raise a point I’ve meaning to ask – where is the O’Connell Street money coming from?
€400m isn’t it – or this for the entire HARP area?Is the CC paying directly for any of it, or is some from the NDP or directly from the DoE?
-
August 6, 2005 at 1:39 am #729482
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
You raise a point I’ve meaning to ask – where is the O’Connell Street money coming from?
€]It would have been funded under the RAPID programme
@DoEHLG wrote:
Launch of Provincial Towns Strand of RAPID Programme – Revitalising Areas by Planning, Investment and Development
The Provincial Towns Strand of the RAPID Programme, launched today (1 February) by Mr. Noel Dempsey, T.D., Minister for the Environment and Local Government, will target twenty towns for State investment in facilities and services over the next three years. This programme is about “improving the quality of life of communities in these towns and in doing so giving a lift to the whole town” said the Minister.
RAPID stands for Revitalising Areas by Planning, Investment and Development. As the name implies, RAPID is about ensuring that all towns selected under the programme are re-vitalised through prioritised investment in a coherent, targeted and accelerated way. Under the National Development Plan (NDP) Government Departments and State Agencies, including local authorities will be giving special attention to the areas targeted to ensure efficient and effective implementation of RAPID.
“The RAPID Programme for provincial towns is about revitalising and renewing the selected towns. It’s about targeting those communities in these towns who have, to an extent, missed out on our recent prosperity and frontloading investment under the NDP in the selected towns.” the Minister said. RAPID is a focused Government response aimed at helping these communities whether they are located in concentrated areas in the larger urban centres or in pockets of deprivation in the smaller provincial towns.
RAPID is made up of two Strands – Strand I which was launched last February, focuses on the major urban areas, and Strand II which deals with provincial towns. For the bigger towns selected under Strand II, targeted areas of need within the town will come under the RAPID programme. In the case of smaller towns, there will be a more whole town approach. However there will be a particular focus on tackling pockets of disadvantage at various locations within the overall town.
The Minister outlined how the RAPID Programme will operate on the ground. A special co-ordinator will be appointed by the relevant local authorities for each of the 20 towns. The co-ordinator will work with an Area Implementation Team which will include local residents and State agencies to draw up an action plan for the towns, which will identify needs. The targeted areas within the towns will then be prioritised for investment and development in a number of key areas, including health, education, housing, childcare and community facilities.
“The provincial towns Strand of RAPID is a serious initiative by Government to re-vitalise disadvantaged areas in the selected towns. We will ensure that the State Agencies will deliver on good quality plans drawn up for these towns in consultation with local communities” the Minister concluded.
ENDS
1/02/02The money was never released
-
August 6, 2005 at 1:59 am #729483
GrahamH
ParticipantThanks for that – so where has the money come from thus far?
And was it intended to use these future RAPID funds for the IAP back in 1998? -
August 6, 2005 at 2:00 am #729484
Anonymous
InactiveM Cullen wrote:Cullen Allocates Over €]The only reference I could find to any grants delivered to urban projects in Dublin are above and that is a search from January 2000 to March 2004 the entire period of the works
-
August 6, 2005 at 2:02 am #729485
Anonymous
InactiveThe money has come out of general budget
-
August 6, 2005 at 2:13 am #729486
GrahamH
ParticipantSo is the RAPID scheme even operational elsewhere do you know?
What’s the likely reason the O’Cll St funds weren’t released?
(sorry for all these questions) -
August 6, 2005 at 2:22 am #729487
Anonymous
InactiveJudging by the absense of any press releases on the DoEHLG website over the period it was not operational at anything like the scale it was announced at. The projects funded over the period appear to have been all of a very similar nature such as drainage schemes, non-national roads, waste water/ water treatment the sort of projects that facilitate large numbers of new suburban housing estates. Urban Ireland has faired badly from the Department since 200o and abysmally since mid 2002, there is a very clear pattern.
-
August 6, 2005 at 2:52 am #729488
GrahamH
ParticipantThis was one of the reasons wasn’t it for holding up the IAP since 1998 – it has been said here before that this was the primary cause as I far as I can remember.
Here’s hoping the remaining phases aren’t exposed to such cashflow concerns. -
August 6, 2005 at 10:57 pm #729489
Anonymous
InactiveOne would certainly hope so and one would also hope that now Callely has gunthered the plan with the Taxi rank that he will have the decency to make sure that the money doesn’t come out of central funds this time. It also appears that Luas down O’Connell St is the only option being considered
IN&M wrote:City to get six new Luas lines under €]A €20bn public transport plan that will introduce six new Luas routes in Dublin will be officially announced by the Government next month.
The unprecedented 10-year plan, details of which have been seen by the Irish Independent, will also include the development of a metro system linking Dublin airport with the city centre.
The plan will have three major components targeting Dublin, the commuter regions serving the capital, and the rest of the country with a particular focus on the Border Midlands and Western (BMW) region.
Up to six new Luas routes will form the basis of the scheme with the light rail system criss-crossing Dublin, providing more services to commuters in outlying areas of the city.
The Luas system will be upgraded to link the existing red and green lines between St Stephen’s Green and O’Connell Street.
An extension of the Sandyford line to Cherrywood at Loughlinstown to serve areas like Glencairn, the Gallops, Ballyogan Woods, Leopardstown Racecourse and Carrickmines will be developed.
The Tallaght line will be extended to Citywest, Clondalkin, and Lucan. A brand new service in the docklands with an extension from Connolly Station to the docks is also believed to form part of the plan.
The Irish Independent has learned that the Government and the Rail Procurement Agency (RPA) are in the process of securing deals with private developers to ensure they contribute to meeting the cost of the extensions.
It is also expected that new 40-foot Luas trams will be introduced to increase capacity on the system.
Under the plan, the M50 will be finished to complete the ring around Dublin city. And the eastern bypass – which is seen as the final segment in this project – will link the port tunnel to the M50.
A metro system to link Dublin airport with the city centre will start at Swords to serve the town’s growing population.
It is understood that the plan is being developed to work in tandem with the National Spatial Strategy which is intent on balancing development throughout the regions.
The plan also contains proposals for an ‘inter-connector’ rail line, which would travel under the River Liffey to link Heuston Station with Connolly Station via Westland Row Dart station.
This would act as a link between all modes of transport in the city, allowing commuters to access Luas, Dart, inter-city rail links, and Dublin Bus. Details are more sketchy for proposals at a national level, but it is thought the plan includes a focus on completing all the road links between Dublin and major cities with a focus on the BMW region.
The plan will be launched by Transport Minister Martin Cullen later this year.
“What I and the Government are now in a position to do is bring forward an ambitious, integrated plan for developing all elements of our transport infrastructure,” he said.
“The plan which we will publish will not be a collection of disjointed projects with no connecting logic. The timescale and resources made available by Government has allowed us to take an integrated approach to infrastructure planning,” he said.
“The objective is to achieve a high quality transport system in tune with the economic and social needs not of today but of the decades ahead,” Mr Cullen said.
The minister said that within the capital city and its hinterland, the provision of more roads was not the solution to transport needs.
“A high quality, high capacity transport infrastructure which will eradicate existing congestion and cater for further rapid population growth must rely on public transport,” he said.
“Implementation of this plan will have a major and positive impact not only on economic activity but also on the attractions of the city as a place to live and to work.”
The new 10-year transport plan to be unveiled by the Government proposes:
-
August 7, 2005 at 2:34 pm #729490
Anonymous
InactiveMinister Roche Announces €70 million for Urban & Village Renewal Projects
Mr. Dick Roche, T.D., Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, today (14 March, 2005) announced details of grant allocations totalling €70 million to Local Authorities under the EU co-financed Urban and Village Renewal Measure of the two Regional Operational Programmes under the National Development Plan (2000 – 2006). Local authorities have prioritised the city areas or towns and villages requiring renewal/regeneration works in Strategy Documents prepared at the outset of the Programme.
This brings to €124 million the total grant assistance amount committed under this measure since the Programme began in 2001. The main elements of the package announced today include: –
A total of €18.267 million allocated to the five main cities – Cork, Dublin, Galway, Limerick and Waterford to complete major initiatives already underway in each of the cities.
€49.154 million allocated to County Councils to fund urban and village improvement works.
A further €2.528 million has been allocated to the Dublin Docklands Development Authority to fund specific works at Grand Canal Docks.
Announcing the allocations, Minister Roche said, “I am delighted to announce this final tranche of allocations under the Urban & Village Renewal measure 2000-2006. It gives the local authorities an opportunity to plan ahead now for the remainder of the programme and build on the considerable progress already achieved. Out of the €70 million allocated today, €21.75 million may be drawn down in grants during 2005. This is 35% up on last year’s funding and demonstrates this Government’s commitment to the Urban & Village investment programme for regeneration works in cities, towns and villages throughout the country.”Details of the individual allocations are attached here http://www.environ.ie/DOEI/DOEIPub.nsf/6fb57b90102ce64c80256d12003a7a0d/3bf7a7030548696880256fc50036b571?OpenDocument : (Word 45KB).
So it would appear that 54m was commited between 2001 and March 2005 for urban/village renewal or 13.5m per year, hardly sufficient given the costs of the O’Connell St works as a single project.
-
August 9, 2005 at 1:59 am #729491
Alek Smart
ParticipantIts amazing how in this republic its often the most contentious items which recieve the most effort.
To Wit….A MAJOR push today along the O Connell St site to get as much work as possible finished on the “Taxi Rank”.
At one point I witnessed ALL of the cast beavering away at the two Cutaways on the Northbound side.
Its almost as if somebody was browsing Archiseek last night and found this thread……”SHYTE……The game`s Up….quick Moneypenny get me the City Manager on the secure line”……..”And the Minister”……!!
Mind U they had to make up for being absent for the past two days when approx 14 hour workdays were available,but Hey….Who wants to pay these guys weekend rates…it`s cheaper simply to let the project drag on a little into the dark damp winter ………. -
August 9, 2005 at 10:08 am #729492
GregF
ParticipantHowever work is really moving along at a fast pace compared to the rate it took the last section to be done, and no doubt the taxi drivers would be up in arms if they were waiting too long for their rank to be finished.
-
August 9, 2005 at 4:30 pm #729493
Morlan
ParticipantDoes anyone know when work will begin on path widening and resurfacing on O’C bridge?
-
August 9, 2005 at 4:37 pm #729494
urbanisto
ParticipantTheres no plans for thsi at present. I guess it will come later once the straegy for Westmoreland St is agreed.
I am sure I read somewhere earlier in the year that work on Phase II would happen over weekends as well to ensure its all complete by end of year.
-
August 10, 2005 at 4:57 pm #729495
Anonymous
InactiveIt is amazing that the Taxi drivers can exert such influence and that their section it appears will be completed long before the section between the GPO and the Calton. From their point of view it must be great to have the trees removed.
-
August 10, 2005 at 5:32 pm #729496
urbanisto
ParticipantWhy such a gripe about the taxi rank being completed first? The rank has to go somewhere. While its not the most aesthetically pleasing place its still probably a necessary service on the street..just like cycle parking, bus stops and car park signage. Besides I dont recall the the taxi rank being treeless – the pavement will be narrower but thats it. I am sure its not only the taxi drivers that lobbied for the rank to be retained…The Gresham, Royal Dublin, Savoy and probably a majority of businesses on Upper OC Street see the taxi rank as a valuable service to their customers.. And if you are going to get worked up about the taxi rank wait until work on the outer pavements starts…they have bus parking bay (and these will affect the treeline).
-
August 11, 2005 at 2:01 am #729497
Alek Smart
ParticipantIt`s not really “Griping” it`s merely a questioning frame of mind as to the ethos of the HARP/IAP or whatever.
Once we have the return of The (J Arthur) Rank we them must move to the next topics such as will the right turn into Cathal Brugha St be reinstated ?
Presently it appears that the melting pot is once again on the boil and things may change immeasurably from day to day.
For Example within the past couple of days some VERY flashy new Warning Signs have appeared on the Parnell St-Cathederal St stretch.
The new signs warn of “Construction Traffic” in the vicinity and oddly enough have a seperate Large Diamond Bicycle sign placed prominently above the textual one.
Now,I`m reasonably comfortable with the City Council`s reluctance to erect and maintain general safety related or directional signage in the area so my only thought is that some unfortunate cyclist was sideswiped by a JCB bucket or perhaps ended up lying prostrate in the hopper of a Dumper Truck and the ensuing fallout prompted a response along the lines of…….”Better stick a few oul signs up Owen,just in case some other eejit tries it too “……
Its always best to wait until something happens before attempting to rectify the problem
In the case of many of our higher and mightier Civic Leaders Reaction is much less taxing than Prevention which tends to be expensive and if nothing actually happens then one runs the risk of being ridiculed by your immediate boss for wasting money on unnecessary frills…..Far Fetched….???? Hmmmmmmm I thought so too…..until I encountered not one …..but TWO motorists merrily making their way Southbound along the Northbound side of O Connell Bridge at 21.15 yesterday evening….perhaps the lead driver had been perusing the excellent Pictures of 19th Century Westmoreland St on another Archiseek thread and decided to re-enact some of the scenes…….Then again maybe he simply missed the signs….. :rolleyes: -
August 12, 2005 at 3:54 pm #729498
JPD
ParticipantIs the right turn onto CB st going to open again?
-
August 13, 2005 at 12:14 am #729499
GrahamH
ParticipantHow did the dirvers even get over to the Northbound lanes?!
Stephen I think the aesthetics of Upper O’Connell St are of the utmost importance, and should not be considered lightly as they seem to be in the case of putting the taxi rank back.
You do not place a rank of cars along both sides a central pedestrian space, and especially not in what is suposed to be an ordered and coherent environment.
I don’t think the pedestrian has been highlighted enough – this is a pedestrian space, not one to be used by service providers out of sheer convienience. It is being reinserted for purely historical reasons – it was there before so it has to go back in now – despite the fact that the whole point of this scheme was to turn our backs on the days of Upper O’Cll St being an urban backwater that could have a taxi-rank thrown at it.The median is for pedestrians, to be used as an alternative less hectic route for moving along the street – not as a glorified taxi platform which is what it was, and what it is going to be.
As Thomond Park suggested, the Gate location provides the perfect platform for access to the rest of the city, as does Sackville Place to a lesser degree. Also when one thinks of the acres of echoing space on Middle Abbey Street, and the variety of other side streets, it increasingly becomes more and more ludicrous that what is probably the largest taxi rank in Dublin City Centre be plonked right in the middle of the capital’s principal, ordered, proprtioned thoroughfare as part of an integrated renewing scheme.
Renewing, not rehashing.
-
August 13, 2005 at 12:41 am #729500
Anonymous
InactiveAt the risk of agreeing with everything you have said above and what I have repeated ad nauseum; The planners who drew up the O’Connell St IAP got it right first time, all that was required was that it wasn’t altered unilaterally by other DCC departments and that Central Government honoured their publicity laden promises to fund it in a timely manner. The IAP was completed in 1998 7 years later it is uncompleted and is still subject to lobby group interference. This situation comes against the backdrop of the City almost being declared moribund in 2003 in which then Lord Mayor Dermot Lacy had to vote against his own block to arrest the underfunding from Central Government http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/0116/corpo.html
-
August 13, 2005 at 2:09 pm #729501
JPD
ParticipantWasn’t 2003 the year that the Spike was paid for and most of the work done looks like it almost put the corpo out of business.
-
August 15, 2005 at 3:27 am #729502
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
How did the dirvers even get over to the Northbound lanes?!
Quite a disruptive u-turn the kind of traffic movement that would catch out your average tourist from Antwerp
-
August 15, 2005 at 4:19 pm #729503
urbanisto
ParticipantI have never said that I support the idea of the taxi rank returning to the street…I think as you rightly point out there are a number of other options with less visual impact. However I think a degree of realpolitik set in here and a number of parties probably lobbied at planning stage for the taxi rank to be retained while probably no one argued against. I would also argue that the plan for the street put forward in 1998 is completely different from the plan taking shape now…. so many elements have been added and subtracted. However for the record I would prefer the taxi rank to be moved. I think a reason for it being completed first is also to get the carriageway beside the median returned to use asap so that work can start on the outer pavements,
Anyone see the article in the IT on Saturday regarding the Spire. It will be cleaned next summer once all the works have been completed. The contrasting pics of the Spire when installed and the state its in today were alarming….its bloody flithy. The DCC are expecting to have to clean it every 5 years. Cost €50,000 a pop. The cleaning job will take place over a weekend next summer and require the huge crane used to erect it as well as two VERY BRAVE guys to scale it and wash it.
Also, scaffolding is going up around the GPO since Sat. I think the facade must be getting a clean. It should look great when finished if so. I think it was last cleaned in the late 1980s for the Dublin Millennium. A new floodlighting scheme should also be considered I think.
-
August 15, 2005 at 7:39 pm #729504
GrahamH
Participantoooh that’s interesting – must take a look!
It looks grand as it is overall as rough granite like that can take the dirt easily, but the portico and that marvellous frieze does look very sorry as grubby as it is.You can clearly see the new cornice and balustrade that were added in 1984 – maybe this difference will disappear if the older granite is cleaned…
-
August 15, 2005 at 8:33 pm #729505
Anonymous
InactiveYes it will be interesting although I have to say I like the contrast and I’m not sure if this building should be cleaned too often so as that the bullet hole marks look as defined as is possible. Has anyone ever been to the bar close to Kilkenny rail station that has a large round glass light fitting with two bullet holes one is entry and the other is exit.
-
August 17, 2005 at 2:01 am #729506
JPD
ParticipantSure that building is spotless why would ya spend money cleaning it when Westmoreland St is in bits?
And then they wonder why an post is losin a fortune 😎
-
August 17, 2005 at 11:46 am #729507
Anonymous
Inactivewhen is o connell street due to be fully completed? i don’t have the time to look through the whole thread for this info as it is huge. sorry if the info i’m looking for was mentioned before. 🙂
-
August 17, 2005 at 12:13 pm #729508
urbanisto
ParticipantApril is the date I have heard. At least for all the paving works. As mentioned earlier the Spire will be cleaned in summer. I think by June next year the street should be completed…if you can wait that long.
As for GPO… it is a bit grimy, especially around the portico. Maybe your right about the cost though…they could probably spend the money on all there post boxes crying out for a lick of paint.
-
August 17, 2005 at 12:54 pm #729509
Anonymous
Inactivethanks for the info. april isn’t too bad. i can’t wait to see the end result. as for the spire, it does need a good clean. it seems like the work on that street is taking forever but it is for the greater good though. 🙂
-
August 17, 2005 at 12:57 pm #729510
JPD
ParticipantThe post boxs could do a couple of coats every 50 years or so it is something you notice in england the boxs are always clean
-
August 17, 2005 at 1:11 pm #729511
Anonymous
Inactive@JPD wrote:
The post boxs could do a couple of coats every 50 years or so it is something you notice in england the boxs are always clean
that’s very true. they need to be freshened up. some of the post boxes here look so old and dirty. i don’t trust them. i always post my letters in the post office branch box anyway. lol. 🙂
-
August 17, 2005 at 6:37 pm #729512
GrahamH
ParticipantThere’s a great old early 20th century pillar box on Lower O’Connell Street East that I hope goes back down again; suffice to say it too was in bits and in need of some attention.
Not only do An Post have to paint all their boxes, they also need to adopt a standard green too, instead of the ridiculous variation one always sees – including on their own signage.
Why the heck they adopted that horribly mediocre British building society corporate bluey green with the ‘racing’ red arrow on it goodness only knows, and especially in the face of the traditional yellowy green still in use almost universally, as should be the case.
What a mess.Is the GPO definitely being cleaned though, as all the windows in the building were repainted only a few weeks ago – sure they’ll be destroyed with dust and dirt won’t they?!
-
August 17, 2005 at 7:54 pm #729513
dc3
ParticipantYes we all know An Post is skint but they have completely neglected to paint their post boxes in Dublin, with many of the cast iron ones showing serious rusting.
Graffiti is not removed either.
Perhaps the irony is lost on them that changing the colours of the post boxes was one of the objectives of the 1916 visitors to their GPO.
Roadsigns, street furniture, postboxes, rail stations – all going downhill.
-
August 18, 2005 at 12:40 am #729514
JPD
ParticipantVery true about the post boxes they never clear the old paint off before repainting and when the painters don’t bother to clean them down years of grit accumulates into the paint looking manky
-
August 19, 2005 at 12:01 pm #729515
J. Seerski
ParticipantWeyhey! No Motorcycle Parking signs have gone up on the median opposite the GPO – about time!!!!!!
-
August 19, 2005 at 12:43 pm #729516
urbanisto
ParticipantBut let me guess….. right in the middle of the plaza? Along with the bus stops?
-
August 19, 2005 at 1:00 pm #729517
Morlan
ParticipantYes, where have they stuck the signs????
-
August 19, 2005 at 4:21 pm #729518
ConK
ParticipantThis is a photo of a photo of O’Connel bridge from 1928 from “civil week” or something the barman was telling me – I took it the other night in a pub I was in. I haven’t seen this photo before on the thread. . .. the big construction on the median of the bridge looks bizarre. . . anybody got a better version?
-
August 19, 2005 at 5:48 pm #729519
GrahamH
ParticipantYes it’s an extraordinary scene – it wasn’t in a pub on Talbot St Con by any chance?
Mad stuff altogether – those poor median lamp standards have been uprooted so many times over the years I’ve lost count at this stage! -
August 19, 2005 at 6:02 pm #729520
urbanisto
ParticipantIts the pavillion for the Eucharistic Congress held in 1932 isnt it? I think you might even find a pic somewhere on this site, its been posted before
-
August 19, 2005 at 6:16 pm #729521
GrahamH
ParticipantI’m not fully sure that it is – was this not the structure that went up for that occasion?
-
August 19, 2005 at 6:43 pm #729522
kefu
ParticipantStupid question, I know but do you think it is actually made of stone … or is it just wooden, the way we would do it these days.
Also on a completely different subject, the next time somebody tells you the €5 million Millennium Spire was a waste of money. Tell them that the Millennium Bridge in London cost £5 million and that was just to stop it wobbling. It will certainly call a halt to their gallop.
-
August 19, 2005 at 6:52 pm #729523
GrahamH
ParticipantJust wait till the Spire starts wobbling too though….:)
Good question about the material used for the building, I was wondering too but assumed it was made of timber.
Likewise with that spectacular altar that was erected in the Phoenix Park that seems to have been forgotton about – wood there too?Always wondered where that ended up: a vast vast pile made up of curving steps and collonade etc – surely one of the largest temporary structures ever erected in Ireland.
It wasn’t something that would fit into someone’s back garden either as is usually the case with these things…
-
August 19, 2005 at 6:59 pm #729524
Morlan
Participant@kefu wrote:
Also on a completely different subject, the next time somebody tells you the €5 million Millennium Spire was a waste of money. Tell them that the Millennium Bridge in London cost £5 million and that was just to stop it wobbling. It will certainly call a halt to their gallop.
I wonder how much it would cost to straighten out the bend at the top :rolleyes:
-
August 20, 2005 at 8:09 pm #729525
Anonymous
InactiveI didn’t know that there was a bend 😎
The images of the temporary structures are very interesting; all that work for such a short building life; 😉 when one considers much of the poor design on the quays that will unfortunately have such a long building life. 😮
The enforcement of the no motorbike parking will be interesting to observe but fair play to the CC they have done all they can on this and its now over to the police and possibly a new division of clampers to remove any obstructive guests
-
August 23, 2005 at 2:49 pm #729526
ConK
ParticipantI got the picture of the o’connel bridge (1928) in Closkys on Dominick Street. A really nice pub up at the Kings Inn end. Also the barman was adament that it was not the eucharist event in 1932 – which seems to have generated a different structure.
I think it would be good if all the old Dublin Pictures from this thread were complied somewhere on the site.
-
August 23, 2005 at 9:20 pm #729527
GrahamH
ParticipantWell some newer pics now – we usually focus on facades above street level here, so to take that one step further what about the skyline of O’Connell St, notably its ‘chimneyscape’? 🙂
Lots of interesting things going on up there worthy of a bit of attention. Sorry about the res and colouring of the pics, they’re VT stills of all things that I took ages ago 😮I was tempted to make this into a ‘guess the building’ competition but then just decided that I couldn’t be bothered 😀
Here’s probably the most famous of all at the entrance to the street – why the architect even bothered to clad just the front edge of the chimneys in granite I do not know, how ridiculous is that?! Nice rendered stacks up there too towards the back.
Facing them from the Bachelor’s Walk corner is a Victorian stock brick chimney everyone probably knows, positioned on a WSC foundation (more about these later).
Just a few doors up is a fine big red brick Victorian stack with a sculpted render top:
Across the road are these fantastic Champion Pots over the corner Grand Central building (there’s also more of these over the Lir Clock terrace).
Moving further up the street and you can’t but not notice the impressive stacks of Manfield Chambers/Clarks. Built of limestone, they have some fine pots, and at least somewhat make up for the lack of a cupola on this corner:
On the opposing corner the Adams Family building 🙂 has some fabulous classically inspired chimneys flanking the mansard roof, with Doric detailing near the tops. They act more as book end architectural features than chimneys:
(right pic http://www.fantasyjackpalance.com) -
August 23, 2005 at 9:21 pm #729528
GrahamH
ParticipantA little further up is the old Bank of Ireland building next to Clery’s with a big stack on the boundary with the dept store, and a fun tiny little one on the other 🙂
The right-hand picture shows the only chimney on the GPO roofline visible from the street: an unusual tall narrow stack or granite viewed here from an upper floor of Clery’s. It pales into insignificance when one considered the magnificent array of chimneys extant until 1916:At the corner of Henry St now, and the Joe Walsh Tours building features a chimney matching the building’s apparent provenance – a simple stock brick Georgianish stack, with pots that seem to date from oooh – c1994? 🙂
Crossing the street again to the North Earl St junction, and the Georgian-styled post-1916 terrace here features some simple red brick chimneys, which have an almost suspicious 1980s look to them, but they are original.
O’Connell Street Upper features some of the largest chimneys on the street, including these fantastic Mary Poppins-like stacks over the ‘Come in and Visit’ and National Irish Bank buildings. When the Spire was going up there was a group of 5/4 people standing up here offering me every finger gesture under the sun, so there appears to be access to up there anyway 🙂
The right-hand chimney is a bit further up the street.And here is that chimney again just past Dublin Bus, along with two impressive late-1920s chimneys apparently dating from their building’s re-facing post 1922.
Just before Dublin Bus is this great Dickensian-like chimney with sinister pots protruding:
…along with this fine elegant rendered stack over Flanagans:
-
August 23, 2005 at 9:22 pm #729529
GrahamH
ParticipantThe right-hand picture here is a grand c1926 chimney on the corner with Cathal Brugha St, and also a little baby version next to it 🙂
The image on the left is of the equally impressive chimney between….actually this would make a good quiz question – anyone care to guess?! (though yes the stonework might give it away)Finally, returning to the Wide Street’s Commission terrace of Lower O’Cll St, are there any of their chimneys left?
Well, what remains of even Victorian stacks is disappointing thanks to the efforts of the 1970s and 80s. What few there are do make use of WSC foundations.But I’m glad to say that yes, there is a single remaining WSC chimney up there, in all of its stock brick glory – and here it is!
What a remarkable survivor! And not just because of all the 20th century interventions, but even by the 1890s the entire terrace opposite had lost all of its Georgian pots and some chimneys had been extended.
For it not to have been altered in any way, not even render applied is truly extraordinary, though it is possible that the pots are not original, but they certainly look it!All WSC chimneys featured a large chunky base with a tapered top as can be seen above. This gave way to the chimney proper, sited on top of the base and made up of about six courses of brick before being adorned with a simple raised course or two for decoration.
For the Sackville Street chimneys the WSC decided on seven pots per chimney, but as can be seen above in about 1898, later Victorian ones were so large as to warrant a reduction to six!
This surviving chimney is going to have to be watched as it may very well disappear overnight – especially given its positioning over Burger King of all places! 😮
Also the right-hand side of the gabled building still features a WSC foundation.
-
August 24, 2005 at 6:12 pm #729530
JPD
ParticipantThis thread is going to pot; seriously good pics Graham very detailed the only thing about is Burger king i wouldnt worry about them taking down the pot as they could cover it in a banner for freshly potted plants
-
August 24, 2005 at 8:26 pm #729531
JPD
ParticipantHas anyone got any images of the no motorbike signs, I think they look great even if they are being completely ignored.
-
August 25, 2005 at 12:08 am #729532
GrahamH
ParticipantOh go on then:
Only in Ireland, only in Ireland…….
These two say it more than words ever could.
And whatever about the irony and the humour and the maddening nature of it all, the CC have seen fit to plonk a crude, lop-sided, dirty, lumped-in-with-concrete, galvanised steel pole with no less than four signs attached, right in the centre of the plaza, outside the portico of the GPO.
Had the workman or operations manager a set of eyes in their head?! It’s unbelievable!
And it makes not the slightest bit of difference either way:And further down where the signs are mounted on nice chromed poles, again not the slightest bit of difference:
Indeed I just stood there watching as motorcyclists came and went as they pleased – just itching to go over and point to the signs and inform them as to what an ignorant shower they all are (but they are motorcyclists after all so…..yeah, kinda kept quiet…)
Rigorous enforcement is the only answer, including by the Gardaà who stand about outside the GPO – they simply must have a role to play in this.
Some welcome signs have been provided like this one pointing down Princes St:…but all you need is one bike on the plaza and straight away everyone follows suit.
In other more uplifting news (quite literally), as has been mentioned the GPO is being shrouded in scaffolding, including the portico; only the left-hand wing has to be covered now, as well as the pediment and maybe as high as Hibernia up there.
There were no contractors about except the scaffolders up above, so nobody to ask exactly what is happening, but considering the portico is being covered I think it’s safe to assume the building is being cleaned.
It’s quite an impressive sight and has everyone on the street walking along looking upwards – really draws attention to the building.
The contractors are having a great time up there 🙂The scale of the detailing must be fantastic so close up:
-
August 25, 2005 at 12:22 am #729533
Anonymous
InactiveThose images are a microcosm of the entire public realm and built environment Ireland in a nutshell, great ideas, well presented and totally ignored save for the better private commercial developments.
-
August 25, 2005 at 1:48 am #729534
Morlan
ParticipantI love the first picture, Graham 😀 but in fairness to the 2nd picture, it does say no gluaisrothairs; doesn’t say anything about rothairs. So pedal bikes are allowed in these areas now. I’d prefer not to see any sort of 2 wheeled contraption in the central median, but if pedal bikes are allowed, why not provide some shaggin’ bike stands. Christ, the planning in this city.
You’re right about the scaffolding on the GPO, really does draw your eyes to the building. You got the tri-colour high and mighty in the first GPO shot anyway.
Now that the GPO is getting some special attention, maybe people are appreciating its importance. As for the scale of detailing on GPO, doesn’t look like Tashy Mc’ Luminous-Jacket is much interested.
I’ll comment on your crazy chimney post tomorrow. 😀
-
August 25, 2005 at 2:21 am #729535
Anonymous
InactiveI’m not so sure Morlan that it is legal, I’m sure if you scratch deep enough you’ll find a set of bye-laws that prohibits bicyle parking in undesignated spaces.
The solution to the Bike parking just like the Taxis take it to the side Streets and leave the median for what it was designed for ie pedestrians. Credit to DCC for the signs all the same this like the boardwalk issues proves that Store Street Gardai are either the laziest jobsworths or haven’t received the extra Gardai we were all promised 3 years ago.
-
August 25, 2005 at 3:19 am #729536
Frank Taylor
ParticipantThanks for posting all these images, Graham. I am really enjoying them.
I like the builders in pensive mood on the scaffolding.
-
August 25, 2005 at 3:33 am #729537
-
August 25, 2005 at 11:22 am #729538
urbanisto
ParticipantThere was a note in the Indo I think at the weekend saying the GPO would be under scaffold for 6 weeks for a clean. The report also said that bullet holes from the 1916 Rising would not be repaired (in line with the policy towards the statues on the street)
Getting back to those signs. They are truly dreadful, exactly what I feared might happen. The final design of the street is now being seriously compromised by all these ill thought out additions, signage (as you rightly point out Graham not even installed properly), lack fo enforcment of parking policy, bus stops galore, the taxi rank. Its very dissappointing.JDP I can only imagine that you were being sarcastic in your comment above.
Excellent pics of the OC St chimeyscape. It goes to show how very rarely we look up.
-
August 25, 2005 at 11:43 am #729539
JPD
ParticipantWhich comment?
-
August 25, 2005 at 1:02 pm #729540
urbanisto
Participant@JPD wrote:
Has anyone got any images of the no motorbike signs, I think they look great even if they are being completely ignored.
They’re not even straight! I reckon theu’re temporary. In fact I reckon a lot of the signage put in is temporary….to be removed and replaced once the pavement works are completed.
-
August 25, 2005 at 1:05 pm #729541
ctesiphon
Participant@Thomond Park wrote:
I’m not so sure Morlan that it is legal, I’m sure if you scratch deep enough you’ll find a set of bye-laws that prohibits bicyle parking in undesignated spaces.
Perhaps I’ve yet to “scratch deep enough”, but from a cursory examination of parking bye laws in Dublin it would appear that what are known as ‘pedal bicycles’ are exempt from most provisions regarding parking in the city centre.
Go to http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZSI11Y1963.html and do a ‘CTRL + F’ for “cycle” to see what I’m getting at. A few examples:
4 —(4) (b): no vehicle (except a pedal bicycle) shall be parked in a parking place during the relevant hours for a continuous period which exceeds one hour
5.—(1) No person shall park a vehicle (other than a pedal bicycle) for any period during the relevant hours in any portion of a street mentioned in column (3) of Part I of the Third Schedule to these bye-laws.
6.—(1) No person shall park a vehicle (other than a pedal bicycle) for any period in any portion of a street mentioned in column (3) of Part II of the Third Schedule to these bye-laws
And especially:
11 —(1) (f) a pedal bicycle may be parked on a footway provided that it does not interfere with the free movement of pedestrians on the footway
____I wonder if it has something to do with the fact that cyclists are common law users of the road whereas motorists and motorcyclists are licenced road users?
-
August 25, 2005 at 2:15 pm #729542
Anonymous
InactiveIt was more the Old Corporation bye-laws I was referring to but in this case Subsection (11) that you have posted does raise the point of interference with the free movement of pedestrians; as O’Connell St is a Plaza and as such movement must be considered to be likely from four directions and not two as would be normal in more peripheral locations.
-
August 25, 2005 at 3:19 pm #729543
ctesiphon
ParticipantThose extracts come from the ‘Dublin Parking Bye-Laws, 1962’, on the Statute Book site. Are there others I’m not aware of?
You mention that “O’Connell Street is a Plaza”- I think I’d disagree. The central part of the street in front of the GPO has the potential to be used as a plaza, but under normal circumstances it is still a directional street, with traffic lanes, footpaths and pedestrian crossing points.
This is one of the problems (IMHO) with the O’Connell Street redesign, as has been mentioned before on this thread. People now seem to think that the GPO area is a pedestrian free-for-all and wander out from any point and at any time that is convenient for them, often with dangerous consequences. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve had to brake suddenly on my bike or swerve to avoid pedestrians ambling around the GPO section with nary a care for us poor self-propelled two-wheelers. 🙁
Perhaps there would be a case for introducing a bye-law concerning parking of bicycles when the GPO area is in use as a plaza , i.e. when pedestrians could be legitimately milling around that area. However, I would be wary of any measure that further reinforces the mistaken assumption that it’s a pedestrian priority zone at all times. -
August 25, 2005 at 3:48 pm #729544
Anonymous
InactiveI believe that the intention of the design was to always have many people milling around this space, I do believe an Italian Piazza to be any less a Piazza just because there are not events on. If it transpires that the central median of O’Connell St has simply replaced Car lanes with bicycle parking what will the point have been?
-
August 25, 2005 at 4:21 pm #729545
Punchbowl
ParticipantI’m not overly sure if you could call O’Connell St a ‘Piazza’. While Italy is abundant in them and their stature and quality might vary, I do not ever remember seeing any of them completely sandwiched by traffic.The essence of a good Italian Square ( or Piazza ) is sometimes their Isolation. The GPO ‘Plaza’ will never get that, unless traffic can be restricted to one side of the street. At best, it will provide a convenient space for major public occasions, but little else on a daily basis ( I certainly don’t see waiters from Flanagans risking there lives to deliver a steak and chips to the median anyway ).
Perhaps a focal point somewhere on(or under) the median would help. An underground Museum? Metro Stop??
-
August 25, 2005 at 5:49 pm #729546
ctesiphon
Participant@Thomond Park wrote:
I believe that the intention of the design was to always have many people milling around this space, I do believe an Italian Piazza to be any less a Piazza just because there are not events on.
If that was the intention, then traffic should have been kept fully clear of the ‘plaza’ area. As it is, there’s hardly more than a few seconds at a time, at least during the day and evening, when the road is traffic free.
A better parallel to draw might be with the Ramblas in Barcelona, which has a very wide median, and very narrow traffic lanes either side- one to each side, I think. The kerb is higher than on O’Connell St, more clearly delineating the boundary between pedestrian area and traffic area. (Though come to think of it, don’t most pedestrians in Dublin just wander out at gaps in the traffic everywhere, not just where they think it’s sanctioned as with the almost flush footpath/road surfaces on O’Connell St?)
@Thomond Park wrote:
If it transpires that the central median of O’Connell St has simply replaced Car lanes with bicycle parking what will the point have been?
A small victory for cyclists!!! 😉 (Sorry, facetious I know, but I couldn’t resist. You are, of course, right TP.)
PS A clarification of my earlier post- when I said “The central part of the street in front of the GPO”, I didn’t mean the median. I meant the area bounded by the boxy trees, running the full width of the street. (Lest there be any confusion.)
-
August 25, 2005 at 6:15 pm #729547
GrahamH
ParticipantIt was always the intention from the outset that the Plaza area would simply give the impresson of a public space, but in practice would simply be a continuation of the O’Connell Street model, minus median trees.
And this is the problem – the median of the plaza is just that, ‘the median’, just as it is on Lower or Upper O’Cll St – a central pavement. It’s only because the roadways either side give the impression of it being a piazza that motorcyclists (and pedestrians) think otherwise.
The median of the Plaza is a pedestrian footpath, not a parking bay for motorbikes or pedal bikes.
Any form of bicycle that is parked here is obstructing the pedestrian and is hence infringing the above by-law.You would not be permitted to park you bicycle in the middle of the side pavements, so why the Plaza?
No difference. They must be removed. -
August 25, 2005 at 11:32 pm #729548
JPD
Participant@Graham Hickey wrote:
It was always the intention from the outset that the Plaza area would simply give the impresson of a public space, but in practice would simply be a continuation of the O’Connell Street model, minus median trees.
I totally agree and wish to add that in my opinion; What has been done with O’Connell Street on the IAP represents a flexible solution that will over time deliver a Piazza, it is a question of gradually changing everything in favour of the pedestrian. That is why is I am deeply opposed to the indulgence of Callely’s taxi rank and the haphazard motorbike and two wheeled hairdryers on the median which is phase one pedestrian space.
-
August 26, 2005 at 1:28 am #729549
GrahamH
ParticipantWell here is ‘Callely’s taxi rank’:
It appears the taxis will sit on a paved area mimicking the median surface and width, though obviously it will not visually work as, well, there’ll be twenty cars sitting on top of it :rolleyes:
The new median is nearly finished from the Spire up to the taxi rank (which of course breaks the median in half). The granite looks fabulous:
…especially where it contrasts with the other stone (basalt?):
As for the missing trees, you’d barely even miss them were it not for the odd building that really stands out now which was previously obscured! The impact isn’t nearly as great as it was with Lower O’Cll St and the revealing of the first 1920-23 neoclassical terrace.
Some pics soon. -
August 26, 2005 at 1:03 pm #729550
TLM
ParticipantVery dissapointing that the taxi rank was reinstated, particulary as the rest of the new median looks so well!
-
August 27, 2005 at 12:55 am #729551
GrahamH
ParticipantWalking tours of the O’Connell Street Monuments are proposed as part of Ntl Heritage Week, on the 6th, 7th and 8th of September:
Guided tour of the recently cleaned statues of Dublin’s O’Connell Street by City Heritage Officer, Donncha Ó Dulaing.
Date: 06/09/05 – 08/09/05 Time: 1.00pm
Venue/meet: Daniel O’Connell Statue, O’Connell Street
Location: O’Connell Street
County: Dublin
Adm: Free
Access: No wheelchair access (:D)
Contact: Places are limited, booking is essential. Please call 01 2222856 or email to sarah.ogorman@dublincity.ie to book your place
Tel: 01 222 2856
Fax: 01 222 2271 -
August 27, 2005 at 2:23 am #729552
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham wrote:
HickeyAccess: No wheelchair access
That is either your legoland sense of humour or an utter disgrace
-
August 27, 2005 at 2:36 am #729553
GrahamH
ParticipantOh please – hmmm I wonder which I meant?
It’s cause like, statues don’t have ‘access’, cause they’re like statues, and they don’t have ramps so wheelchairs can’t like get onto them, and there’s no doors in statues either cause….
oh forget it…..
-
August 27, 2005 at 3:18 am #729554
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
Oh please – hmmm I wonder which I meant?
It’s cause like, statues don’t have ‘access’, cause they’re like statues, and they don’t have ramps so wheelchairs can’t like get onto them, and there’s no doors in statues either cause….
oh forget it…..
No need for that level of pisstake, there are numerous incidents by the roads dept of every City Council that are exempt of Part M which would be blatently in breach of part m if the paths were part of a structure requiring fresh development consent.
-
August 27, 2005 at 10:20 pm #729555
electrolyte
ParticipantI was just wondering if anyone knows whether the O’Connell Street redevelopment plan includes incentives to encourage the refurb and clean up of privately owned premises on the street?
It looks like its gonna be quite cool when complete, and lets face it, whatever problems it may have(or you may choose to have with it!) – anything is better than how it was before….(although I shall miss the Floozie and the lovely lights on the trees that made every night feel Christmas-y and nice and happy) but I just feel it would be such a shame to complete the project, then have all these mucky, dirty and unkempt building casting perpetual gloom over it all….
-
August 29, 2005 at 1:18 pm #729556
Alek Smart
ParticipantJPD wrote:I totally agree and wish to add that in my opinion]
Surely the entire IAP for O Connell St has now been seriously compromised by the re-installation of the Taxi Rank?
Remember the Taxi Rank is not a static object and given the appalingly poor infrastructural defecit which exists post Taxi Dereg we are likely to witness serious overcrowding of the limited space in the new “Facility”
The amount of vehicle movement of itself will pose a serious threat to any pedestrian brave enough to take the pedestrian plaza concept to its fullest.
Going on past experience we shall see hi-speed departures,U and S turns and the usual jockeying for position when a driver absents him/herself or falls asleep on the rank.
This is an idea which originated in the brain of a muppet and in one fell swoop has completely short-circuited several years of detailed planning and the aspirations of many who had some vision of a BETTER environment for the Main Street.
Just as we see with the Motorcycle Parking issue, where DCC can say …”Well WE put up the signs…It`s up to the Gardai to enforce the regulations” we now see the entire O Connell St project staggering along trying at this late stage to be all things to all men rather than a statement of where the City and Country is going.
It`s not too late to salvage something from this situation and perhaps looking about the place for off-street Taxi Rank space would be a start…… :p -
August 29, 2005 at 5:02 pm #729557
JPD
Participant1916 row explodes as An Post claims ‘there are no bullet holes in GPO wall’
FOR nearly 100 years they have come from all over the world to stand and stare at the bullet holes that scar the GPO.
And even yesterday tourists were trying to focus their digital cameras to photograph those potent symbols of the Irish nation’s violent birth.
But now it looks as though every tourist guide, history website and all those bar-stool republicans who pontificate about the 1916 Rising are wrong.
Those perfectly round holes that pockmark the columns of the Rising Headquarters may not be bullet holes at all. It is the first time that doubt has been cast on the veracity of what has been accepted as solid fact for most of the last century.
Every schoolchild was taught that the marks left by bullets fired by the hated British oppressor as they stamped out rebellion were still visible.
Along with St Patrick driving out snakes, the bullet holes at the GPO was an irrefutable truth.
But a simple enquiry sparked by recent scaffolding erected around the Francis Johnston designed building brought an astonishing claim.
Asked if the “bullet holes” were going to be filled by workmen during restoration work the An Post spokeswoman said the holes were not caused by bullets.
And An Post’s Anna McHugh presented a convincing argument which has found support from one of Dublin’s leading historians.
Now the Office of Public Works (OPW), which controls the GPO, is promising further investigations.
An Post confirmed that the work at the GPO being conducted by Public Works staff was merely a gentle cleaning.
“Anyway, it has always been understood in An Post that they were not bullet holes. Remember, the GPO was effectively destroyed in 1916 and was then rebuilt – not re-opening until 1929.
“Since then there’s been climate changes, acid rain, pollution damage and simple weather erosion. There has been substantial renovation and rebuilding work on a number of occasions since 1929. The biggest renovation took place in the Seventies.
“During that renovation it was discovered that the three statues on top of the GPO, Hibernia, representing Ireland, Mercury (the Messenger) and Fidelity were very badly damaged indeed. In fact no discernible features were evident they were so badly eroded.”
Ms McHugh said there was bullet damage visible on those statues, but they had to be rebuilt and a mould taken from them before they were put back in place in the Seventies.
During the 1916 Rising the GPO was just half its current size.
On Easter Monday, April 24, 1916 the GPO was occupied by the rebellion leaders and Padraig Pearse read the Proclamation.
The Helga, a gunship, arrived in Dublin and field-guns at Trinity College kept up continuous shelling – virtually destroying the GPO and the surrounding areas.
By Friday the GPO was engulfed in flames and Pearse gave the order to surrender. At the heroic end, 450 were dead and more than 2,500 were wounded.
Ironically the GPO had just been rebuilt before the Rising and some felt that Connolly chose it as a headquarters because he believed the British would not fire on O’Connell Street destroying valuable commercial property. He was wrong.
Leading Dublin historian and Conservationist Pat Liddy, who has written eight books about the capital, says that he always treated the “bullet” holes claims as questionable.
As well as the the extent of the damage to the GPO, mostly caused by artillery and incendiaries, Mr Liddy said that the bullet holes just seemed “too perfect”.
“The British were armed with powerful high calibre rifles which I am quite sure would have caused ‘splinter’ damage rather than perfectly round bullet holes.
“I am sure there is damage caused by bullets still on the GPO, but it’s in the form of shatter marks and rough-edged blasts, rather than neat holes, I believe.”
Mr Liddy said he was aware of genuine bullet holes at two locations around the city – on a statue inside City Hall caused by a musket round in 1798 and the bullet holes on the “winged victories” at the base of the O’Connell Monument from 1916.
A spokesman for the OPW said that further investigations were being conducted. “Basic cleaning of the building is continuing. There is no question of holes being filled – no matter what caused them.”
But the claims have angered Lorcan Collins, who runs daily 1916 Walking Tours and is co-author, with Conor Kostick, of The Easter Rising (O’Brien Press).
Collins was adamant that there are genuine marks from the Rising which are still visible in the walls of the post office.
“There is no doubt in my mind that the GPO is riddled with bullet holes from the 1916 Rising. Not only that, there are also much larger scars on the columns and on the walls which are the result of constant British artillery fire.
“I have been showing people around the sites of the Easter Rising for the past 10 years as a guide on the 1916 Walking Tour. Many people are under the mistaken impression that the British Army were positioned directly across the road from the GPO. In fact they were positioned just over O’Connell Bridge on the south-side of the Liffey.
“They had two 18-pounders which shelled the Metropole Hotel, next door to the GPO, into a pile of rubble. There was also a British sniper in McBirneys on Aston Quay with a height advantage which enabled him to strike well into Sackville Street.
“Coupled with this we must remember that the British also had machine guns which were peppering the area around the GPO with bullets. In fact it is quite laughable to suggest that there is any suspicion that there are no bullet holes in the GPO.
“For those who maintain that the bullets could not have penetrated so far up Sackville Street, perhaps they would like to explain how James Connolly was wounded outside the GPO,” Mr Collins said.
One question remains. If the holes were not caused by bullets what did actually cause the damage?
© Irish Independent
-
August 29, 2005 at 6:22 pm #729558
GrahamH
ParticipantWhat a silly article. As most people know, there have been more banners tacked onto that portico over the years than one can care to remember – of course it is pockmarked with drill holes and the like. There’s also hoopy brackets up there on the underside of the entablature (is there any less mouthful-like term for it?) probably left from 1988, positioned in the midst of the Greek scrolling, though pretty obscure all the same.
Liveline devoted their programme to it today, with the above Lorcan Collins rightly dispelling some of the myths being propagated in the article. Pat Liddy had some interesting bits and pieces to add too.
The columns certainly do still have some bullet holes, but it is likely that there are more indents caused by drill bits that the output of rifles. -
August 29, 2005 at 6:45 pm #729559
ctesiphon
ParticipantHeard that item on the radio today too, Graham (and thought of you 🙂 ).
@Graham Hickey wrote:
There’s also hoopy brackets up there on the underside of the entablature (is there any less mouthful-like term for it?) probably left from 1988, positioned in the midst of the Greek scrolling, though pretty obscure all the same.
If it’s the underside of the entablature you’re referring to, it’s called the soffit. If it’s the hoopy brackets, then I’m as stumped as you are. 😉
-
August 29, 2005 at 7:18 pm #729560
GrahamH
ParticipantAs tempted as I am, I’ll have to say it was the former :). Thanks for that – soffit is a common enough term anyway, isn’t it used to describe the boarding underneath eaves, behind the fascia?
One thing I did learn from the radio is that all three figures up there are recreations according to Pat Liddy, not just one or two. Now that I think of a 1960s image of an exceptionally eroded Fidelity it does make sense that they were replaced!
And when I say ‘eroded’, I mean the average person’s interpretation, i.e. not Neil Jordan’s 😀 -
August 29, 2005 at 8:06 pm #729561
ctesiphon
ParticipantI’m pretty sure ‘soffit’ refers to most downward facing surfaces, i.e. the underside of a (usually) horizontal member.
(No giggling down the back!) -
August 30, 2005 at 12:58 am #729562
GrahamH
ParticipantAnnnyway…
Electrolyte the City Council do now have a certain ‘control’ over the properties on the street as O’Connell St has been designated a ‘Special Planning Control Area’, one of the first, if not the first in the country. This gives the local authority greater powers to control land usage (like the amount of fast-food outlets, convenience stores, offices etc) and influence the appearance of these buildings such as forcing the improvement of shopfronts, maintenance of the upper floors etc. Here is a key extract from the Scheme:“If owners/occupiers persist in ignoring the urgent need to repair, restore or replace their shopfronts, as required, then the planning authority may intervene and require owners/occupiers to implement an approved programme of remedial works.â€
(the same applies to force ‘undesirable’ uses off the street as well)The CC are largely relying on market forces to improve O’Connell St, encouraged by the public domain works. This is acceptable up to a point, but there are elements on Upper O’Cll St that may well need more ‘persuading’.
And on this very issue, coincidence or not I don’t know (considering a brush of paint hadn’t come in contact with these buildings in 20-30 years but this changes within weeks of it being highlighted), but it’s great to see that the decrepit properties in the post-1916 red brick terrace have finally got a bit of attention in the past few weeks – their windows have been painted!
May 2005
August 2005
May 2005
August 2005
What an improvement! And it only took how many decades?!
So much of O’Connell Street’s improvement is contingent on this the most fundamental of property management issues – simple maintenance.
The left-hand corner building is the only one left in the terrace to be tackled now.
It’d be nice if the GPO team couldn’t bear to leave the street without giving them a quick going over on their way home… -
August 30, 2005 at 2:31 am #729563
Anonymous
InactiveThe proportion of those windows with a full coat of paint are very blocky in proportion to sash windows, on one of monitors I have they actually look like uPVC
-
August 30, 2005 at 6:29 pm #729564
GrahamH
ParticipantYes they do to a degree all right, but in the sun when there’s greater contrast, or even just being on he street itself, the attractive raised mouldings in the centre of the frames stand out a lot more.
I think if there’s wndows that need to be changed it’s the first floor ones – they are ugly full stop, even if they are original.It’s important to point out that all of the windows in this terrace were originally of stained timber when first installed in around 1920 – presenting an attractive facade of orangey red brick with complementary dark fenestration.
Whereas nobody could deny the sheer elegance of the white-painted frames of the First Active, perhaps overall the terrace could look better with the frames stained again.Still, I think the repainting is a remarkable improvement on what was there, i.e. a grotty facade of decaying windows on the capital’s main street. If the dirty brickwork was to be cleaned they wouldn’t be as nearly all-singing as they are.
As always the ground floor tenants say it all – the building society has a beautiful and well maintained facade including the shopfront, whilst the Budget Travel and callcentre are falling apart.This terrace could be the perfect candidate for unified shopfronts. It has a palatial facade, is self-contained, very exposed and features relatively few occupiers to kick up a fuss. What a great example it could set for Upper O’Connell St, and what an entrance.
-
September 2, 2005 at 1:10 am #729565
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
It’s important to point out that all of the windows in this terrace were originally of stained timber when first installed in around 1920 – presenting an attractive facade of orangey red brick with complementary dark fenestration.
Some of the six over six designs from this period were of very high architectural quality.
-
September 2, 2005 at 2:11 pm #729566
kefu
ParticipantI was always very suspicious about the bullet holes as well.
If you look at two of the middle columns, you will see “bullet holes” at the very same trajectory, angle and depth in a number of different places on each column.
It just never made any sense that they were this perfect.
I wonder did somebody do it as a practical joke at some point. -
September 2, 2005 at 2:54 pm #729567
JPD
ParticipantThe magic bullet theory
-
September 2, 2005 at 5:30 pm #729568
Ciaran
ParticipantOr maybe it is Nelson’s revenge! You know splinters from when his statue was blown up.
-
September 3, 2005 at 2:02 am #729569
Anonymous
InactiveBefore anyone else jumps on the ‘I always thought the bullet holes were fake’ bandwagon I invite you to look at these two pictures (if I can attach them). They show the pillars of the GPO after the rising. Looking closely it is clear that the pillars in fact only suffered minor damage and they are exactly as they are today. In other words no new blocks of stone were considered necessary and in the rebuilding of the GPO they were not replaced. The scars we have were made in 1916. You can zoom in a little and see on the southernmost pillar the two clear examples. A chipped area about two thirds the way up, probably from a shell, and equivalent to head height from the bottom a dark hole. I know from looking at it before now that it is about three inches deep and angles towards the SE. (Sadly the pictures are too large to upload as I have them, I have to reduce them, which will make it harder to zoom in, but the point should still stand).
Conor Kostick -
September 3, 2005 at 2:17 am #729570
GrahamH
ParticipantHi Conor – I agree with you about the bullet holes, without a doubt there is firing damage to the columns in particular other than the many drill holes also there. As far as I know, none of the Portland stone of the columns was replaced for obvious reasons – very minor, almost unnoticable damage, and the structural difficulties in replacing it anyway.
But on the first picture you posted – here’s a modern comparison with your picture. Where is that damage today?!
If it has been repaired, it was exceedingly well done! -
September 4, 2005 at 2:51 pm #729571
Anonymous
InactiveBut seriously there must have been only a few bullet holes and this cannot be sufficient reason not to clean the facade; all heritage buildings of this stature have to be cleaned extremely carefully.
The16 Moore St situation raises an interesting consideration in that the forces attempting to dislodge the occupants of the GPO must have been quite distant for two reasons. Firstly if they were closely surrounded it would not have been possible to reach Moore St at all and secondly the overall level of destruction to O’Connell St was most certainly not caused by standard issue rifle fire.
-
September 4, 2005 at 8:54 pm #729572
JPD
ParticipantGood points Thomo
-
September 6, 2005 at 1:48 pm #729573
Anonymous
InactiveI note that the bus stop has disappeared from O’Connell Bridge.
The Taxi rank also seems to be taking shape; It will be interesting to see if the Northern end can be completed by Christmas. If one were a bookie what odds would one give?
-
September 6, 2005 at 6:48 pm #729574
Sue
ParticipantBloody Brits – how dare they fire shells and bullets at our GPO 😉
-
September 6, 2005 at 6:55 pm #729575
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterTechnically it was their GPO 😉
-
September 6, 2005 at 6:57 pm #729576
GrahamH
ParticipantI think the destruction of half of the north inner city should be ranking that bit higher than some flaky damage to six columns 🙂
As for the Upper end being finished, if one considers Christmas in terms of city centre retail, i.e. December 1st onwards, it’s highly unlikely.
There’s so much to be done with the side pavements thats it does seem like it won’t happen. Think how long it took to do the Lower end: 18 months-2 years?
Hopefully the busier west pavement will be finished in time though.Some (dull) images here of the newly exposed views of Upper O’Connell St – you can much more easily make out the pattern of the townhouses that formerly lined this stretch:
And for all of the fenestration faults of the Royal Dublin, it does fit in very well to the Upper St, brick colour aside of course (though I must admit a secret liking for 60s sand and 70s brown brick :o).
There’s a nice vertical emphasis at work on the facade, perfectly suited to the terrace, and the brick as a material is quite effective.
The proposed facade is very disappointing in this respect – it makes no effort to reflect the vertical nature of all the units making up Upper O’Cll St West, despite the architects’ babble about ‘references’ to Georgian Dublin’s ‘fenestration courses’ or whatever.Another ‘interesting’ detail revealed by the trees’ removal is this replica Victorian chimney re-erected as part of the construction of the RDH!
What a strange looking yoke executed in such brick, especilly with the apparently orginal pots! Hmmm, so more demolished than just the Aer Lingus buildings…
Completely as an aside – what is that secuirty camera on the Garda Staion doing pointed across the road towards the Gresham bedroom windows?!!! 😮
The grandeur of O’Rourke’s c1924-29 terrace is now wonderfully evident – a surprisingly symmetrical composition, you could only barely make this out before with the opposing elements like the balconies etc dropping hints. Much clearer now.
This previously concealed corner building built in 1925 is now one of my favourites on the street – what a fine chunky piece 🙂
Do the Gresham own this too or do they just lease the ground floor? The forbidding looking terrace on Cathal Brugha St is in dire need of cleaning (though it would make a great film location) – if the Gresham own this too hopefully it will be tackled in the upcoming refurbishment of the hotel.
-
September 6, 2005 at 9:20 pm #729577
ctesiphon
ParticipantNice work again, Graham. I was never even aware of the almost perfect symmetry of that terrace- was it meant to be symmetrical / was it originally symmetrical? I can spot only a couple of variations between the two halves (roof urns and a couple of ‘missing’ windows to the north of the Savoy).
I walked up O’Connell Street on saturday night and for the first time ever I began to have a feel for the end result. I don’t mean this as either a compliment or a criticism, but it really did feel like a street in another city. It’s amazing how much the removal of the trees has changed the feel of the place. Surprisingly, it actually felt more enclosed than before, which was the opposite of what I was expecting- something to do with both sides being visible simultaneously?
One thing, though- it still looked like the aftermath of a kids party with all the rubbish. 🙁 -
September 6, 2005 at 10:52 pm #729578
Alek Smart
ParticipantFear not Graham…The guests of the Gresham can continue to leave their nets furled neatly.
What appear at first glance to be Camera`s as in the “Yoke” atop the OCS Garda dugout is,I Believe,referred to as a Micro Wave Link Generator.
These devices are dotted throughout the city and apparently allow for easier interconnectivity between the CCTV Camera Units.
I`m unsure whether they service ALL the Cameras or merely the Garda one`s.
However one thing IS certain….Big Brother is Watchin…..at least if he`s awake !!! 😉 -
September 6, 2005 at 11:58 pm #729579
Devin
Participant@Graham Hickey wrote:
The grandeur of O’Rourke’s c1924-29 terrace is now wonderfully evident – a surprisingly symmetrical composition, you could only barely make this out before with the opposing elements like the balconies etc dropping hints. Much clearer now.
And here it is in 1935, from Fr. Browne’s Dublin. The Hammam Buildings’ urns have since gone missing. Strange about the almost-symmetry, as ctesiphon was noting. The piece to the south of the centrepiece (Savoy) is slightly longer than the piece to the north, and the Gresham is slightly longer than its corresponding piece, the Hammam Buildings.
But aside from the few variations, it must be one of the longest blocks of symmetrical street-architecture in Europe (?).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And, as the book is in my hand, here is the cleared site in 1925.
Interesting to note that everything destroyed in 1916 – i.e. from Eden Quay up to Cathedral Street – had been rebuilt by this time.
-
September 7, 2005 at 12:48 am #729580
Anonymous
InactiveInteresting to note the absence of the urns; one must wonder did they make it into 1967
-
September 7, 2005 at 1:27 am #729581
GrahamH
ParticipantWow, fantastic images Devin *mutters*…and he decides to post them only now …*mutters* 😀
Yes the urns are an extraordinary revelation – they just leap off the page as the first thing you see!
I’d often wondered if these were originally here as the Hammam Buildings (building) looks so much more austere than the Gresham without them.
These must be the first element to be tackled in this terrace when private works start being proposed!The Gresham’s urns are very fine – there’s a close-up of them in some archive footage from the 60s that shows them as being carved in a swirled manner (like the pattern on a cheap 80s porcelain teapot :D)
That’s very spooky how the modern day picture was taken on virtually exactly the same spot! – makes it easy to compare the two.
Interesting to see nasty modern top-hung windows in-situ in much of the terrace – not all is perfect! The casements of the Gresham were so much more attractive. It is ironic in a way that for once modern movement windows were removed in the 1970s in much of the terrace and replaced with the traditional sash model, allbethey in aluminium and mirror glass :rolleyes:
It is questionable as to what should replace these in the near future…The last overhead view posted is interesting in showing the previously mentioned corner building under construction out on its own – spot on in 1925! It’s always fascinating to see buildings we now percieve to be old in their infancy, but especially while under construction, often quite humbling to see like the photo of the Palace of Westminster in the ST last week if anyone saw it.
It has often been said that Horace O’Rourke wasn’t in the least bit pleased with the nature post-1916 redevelopment – I can only deduce from this that he wanted palatial facades and uniform parapet levels for the whole Lower St, considering what was built is overall a pretty decent standard (though one can imagine his rage over the mini-terrace next to Clery’s :)).
By and large he got his way with the Upper Street, though as has been said the terrace isn’t completely symmetrical, but in the context of this being Dublin where the architectural or visual culture has never been strong (the crumbling of the WSC designs anyone?), and the financially difficult times of the 1920s, what O’Rourke did achieve was no mean feat.
Just some dates regarding the terrace – the northern corner building was built in 1925, the Gresham was finished in 1927, and the Savoy in November of 1929. Hammam Building is probably similar to the Gresham: c1927.
-
September 7, 2005 at 3:18 am #729582
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterGresham Urn
-
September 7, 2005 at 3:28 pm #729583
Alek Smart
ParticipantAnd would`nt ye know it…..Judgin by the Presence of the well laden Army Lorries and the harried looking peeler the feckin Bus Men were on strike….!!!!!
What a great set of Pics…….We really do owe a great depth of gratitude to the memory of Father Browne…….Nobody else appears to have been interested in wat the great unwashed were doin for their normal days work ? -
September 7, 2005 at 5:48 pm #729584
GrahamH
ParticipantYes a fantastic collection – as important as its vast size.
Here’s that close-up of one of the Gresham’s urns in glorious technicolour 🙂
(Had to splice two frames together hence the dodgy join)
It holds a remarkable similarity to those pots I think you’ll agree 😀
Annnyway – as was mentioned before the Gresham seem intent on replacing all of the aluminium windows in their facade with steel frames as when built, as outlined in their planning application – wonderful news.
Here they are in the 1950s – inward opening casements mostly, even including the ground floor which today of course are fixed frames.http://fantasyjackpalance.com/fjp/photos/kf/history/002/pcd-gresham-hotel.jpg
-
September 7, 2005 at 6:55 pm #729585
GrahamH
ParticipantHmmm – and as can be seen even more clearly in this fjp picture, the Hammam Buildings’ urns have already been removed – in the 1950s!
http://fantasyjackpalance.com/fjp/photos/kf/history/002/pcd-oconnell-st-north.jpg
-
September 7, 2005 at 11:24 pm #729586
Devin
ParticipantSurprisingly early removal.
Yes the Gresham should look great with the original design of steel windows reinstated – It’s costing a fortune I believe. Otherwise there’s a lot of dodgy windows in the terrace. But some lovely originals in the 1st floor of the Savoy. Graham, didn’t you have a picture of these in nice light? – you might repost it.
Alek, you’re right. The caption with the photo says: Emergency Services in O’Connell Street, 1935. The busmen were on strike from March until May and Army lorries were called into action…
-
September 8, 2005 at 2:21 am #729587
GrahamH
ParticipantThat happened quite a few times over the years didn’t it?!
Yes the Savoy windows are just drool-worthy :), the finest on the street:
(hope to get a better pic soon)Interesting how the three most prominent ‘steeled’ buildings are all about to get conservation/reinstatement work carried out – the Savoy, the Gresham and of course the Ann Summers building:
An impressive set 😉
Where are all of these places (and on a wider basis too) getting their work carried out? Does anyone make steel windows anymore? And even more difficult again who specialises in steel restoration?
Is it possible to splice in new pieces into old windows or do whole frames have to be replaced? -
September 8, 2005 at 3:23 pm #729588
Anonymous
InactiveThe Anne Summers windows are due for replacement I think
-
September 8, 2005 at 3:26 pm #729589
GrahamH
ParticipantThey say in the application that conservation work will be carried out, but total replacement in some cases may be necessary.
Here’s the terrace in the 1920s, sombre dark windows dominate, and not an Abrakebabra in sight!Interesting that upper floor signage has already crept in – for once we have higher standards today…
-
September 8, 2005 at 3:42 pm #729590
Paul Clerkin
Keymasterlooks great doesnt it, the large expanse of cobbles (very pre-makeover smithfield) and thats a mad eleaborate Saxone shopfront
-
September 8, 2005 at 5:13 pm #729591
ConK
ParticipantNelson’s head finds new home
08 September 2005 15:35
The original head of Nelson’s Pillar has found a new home at the Dublin City Library.Admiral Nelson’s head is now on exhibition to the public free of charge along with papers and original archives on Nelson’s Pillar.
The head has been moved from Dublin Civic Museum, which is closed for refurbishment, to the Reading Room in Dublin City Library on Pearse Street.
Nelson’s Pillar was a famous landmark and meeting place for Dubliners before being blown up by republicans in 1966, on the 50th anniversary of the 1916 Rising.
-
September 8, 2005 at 7:16 pm #729592
Morlan
Participant@Graham Hickey wrote:
They say in the application that conservation work will be carried out, but total replacement in some cases may be necessary.
Here’s the terrace in the 1920s, sombre dark windows dominate, and not an Abrakebabra in sight!Interesting that upper floor signage has already crept in – for once we have higher standards today…
I love those eleaborate tram poles, how detailed. Had they been kept in storage they could have been reused for some city centre streches of the LUAS. Were they painted green?
-
September 9, 2005 at 12:47 am #729593
Anonymous
InactiveI was interested to find out the reason that the fingers on the Father Mattew statue wern’t replaced was that they broken off by rubble from the army destroying Nelson’s Pilliar, and to repair them would be to cover up history. Similiarly it is why the damage at the back O’Connell was not repaired.
-
September 9, 2005 at 1:54 am #729594
Alek Smart
ParticipantThats an interestin pic of the Ambulance….Is it a Civil.War era pic I wonder or could it be earlier.
The flying of a Flag from it indicates that it was operating in a contested area….also the closed shops and lack of pedestrians might indicate an excessive lead to air ratio..?
On the topic of Nelsons Head,I recall my father getting over a weeks solid overtime on clean-up and reinstatement work in the Coropration at the time,he worked in the North City Paving section.
It seems that the original destructive explosion was somewhat more surgical than the “Official” Bang Mòr courtesy of à rm na hEireann which removed far more window glass and birds nests than was really necessary…Kismet,Hardy..???? 😎 -
September 9, 2005 at 2:22 am #729595
GrahamH
ParticipantYes the initial explosion was above the street so largely caused little/no damage, whilst the Army expolsion obviously impacted the surrounding terraces being so low down. It was mainly just glass that shattered though – never heard any claims of structural damage. A lot of embellishment seems to have taken place over the years regarding the army explosion!
Yes the above picture from the National Library Collection I think was taken during the Civil War as you describe – the date given is ‘1920-1930’.
Yes the tram pylons were very grand – still a feel of them in surviving lampposts from the 1920s and 30s in suburban Dublin, particularly around the Grand Canal/SCR area. They probably were green alright, though they do look very black in earlier photos.
-
September 9, 2005 at 1:16 pm #729596
Morlan
ParticipantYes, I think they were green in the Collins movie.
-
September 10, 2005 at 2:32 am #729597
JPD
ParticipantAre you suggesting that the Collins movie is a good indicator of authentic?
-
September 10, 2005 at 3:24 am #729598
-
September 10, 2005 at 4:31 am #729599
GrahamH
ParticipantIt’s fair to say I think that the attention to detail for the most part was excellent, superbly handled, just wherever they got it wrong they did it spectacularly :). Which is good in a way because these errors are so well-worn at this stage that you can gloss over them with ease and sit back and enjoy the rest of it!
The most subtle of elements like early electric ‘flex’ running up the walls of interiors to newly-installed electric fittings are just perfect – likewise the conversion of all the Upper Mount St lampposts back to their 1916 state, it really shows how iconic this lampposts have become in representing the Dublin of that era, something it seems Jordan was very conscious of.
The placement of a steet opposite the GPO is so perposterous as to make it quite easy to ignore – again with the British troops all lined up in front of the GPO firing directly in :rolleyes:
Whatever about the representation of Dev etc, that’s something for another day, but the art direction was by and large superbly accurate given the limited resources available. -
September 13, 2005 at 3:31 am #729600
Anonymous
InactiveIt was good outside O’Connell St but woeful in relation to how close the british forces were to the GPO; Eden Quay was about as close as most of them got. I would not rely on anything in that film even though they did get some of it right.
-
September 13, 2005 at 10:21 am #729601
GregF
ParticipantHollywood movies are crass, hope future generations don’t view them as correct historical re-enactments.
(I think Kenneth Branagh would be more of a lookalike to play Collins and Liam Neeson would have been more apt for playing Dev.) -
September 13, 2005 at 4:17 pm #729602
Anonymous
InactiveIt was pretty stage oirish alright; most dissapointing when compared with Schindlers List and made no effort to get O’Connell St right at all.
-
September 14, 2005 at 1:18 am #729603
GrahamH
ParticipantNot to go on about this film, but I think this ‘lack of O’Connell St’ issue needs to be put into perspective – it is a wonder the film was made at all given the bugetary contraints, never mind recreating half of central Dublin!
They were under huge financial pressures, and as such, cinematically, a more ‘convincing’ three-dimensional city could be created with the GPO terminating a vista, essentially ‘covering’ the top part of a street. As all cameras were generally based on the imaginary street with the GPO in shot in the background, O’Connell St did not have to be built at all as it was completely out of shot around the very convenient corners 🙂
It seems that either all of one side of O’Connell St would have had to be built in order to fill backdrops sweeping into the distance, or none at all if it was done the way it was!
Cash dictated it seems.Coming back to the current century, the GPO cleaning is due to be finished by the last day in November: the 30th – in perfect time for the Christmas month. An Post have their heads screwed on.
-
September 14, 2005 at 8:46 pm #729604
Anonymous
InactiveThey also timed the works well to coincide with the other works to the street. The works are causing chaos to traffic according to an Aircoach driver I was talking to yesterday; he said he hit a new traffic jam record on Monday at 3.5 hours from the Airport to Bewleys Ballsbridge and back. With a whopping 94 minutes from the top of Dawson street to Granby Row.
-
September 15, 2005 at 3:33 am #729605
GrahamH
ParticipantWhat! – that latter journey is just a farce!
But yes it is getting very congested no on the Upper northbound lanes, with the traffic piling up at the Parnell St lights.On another issue – I really cannot believe this, really and truly cannot get over what has happened on O’Connell Bridge.
Okay nobody has died, and the sky hasn’t fallen in, but it comes a close third to these – the various blown bulbs in the O’Connell Bridge lamp standards have been replaced with ORANGE bulbs! Can you believe the ignorance?!! It’s unreal!A flagship restoration project, costing tens of thousands of rate-payers’ money, designed to improve O’Connell Bridge and tie in with the O’Cll St IAP, and the City Council Lighting Division come along three years later after the fuss has died down and replace the blown sparkling white halogen bulbs with dirty sodium orange! It beggars belief!
Two standards on the eastern parapet have had some bulbs replaced with orange, in one case just one lamp with the other two remaining white, and in the other case two of them replaced in orange with one to the side left as is.
It is the greatest visual mess it has to be seen. On one of the standards all that’s needed now is a green bulb in one of the lamps on the tripartite fitting to replicate the Tricolour :rolleyes:Who the heck sent a guy out with a couple of boxes of orange bulbs and casually noted “O’Connell needs a bit of work – chuck these in, they’ll do grand” 😡
If this does not convey the blatent disregard that this city holds for its lighting stock, nothing does.
Not only was best practice not caried out by replacing all bulbs on the bridge at regular intervals, not only did they install the incorrect bulb type in the reactionary practice they decided to use, but they didn’t even replace all of them as some are still blown in the standards on the median!And on the best practice of replacing all bulbs before they blow – there’s another good reason for doing this as evident at the moment. Some of the white bulbs were replaced before with more white bulbs, however bieng new these stand out way more than the older duller ones. So now on the bridge there’s a mish-mash of weak original white bulbs, newer brighter white bulbs, and nasty orange bulbs!
This flagship historic lighting composition in the heart of the city is being destroyed by Dublin City Council.
You know, it really is a shame to have to criticise them on this; goodnees knows the amount of decent work that they do, but come on! Can they not even get this right?
Is this an indication of what is going to happen with the hundreds of white lamps and LEDs on O’Connell Street? -
September 15, 2005 at 8:27 am #729606
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
What! – that latter journey is just a farce!
On one of the standards all that’s needed now is a green bulb in one of the lamps on the tripartite fitting to replicate the Tricolour :rolleyes:Who the heck sent a guy out with a couple of boxes of orange bulbs and casually noted “O’Connell needs a bit of work – chuck these in, they’ll do grand” 😡
This flagship historic lighting composition in the heart of the city is being destroyed by Dublin City Council.
Ah sure why not wouldn’t it go well with the Arlington Hotel and that type of stag party tourist market.
What happened above just goes to show the absolute lack of integration between City Council departments and the lack of any co-ordination of ACAs in relation to the provision of other services. I’ve been reading Dubinspirations again; it was too depressing I had to put it down and go outside my hotel and note the absolute lack of the Built Environment ignorance in the place I’m in which has a GDP of about $5000US a year.
-
September 15, 2005 at 2:56 pm #729607
johnfp
ParticipantGuys relax !
Ok, there needs to be a bit more co operation between the relevant authorities regarding the developments on O Connell St but as an Irishman living in Edinburgh for the past 7 years can I say it gladens the heart to see we are finally building a city which can take it`s place on the world stage (as opposed to the Dublin I left back then)
Anyone got any other photos re the ongoing developments in O Connell St? in particular inr elation to phase 2 of the IAP? -
September 15, 2005 at 6:01 pm #729608
GrahamH
ParticipantThere were some posted here John:
https://archiseek.com/content/showpost.php?p=38863&postcount=1723
and here:
https://archiseek.com/content/showpost.php?p=39462&postcount=1750
-
September 15, 2005 at 6:42 pm #729609
kefu
ParticipantGraham, I’d strongly recommend a short email to the O’Connell Street project about this.
I’d imagine they would be just as annoyed about this considering the attention to detail that has characterised the project so far. This is most likely a case of the Lighting Dept doing this off their own steam.
On a different subject, I notice that Daniel O’Connell’s head is already covered with bird sh**. They were going to stick a pin in it to put off the perching pigeons but that didn’t happen. -
September 15, 2005 at 7:04 pm #729610
johnbo
ParticipantChances are this is covered deep within this thread somewhere but what ever happend to those kiosks that were supposed to be installed on the street last July?
Does anybody have any pictures of them by any chance?
-
September 15, 2005 at 8:41 pm #729611
Morlan
Participant@Graham Hickey wrote:
What! – that latter journey is just a farce!
But yes it is getting very congested no on the Upper northbound lanes, with the traffic piling up at the Parnell St lights.On another issue – I really cannot believe this, really and truly cannot get over what has happened on O’Connell Bridge.
Okay nobody has died, and the sky hasn’t fallen in, but it comes a close third to these – the various blown bulbs in the O’Connell Bridge lamp standards have been replaced with ORANGE bulbs! Can you believe the ignorance?!! It’s unreal!😮 Huh?
That really makes my blood boil. Graham, maybe you should send an email or letter to the relevant department including some of your points above. It’s unlikley that they would do anything about it but you might get some sort of explanation out of them.
-
September 15, 2005 at 8:47 pm #729612
Morlan
Participant@johnbo wrote:
Chances are this is covered deep within this thread somewhere but what ever happend to those kiosks that were supposed to be installed on the street last July?
Does anybody have any pictures of them by any chance?
I think that one of the kiosks is currently hidden amongst the building site that is lower O’C street. Last I saw, it was just a big concrete block with no façade. I’m sure at least one of them with be up and running by next summer.. although, have you seen the state of the kiosks on Grattan Bridge? One of them is in terrible disrepair. The fold out canopy is hanging to pieces, held together with duct tape :rolleyes: I hope this won’t be the same for the O’C kiosks.
-
September 15, 2005 at 9:03 pm #729613
J. Seerski
ParticipantWould this evenings crash be related to the fact that the road and path surface camoflage each other, thus making the definition of pedestrian and vehicular very hazy (with reference to the GPO Plaza)?
I am supised that, on a street where the average mph would be at best 5mph due to the traffic volumes, that a crash would happen at all. Really the Council should get rid of all traffic off this stretch completely – it is not impossible by any standards. When (if) the Macken Street bridge is completed, the council should consider, as a start, diverting all traffic away from the part of O’Connell street from Abbey Street to Cathedral Street.
The new lighting of O’Connell Street is rubbish, not individual to the location whatsoever- I’ve seen these lamps dotted around the city at new developments – debunking any idea that these lamps were created just for the O’Connell Street project. It has a very temporary feel – I wouldn’t be suprised if it is replaced again in 10 years.
-
September 16, 2005 at 1:00 am #729614
Alek Smart
ParticipantThis afternoons serious RTA at the Nth Earl St/O Connell St Junction serves to fire a warning shot across the bows of both City Council and An Garda Siochana.
The basic design and structure of this crossing is totally wrong,given the volume of Vehicular Traffic continuing to utilise the street.
The lack of clear deliniation between Traffic Space and Pedestrian space is all too obvious.
Last Monday night as I drove Northbound I met a young Oriental chap walking backwards in the midle of the street as he attempted to get the Tower of Light aligned in his Camera Viewscreen,the poor lad was totally oblivious to the fact that he was on a Roadway and almost jumped out of his skin when I alerted him with a toot of the horn.
Given that the O Connell St IAP which many had thought was agreed is now looking somewhat different in scope and detail perhaps it could now be argued that the “Piazza” in front of the GPO should be revisited with a view towards ensuring public safety.
In the light of todays accident It will be interesting also to speculate how long it will now be before some Legal Road Markings appear at the Bank of Ireland/College Green perestrian crossing which is now almost two months without them.
There is little doubt but that O Connell St as it is presently structured is a VERY dangerous environment for everybody and the question has to be asked as to why the City Council and Garda Authorities have been prepared to sanction an INCREASE in the number of Bus movements along the street when the available space is so seriously compromised.
Public Safety SHOULD have been paramount in the planning phase of the IAP works,however we now see that it appears to have not even been on the agenda…
Once again a few more questions for the City Manager,his Director of Traffic and the Garda Asst Commissioner in charge of the Dublin Met Region…….. 🙁 -
September 16, 2005 at 3:39 am #729615
GrahamH
ParticipantA sad incident above all – for anyone who hasn’t heard two women it seems were struck down by a bus at the Earl St junction at about 4pm yesterday. Both survived but one is in a serious condition. Dublin Bus say the pedestrian lights were red at the time.
I think the fact that they are tourists says it all – being unfamiliar with the area they seem to have assumed the roadway was part of the pavement. As described above, I too have seen people walk straight out onto the road and then jump back in again upon realising it is not pavement. This only seems to happen with people coming up from North Earl St, perhaps visiting for the first time from Connolly Station. Not knowing the nature of O’Cll St they just walk straight out from the huge expanse of granite around the Joyce Statue onto the same granite surface of the roadway.
Not only have I seen many people do this, even my own flippin sister did it when encountering the new layout for the first time! – again from Nth Earl St.Obviously the layout is much clearer if you are on O’Cll St itself, but not arriving for the first time via Henry or Earl Streets.
Something must be done about this. Incidentally this is also the expanse of granite roadway that so dilutes the visual impact of the plaza, whatever about the safety implications. Likewise there’s a stretch south of the Plaza on both lanes that ought to be removed. Black tarmac is entirely appropriate, and a heck of a lot safer.Fully agreed Alec about the amount of buses on the street now – it is absolutely ridiculous; at a given time it is entirely possible for there to be upwards of 15 buses standing about on the street, including at the new Plaza bus stop of course :rolleyes:
Hopefully this is temporary…
However something that Dublin Bus most certainly do have something to answer for is their many drivers who insist on trying to get past the Spire pedestrian crossing lights but suffice to say fail miserably, plonking themselves slap bang in the middle of the second or third most busy crossing in the State – it is joke how often it happens. And these guys (allbethey a minority) call themselves professional drivers…
Likewise the speed of some buses racing southbound on Upper O’Connell St to make the lights at the Spire crossing is also completely unacceptable. I’m not for a moment suggesting that’s what happened today but it is an accident waiting to happen, with or without swanky granite paving.And yes, College Green, months on at this stage has still yet to be lined:
-
September 16, 2005 at 10:43 am #729616
ctesiphon
ParticipantFrom Ireland.com:
Accident prompts review of O’Connell Street plaza area
Dublin City Council will review the safety of the plaza surrounding the Spire in O’Connell Street after two women were hit by a Dublin bus at a pedestrian crossing yesterday. Fiona Gartland, Tim O’Brien and Olivia Kelly report
A double-decker bus operated by Dublin Bus struck the women as they crossed from North Earl Street at the pedestrian lights near the Spire around 4.15pm.
One of the women, who is 60, was taken to St James’s Hospital with serious head injuries. The other woman ( 56) was taken to the Mater hospital with minor injuries. Both were on holiday from England and had travelled from Mayo for a day’s shopping. Six passengers were on the 145 bus, which was travelling from Mountjoy Square to Bray.
It appears the two women stepped off the footpath at a point where it is difficult to tell the road from the kerb. As part of the O’Connell Street area plan, roadspace has been narrowed and the roadway has been raised to the same level as the footpath to facilitate pedestrian access.
People at the scene said the “boulevard effect” may have made the line where the pavement ended and the roadway began more difficult to determine.
A spokesman for the city council said the traffic lights were equipped with an audio signal and the area in which the footpath merges with the roadway was studded with silver discs.
The spokesman said the council would examine the issues this morning. Coincidentally, Dublin city councillors voted yesterday to reduce the speed limit on many city-centre streets to 30kph in an effort to reduced pedestrian fatalities.
A team lead by Sgt Brian Cullen examined the scene along with an investigation unit from Dublin Bus. Gardaà examined marks on the left-hand corner of the bus and measured the distance between the front of the bus and a pair of red sandals that remained on the crossing. Insp Gus Keane from Store Street station said there were a large number of witnesses.
A Dublin Bus spokeswoman said eyewitnesses reported “the driver was driving correctly through a green light”. She said the driver had said “he was driving slowly through the light.” He had given a statement to gardaà and there was no question of a suspension in what was “a very unfortunate accident”.
-ends-
Many of us have feared this for a while. I don’t want to score points from something as tragic as this, except to hope that lessons are learned and improvements are made.
-
September 16, 2005 at 12:46 pm #729617
kefu
ParticipantThe only thing I would say is that there is no clear delineation between traffic and pedestrian spaces at many squares and plazas in many italian, french and spanish cities
There must be at least some onus on people to observe what’s going on around them
As a pretty obvious for instance, traffic and pedestrian lights should suggest pretty strongly that cars/buses are likely to be in the area.
I think perhaps we’re being a little quick in blaming the redevelopment before we know exactly what happened. -
September 16, 2005 at 1:00 pm #729618
Niall
Participant😮 That is crazy re: College Green, It would take half an hour to line that road. In Wicklow County, where I live, the Council regularly fill and resurface roads and then leave them without any lines.. Madness!!
-
September 16, 2005 at 1:22 pm #729619
Alek Smart
ParticipantThe news that DCC are “Reviewing the Safety” of the Henry St-O Connell St-North Earls St junction is indeed welcome,as would be hearing of the Resignation of several senior officials in the same News Piece.
Are we to believe now that the entire O Connell St IAP was scribbled out on the back of a cigarette packet by some newly arrived Polish labourers (Who might just have made a better fist of it ).
This is a Flagship project of not only Civic but also National importance yet it has been handled as if it were some surburban back-garden being crazy-paved by the Cobblelocking King or somesuch.
For Crying out loud the present City Management have managed to shrug off several fatalities and heaven knows how many serious injury RTA`s in the area between Westmoreland St and Parnell Square.
At No Time have the authorities even attempted to put a Public Transport Plan in place which would allow for the SAFE conduct of Bus Business within the area which is a Dei-Facto BUILDING SITE.
Instead Dublin Bus have been facilitated,encouraged,required to push ever more vehicles per hour through what is in effect a trecherous egg-timer.
No attempt has been made either by Dublin Bus or the so-called authorities to ensure a safer more controlled flow either by diverting routes AWAY from O Connell St altogether or by reducing dwell time at the OCS Bus Stops by eliminating time consuming Cash Fare transactions.
In addition NO Bus/Coach operator should be permitted to Operate Long Dwell Airport Coach or City Tour services from this street AT ANY TIME whilst the present situation is in existance.
Instead,More routes than ever are now being stuffed into O Connell St in an attempt to prove that Paddy is thick and stupid enough to get a Quart into a Pint pot.
The vehicles concerned are now Longer,Wider and of far higher passenger capacity than ever before and yet the City`s Civic Intelligentia are of the belief that all of these EXTRA vehilcles will fit into the REDUCED amount of Roadspace without any problem..Are these people actually Professionally Qualified at all or merely escapees from some Lunatic Asylum on Wood Quay ?
The City Council/Garda Siochana/Bus Operators have had far too many “Wake-Up Calls” along this street.
Bus and Coach drivers have been attempting to raise serious safety concerns through both internal means and in the media all to no avail.
It appears that the Senior Professional Branch of The Citys Administration are not amenable to having their plans called into question by a bunch of Blue Collar Bus Drivers and the like,some of whom never even went to college.
This level of Autocracy IS now resulting in a vastly increased exposure to danger amongst the ordinary people who use the City Centre on a daily basis.
The recently introduced revised Health and Safety at Work acts SHOULD be used to force the City Council to recognize and adhere to its legal responsibilities to the Citizens but it`s doubtful if it ever will as the entire City Management structure is already closing ranks in an attempt to cover their widely exposed backsides on this one.
It really is an infuriating and depressing scenario as the thrust of Official Dublin is to lay-off the blame on the Individual Busdriver or anybody else who can be made to fit the picture as long as it preserves the sanctity of the “Professionals Know Best” theory of Civic Management.
I fully accept Graham`s point on the Crossing Point at the Spire,however It would be a worthwhile excercise to take a few trips along the street and stay near the front of the bus to observe the ACTUAL situation which prevails at this point,particularly when traffic is slow moving.
Remember the Bus is some 11.3 mtrs LONG and 2.55 Mtrs Wide so wherever it is stopped it is going to be in somebodys way.
Additionally the already discussed vague nature of where EXACTLY the pedestrian crossing points are remains open to debate as does the requirement for pedestrians to adhere to Green/Red man signals.
For ANY busy Traffic/Pedestrian crossing to function SAFELY a high degree of CLARITY and SPACE is required for both Vehicles and Pedestrians…There is precious little of this in O Connell St at present and no sign of any official recognition that it is required…Ah well perhaps the Safety Consultants which,no doubt will be recruited by DCC to tell them what they want to hear will manage to recommend a bit of black Tarmac and some White Lines as a start…….
And lets stay away from comparison with Italy,France,Spain or Timbucktou for that matter as they are NOT valid in any way shape or form to Dublin in its present state…If we need to compare then how about looking at ANY mid-size UK Town/City/Conurbation which will more than likely feature Clear and Strong methods of seperating moving 16 Tonne vehicles from rambling shoppers…! 😡 -
September 16, 2005 at 1:29 pm #729620
Anonymous
Inactivemmmmmm…….here in Milano cars don’t even stop when you are ON the pedestrian crossing.
A s regards O’Connell Street I realize the top end is all clutter and mess, buses pushing through and the like. But pedestrians cannot just be wandering around heedless. In some German cities, for instance, the cyclepaths are part of the foothpaths, and just once I had a near mishap, learned my lesson.
I mean if a car passes over a tramline without looking and gets hit do we blame the tram? (Ooops! Maybe in Dublin that’s what a lot of drivers do do.) -
September 16, 2005 at 2:10 pm #729621
kefu
ParticipantAlek – I find lines like this offensive: ‘… to prove Paddy is thick and stupid enough to get a Quart into a Pint pot’
I also find your one thousand word complaint a little bit much without so much as one single suggestion of where exactly the buses should go instead or how you eliminate cash fares.
The only fatalities I can recall involving a bus was the Wellington Quay tragedy, a totally separate issue from O’Connell Street.
The “several fatalities” to which you refer all involved trucks and bicycles from what I know, which is precisely what the Port Tunnel is an attempt to eliminate.
The whole point of the O’Connell Street regeneration plan has been to try and remove all unnecessary traffic from the street and make it a public transport artery.
I think everybody can see that this is exactly what will happen. We are now in a heavy works phase, which is inevitably going to cause disruption.
There are only a handful of north-south arterial routes in this city for which we have our medieval “city planners” – not our current administration – to thank for.
Calling for people’s resignations because two English tourists are in too much of a rush to obey pedestrian signals is infantile. I’m no apologist for Dublin City Council but a little more constructive criticism and a little less point-scoring mighn’t go astray.
Also the notion that somehow road safety is better in Italy, Spain and France can only lead to me believe you have never travelled in any of those countries. Britain and Ireland are models of sophistication when compared to running the gauntlet of road traffic somewhere like Rome or Paris. -
September 16, 2005 at 5:18 pm #729622
GregF
ParticipantTo correct this problem, a kerb should be simply re-instated at the Spire, which would require no major work.
-
September 16, 2005 at 9:39 pm #729623
johnfp
ParticipantOne thing that has continually irked me about O Connell Street is that hideous facade at Burger King at Lower O Connell St. I`m referring in particulat to the semi circular window frame. Someone told me the proposal is not to renew the licences for the businesses that fail to meet minimum standards for shopfronts etc? Can anyone throw any light on this ?
-
September 17, 2005 at 2:15 am #729624
Alek Smart
ParticipantSorry Kefu if U find the idea of a Thick stupid Paddy attempting to pour a quart into a pint pot offensive,but there U have it.
I cant find any other rational explanation for a system which forces EXTRA Bus Movements into a major arterial corridor at virtually the EXACT same time that major long-term civil engineering works are scheduled.
Apologies for omitting the suggestions you require but I have in the past been advised that such matters are best left to the “Professionals” who have been trained specifically to get these things right first time.
However my hopes that the “Professionals” would do as you suggest and utilize the Port Tunnell as a means of significantly reducing Heavy Goods Vehicle traffic along the Quays have received a setback recently as it now appears that Dublin City Council have decided that the original HGV ban criteria will NOT be as far reaching as originally anticipated by many.
In essence only 5 Axle HGV,ie Twin axle Tractor Unit and Tri-Axle trailer,will be completely excluded from the Quays,most other configurations will either be free to continue as at present or have some time-based restrictions imposed upon them.
Therefore as long as cyclists remain happy to mix-it with 2,3 or 4 axle Commercial Vehicles with Gross Vehicle Weights of between 16 and 34 Tonnes we have no real improvement in their lot.
Whether our Medieval City Planners vision of Dublin is any worse than the one we are presently struggling with is a moot point but what IS apparent is that nobody involved in the City`s administration has taken any real hard decisions in relation to the present Bus/Coach situation along O Connell St.
The most recent extra Bus Movements along O Connell St saw the 14/14A and 48 A routes sent headlong up and down the contentious O Connell St with it would appear NO pressure being applied to send these routes along new virgin territory,for example bring 48A into College Green,and then send it along Dame St,High St and Christchurch to terminate in that area or if feeling REALLY brave send it all the way to Heuston Station.
This would allow serious interaction with a wide variety of West and North Bound Bus Routes at a location OTHER THAN the much restricted O Connell St but perhaps this is a tad to avant garde for the SERIOUS Professionals to consider ?
The presence of a much improved Jervis St corridor stretching from Ormond Quay virtually uninterrupted to Parnell St could allow for many Westbound Bus routes to be turned and sent back out via either Capel St OR Nth King St.
Additionally there is now a sizeable amount of Kerbside Space in the Parnell St/Bolton St/Capel St triangle which again IF utilized would offer scope for a half secent Bus Terminal for West/North Bound City Centre Terminating routes.
Over on the other side of O Connell St we once again see busy routes such as the 33,41,and assorted Airport Coach services which for years utilised Gardiner St as their “Corridor” now being forced through the Parnell Sq/O Connell St Egg Timer only to suffer a convoluted time consuming dog-leg through Cathal Brugha St.
Perhaps the most incredible example of this Nitwittery is the City Council`s aquiescence with Dublin Bus`es rerouting of the busy and frequent Northbound 123 in response to the OC St “Heavy Works Phase”.
This route now has to beat its way all the way along the North Bound side of OC St,up along Parnell SDq West,thence via Parnell Sq North and BACK DOWN along Parnell Sq EAST to re-enter O Connell St upper Southbound before turning left into Cathal Brugha St in order to serve ONE stop at this location before trying to get back out onto Parnell St which It could have simply turned into directly from Parnell Sq East some 100 mtrs and up to 20 mins earlier.
Far from having no suggestions I and many of my colleagues have skip loads of suggestions,some feasible,some dubious and some probably dead in the water but the essential problem is a City Administration that does NOT have the slightest regard for this sort of brainstorming amongst the lower orders and which prefers to preserve the Status Quo at all costs even to the extent of presiding over serious RTA`s involving Fatalities and serious injuries (The fact that Thursdays Injured people were English Tourists is of NO bearing that I can see but perhaps I am missing something there too ?)
Am I being churlish in my speculation as to whether there was ANY real detailed inspection of the Bus Routing and Peak Time Bus Movement figures ?
Should I refrain from asking if my City Council`s professional Traffic Planners,Modellers,and assorted other grades simply assumed that ALL of the pre-existing Bus Stops could continue as heretofore in the midst of the “Heavy Works Phase” of the IAP.
I certainly do NOT make any copmparisions with other European Cities or Cultures and do not for a minute draw any safety related inferences from them.These cultures are Different to ours in so many ways and Traffic and Transport are but two small examples of this.
I have no desire to score points or anything else in relation to this debate but in the absence of anything like a professional,co-ordinated and SAFE approach from ANY of the City`s Administrative Glitterati then I`m afraid I shall merely continue to call it as I see it.
There is little doubt but the City Councils vision of the NEW O Connell St is a very positive and dreamily desireable one,however to achieve their goal the new Ethos deserved to be implimented at a far earlier stage in proceedings.
As I listened to replay of a Radio piece broadcast during the unveiling phase of the Tower of Light something struck me quite forcibly…
The interviewee (possibly Ian Ritchie) spoke of the Tower of Light capturing the gaze of people as they walked towards it from each of the Four Thoroughfares leading to its base,as they draw nearer the Tower draws their gaze to it`s polished base with its DNA strands intertwined and creeping upwards until the viewer cannot resist craning their neck in an attempt to catch site of the pinnacle stretching away almost into the clouds.
The Spire of Light thus represents the “New Irelands” vibrancy and its peoples ability and desire to reach up out of their troubled past to a new future at a higher happier level.
Now that we know that the point(!!) of the Tower of Light is to draw the viewers gaze skywards perhaps once again im being a phillistine if I suggest that the middle of a very busy pedestrian crossing is not exactly an ideal location for such a gaze inducing device,however artistic it may be.
At one time children were taught by rote to “Look Left-then Right-then Left again” before crossing busy roadways however modern Ireland would appear to prefer if our visitors simply Looked Up at the sky as they cross what might or might not be a vehicular thoroughfare…Now THAT is sophistication..!!!! 😮
Was it Sean O Casey who wrote about Lying in the gutter looking up at the Stars ,Joxer ???? 🙂 -
September 17, 2005 at 2:42 am #729625
GrahamH
ParticipantI think you have it spot on about the Spire in the middle of the crossing – more in a sec.
But regarding the safety of this crossing, the ‘issue’ here is essentially where do you draw the line between personal pedestrian responsibility and that of the authorities in a busy urban environment like O’Connell St. It’s a difficult distinction to make, especially with the scheme that is now extant in the middle of the thoroughfare; not only do you have the Plaza to blur the lines, you have the mini-square as it were of the Spire too. It all makes perfect visual sense when walking along O’Connell St, but suddenly arriving at it from the exclusively pedestrian areas that are Henry and North Earl Streets a little more is needed than pedestrians having their wits about them. They need to be expressly informed.
I think an indication of the CC’s acceptance of this being a dodgy place is the reactionary painting of arrows and eyes onto the kerbline many months if not over a year after they were laid.As Greg says, there’s a perfectly simply solution – put a kerb back in and lay black tarmac as present on the rest of the street – it not only makes the arrangement so much safer, it is more pleasing to the eye.
I find it somewhat ironic that the ‘boulevard effect’ was singled out in the IT article as the cause for the confusion – in fact precisely the opposite is the case. If the CC were not so intent in swathing the street in granite ‘because it looks expensive’ and instead focused on maintaining the coherent linear design of the street, i.e. a proper ‘boulevard effect’, by laying black tarmac and kerbstones in tandem with the rest of the traffic lanes on the street, the current delineation problem would not be an issue.
It’s not necessarily fair to put all the blame on the City Council given the very difficult unique nature of this major intersection, but has anyone else found it slightly ironic that the world’s tallest sculpture is plonked right in the middle of one of the busiest pedestrian crossings in Europe?!
It’s a major problem I think, not in light of the recent incident, but having watched how this crossing operates nearly every weekday since it was first built.You have a wide stretch of pedestrians both walking towards each other on the median but they are forced to funnel themselves to either side of the Spire. As a result they often cannot see where they are going, and often continue on walking past the kerbline on the other side – the Spire as an obstacle and all the bollards help generate this confusion.
Then there’s the hoards of tourists and young people standing around, leaning against the Spire, standing about in the way, taking photographs by the hundred etc etc – all contributing to the confusion, and all happening right in the middle of a major crossing! At times it is nothing short of disasterous when there’s big crowds – refusing to move, standing around in face of swarms of people trying the make both sets of lights either side.
Also the bollards get in the way when there’s large crowds – even knowing they’re about the place I’ve still split myself on them with the other people concealing them, yet another aspect of the Spire that ought not to be in place in the middle of a busy crossing – would you line them along the O’Connell Bridge junctions?! Or what about a string of bollards on the kerbline of College Green?!In the evenings when it is dark and it is busy, I have found the Spire crossing to be downright dangerous – it can be chaos in the winter, and especially if it is raining and you’re trying to avoid slipping on the lethal base of the Spire. You cannot see the kerbline, you cannot see the bronze base, there’s people milling everywhere and the bollards disappear in the dark
But above all what ought to go I think is the Spire base – it is filthy by day, trip-overable by night, and a deathtrap in the rain.
It also adds further confusion to the paved area around the Spire. You might as well run paving right up to it anyway – make it ‘rise from the ground’, whilst preserving the sanity of pedestrians using what is a pedestrian crossing.It’s a difficult thing to control though admittedly – it’s become a ‘hang out space’ and major tourist attraction right in the heart of a major (and small) intersection. No wonder so many people elect to jaywalk the Plaza.
-
September 17, 2005 at 12:49 pm #729626
kefu
ParticipantAlek, that’s more like it. While I don’t agree with everything you’ve said, there is real substance to most of those suggestions.
The Port Tunnel is a huge issue all by itself and I do genuinely fear that the whole project is half-redundant before it even opens (in the absence of a full Eastern bypass).
As you’ve said – the restrictions on trucks are already being changed but in fairness to DCC, the vast majority of heavy vehicles trundling down the Quays fall in to the restricted zone.
The reality is that even with the toll-free tunnel, truck drivers will only want to use it for trips on routes to Belfast, Derry, and Cavan.
Anyone travelling to Galway, Cork, Limerick, Waterford etc will do everything in their power to avoid going anywhere near the M50 at least until its upgrade is complete.
I’d also still be interested in how you would propose eliminating cash fares from buses. I know the obvious solution is to just sell tickets in newsagents (and we certainly have enough of them in the city centre). But what about infrequent passengers coming from the suburbs.
And I think your excellent and original theory about people looking up at the Spire is exactly what makes it relevant that they are English tourists.
In future, don’t assume people aren’t interested in highly detailed responses – they are. And if not, they can choose not to read the posting. -
September 17, 2005 at 12:52 pm #729627
kefu
ParticipantAlso as another suggestion, would it be possible to put a railing at the ends of Talbot Street and Henry Street and force pedestrians up to a new crossing somewhere around the amusement arcade?
-
September 18, 2005 at 4:22 pm #729628
Anonymous
InactiveGraham, do you not think it is a bit of an over reaction to raise the plaza & replace with a traditional tar macadam roadway ? don’t necessarily agree that continuing the roadway line through the plaza with tar macadam would be more pleasing to the eye …
… or do you think the whole concept of the plaza in front of the GPO was ill-conceived in the first place, & disrupts the lines of the street as a whole ?
Just interested as the plaza was an integral part of the IAP from the outset, the overall effect would be gone if the roadway line continued through the space.
Thanks, P.
-
September 19, 2005 at 12:42 pm #729629
Andrew Duffy
ParticipantLying in the gutter looking up at the Stars
… is Oscar Wilde. It’s in Lady Windermere’s Fan.
-
September 19, 2005 at 1:22 pm #729630
Punchbowl
Participant@Graham Hickey wrote:
I
As Greg says, there’s a perfectly simply solution – put a kerb back in and lay black tarmac as present on the rest of the street – it not only makes the arrangement so much safer, it is more pleasing to the eye.
You have a wide stretch of pedestrians both walking towards each other on the median but they are forced to funnel themselves to either side of the Spire. As a result they often cannot see where they are going, and often continue on walking past the kerbline on the other side – the Spire as an obstacle and all the bollards help generate this confusion.
Perhaps some of the brown super-sticky tarmac that’s in use in some parts of the city would be more appropriate here? I actually think it looks quite well and it’s tone would that little bit more subtle too…
The pedestrian crossing is indeed chaos, but are there other solutions? Railings at the bottoms of Henry St and Nth Earl St would surely only funnel the crowds into each other at each corner and would further congest the pavements..
I can immediately think of why an underpass wouldn’t work, particularly for people crossing specifically for the Spire but would there be any way of implementing this?
-
September 19, 2005 at 1:52 pm #729631
Frank Taylor
ParticipantThis is a good point about tourists being distracted looking up at the spire.
Graham is so keen on the way things look, that I’m amazed he is suggesting that the plaza would look better with a conventional road driven through it. He may well be right of course.
@kefu wrote:
Also as another suggestion, would it be possible to put a railing at the ends of Talbot Street and Henry Street and force pedestrians up to a new crossing somewhere around the amusement arcade?
Placing pedestrian barriers at roadsides leads to an increase in average traffic speeds, as drivers unconsciously set their speed according to their perceived estimate of the safety of the road. The unintuitive corollary is that removing safety guidelines from roads such as white lines, traffic lights and kerbs may cause drivers to slow down.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4213221.stmI guess that removing the traffic lights from O’Connell Street would not work given the volumes of road and pedestrian traffic that intersect at the spire. This brings us back to reducing traffic volumes on the street. I regularly drive up and down O’Connell Street,. I’m not on the street because I have any business there, I’m just using it as a north-south rat run. You can get around the restrictions on entering the street, if you choose the right backstreets.
Dublin Bus seems to route nearly all their buses up this street, yet when I get off a bus in O’Connell Street, I’m usually on my way West to the Henry Street/Capel Stret area, or else going East to the IFSC. I get taxis from O’Connell Street fairly often but there’s no reason I couldn’t get a taxi from Cathal Brugha Street.
So I’d like to see the street pedestrianised. And a subway station at the GPO.
-
September 19, 2005 at 3:15 pm #729632
Rory W
Participant@Alek Smart wrote:
Now that we know that the point(!!) of the Tower of Light is to draw the viewers gaze skywards perhaps once again im being a phillistine if I suggest that the middle of a very busy pedestrian crossing is not exactly an ideal location for such a gaze inducing device,however artistic it may be.
Blame those crazy bastards back in 1806 for building the Nelson Pillar there.
Sorry but has the health and safety brigade been let run loose in here? Cities have things that catch your eye, sad that the accident was, at the end of the day isn’t the city better to have things of interest in it. All this talk of underpasses etc is a nonsense – we need more pedestrian movement on O’Connell St not less, you may as well suggest a pedestrian bridge while you’re at it, nobody will use that either!!!
Also how often on the continent have you been on a street where you are not 100% sure where the kerb was due to the street being cobbled? Were you killed? Probably not. Did you contact the mayor of Paris’ office when you were distracted by seeing the light on top of the eifel tower? No. All this talk is nonsense and an utter overaction
-
September 19, 2005 at 6:12 pm #729633
emf
ParticipantWhy don’t the Gardai enforce the restrictions on cars driving onto O’Connell St from Parnell Sq.
While waiting for the No. 10 in the mornings a lot of cars drive down tha square without any Garda ever being there to sort them out.I also saw a poor old lady almost mowed down on the roadway outside Clery’s. As was mentioned before she wandered off the pedestrian area into the traffic. She got a terrible fright and said that she assumed that she was still on the footpath!!!
-
September 19, 2005 at 7:02 pm #729634
GrahamH
ParticipantIt is a problem, though with older people it seems rather than the population at large (not that this makes it any less a problem). Also dare I say it’s a female ‘issue’ too – sorry but women do tend to walk about the place with their heads in the clouds, nattering away or moving from one shop window to the next 🙂
Of all ‘incidents’ I have seen or heard of on O’Connell Street, they’ve all been women…But I fully agree that you do have to have your wits about you in urban spaces, especially in a major civic location like outside the GPO in the heart of a capital city – you expect ‘unorthodox’ paving schemes! The Plaza, whilst somwhat awkward in the context of an avenue-like street, works well overall and the paving on the carriageways and median is beautiful.
Peter and Frank I don’t mean replacing the Plaza paving with tarmac (are you mad? :)) – rather these ridiculous stretches of wishy washy granite slapped down on the carriageway either side of the Plaza:
It is this utterly pointless paving that causes so much confusion at the Spire junction, and likewise to a lesser extent outside Clery’s.
Not only is is unsafe, it dilutes the potential stark contrast between the street’s liner roadways and the civic plaza space as they merge. Hence the Plaza tends to spew out bloatedly beyond its lime-treed boundaries into the rest of the street.Rory makes a good point I think about the Pillar – blame the Trustees for the congestion at the current crossing (still going I think!). It really is something that just has to be put up with, though it could be made safer by laying tarmac instead of that granite to define the pavement and median from the carriageways.
-
September 20, 2005 at 12:01 am #729635
Alek Smart
ParticipantHmmmm…I smell a Rat here……!!!
Just Looka dah pic…….Not a Bleedin Motor Bike to be seen.! I Mean C`mon Graham Bud…….Although I think that pic may have been taken BEFORE DCC put up it`s NO MOTORBIKE PARKING signs which would explain the lack of the same yokes…..Its only when the signs go up that the Fir agus Mna na hEireann rush to prove their resilience to this Imperialist Regulatory stuff !”!!……………….. 😮 -
September 20, 2005 at 3:06 am #729636
Anonymous
InactiveGardai seek assistance over O’Connell St crash
From:ireland.com
Monday, 19th September, 2005Gardaà are appealing for witnesses to an incident on Dublin’s O’Connell Street in which two women were struck by a bus last week.
The incident in which two British tourists were hurt, one seriously, happened at around 4 pm last Thursday.
The women were injured as they crossed at pedestrian traffic lights on the North Earl Street side of the recently constructed plaza at the Spire.
Dublin City Council launched an inquiry into the “boulevard” design of the intersection after witnesses suggested the women may have failed to determine the difference between road and footpath because the surfaces are made of the same material and are at the same level.
Store Street gardaà are also seeking public assistance in tracing the whereabouts of one of the women’s handbag and a hold-all which were removed from the scene.
A purse containing cash and bank cards, keys, a mobile phone and a passport were in the handbag.
Ends -
September 20, 2005 at 11:30 am #729637
dc3
ParticipantFrank Taylor wrote:that removing safety guidelines from roads such as white lines, traffic lights and kerbs may cause drivers to slow down.Quote:Doubtless this is also the real, and hidden reason for the near complete absence of useful roadsigns in much of Ireland.
-
September 20, 2005 at 11:58 am #729638
Anonymous
Inactive@dc3 wrote:
@Frank Taylor wrote:
that removing safety guidelines from roads such as white lines, traffic lights and kerbs may cause drivers to slow down.
Doubtless this is also the real, and hidden reason for the near complete absence of useful roadsigns in much of Ireland.
In actual fact, we Irish have set new standards of road safety. If the absence of road signs slows drivers down, the use of obviously misleading and dangerous road signs makes us drive at a snails pace. This is the reason that the Government in all of its red-neck intelligence puts a 100km/hr sign immediately after a serious of SLOW-SLOWER-GET OUT AND CRAWL YOU LAZY BASTARD signs on an extremely dangerous stretch of the Sligo0-EnnisKILLen road. Oh, I forgot, no politician has stepped outside the M50 in the last 13 years, so how would they know about something like that. Indeed, the problem of pedestrain area surface blending in with road traffic surface in O’Connell Street is replicated in a number of areas of the country where cow area surface blends in seemlessly with the road surface area.
-
September 20, 2005 at 3:28 pm #729639
Anonymous
InactiveWith all of this development of O’Connell Street, it would have been a good opportunity to actually initiate the building of a metro line – if the cut and refill technique was used, the resurfacing of the street could have been done in tandem with the construction of a metro station. Would have saved money. Just a casual observation. Anyway, why bother I suppose. ONce Dublin Gas, Eircom, th eESB etc get going the surface will have been carved up a hundred times before I have finished writing this.
-
September 20, 2005 at 4:12 pm #729640
electrolyte
ParticipantHere here, PDLL
They should have at least done some pre-emptive utility works, or even some feasibility studies…..maybe they have. But seriously, do any of us believe that they are that ahead of the game….?
As a Dubliner who no longer lives in Dublin, and who rarely gets into the city, I was pretty surprised and very impressed by the work that has thus far been carried out on the street. Admittedly it looks really, really good. Any changes to it now, to facilitate easy crossing of the street (!?!) would be wrong, wrong, wrong.
Standing in the median of O’Connell Bridge and Looking up the street is such a thrill now. It looks awesome – clean, planned, modern, historic, impressive. I was always in favour of the Spire, but wasn’t sure (before now) if it was in context…it integrates extremely well with the progrssing development. I’m raging I didn’t have my camera….. -
September 20, 2005 at 4:20 pm #729641
Anonymous
Inactive@electrolyte wrote:
But seriously, do any of us believe that they are that ahead of the game….?
Singularly unlikely. It would have requried a brain. Sometimes when I arrive in Dublin airport I try to imagine what it would be like getting in a lift and going down to a train platform under the airport and then gliding along under the north-side and getting out at the door of the GPO 15 minutes later. What would that feel like! Like most other European capitals I suppose. No worries, Bertie has his state limo so that is all that matters. I better not let cynicism spoil the virtual reality of the Celtic Tiger (me arse).
-
September 20, 2005 at 4:31 pm #729642
electrolyte
Participanthe he…..I so know that feeling….how cool would it be.
Mind you, plans and designs for the new airport developments are to be released today, so ya never know….there might be some shocking ambitions that could actually see this become a reality by 2009…if RTE news is correct.
Were I a first time visitor to the city, emerging from a subway station onto O’Connell Street for my first ever glimpse of Dublin, I’d be mighty impressed. Not by the fact that I have just taken a metro from the airport to town, coz let’s face it, it seems a given in most other European cities anyway….but how fresh and clean it all looks….its deadly.
-
September 20, 2005 at 8:14 pm #729643
GrahamH
ParticipantWhereas I’d agree with your frustrated sentiments on a broader level PDLL – in the case of O’Connell Street DCC have been very astute and forward-thinking in planning underground service provision during the IAP works.
Indeed this is what is making so much of the project take so long: the roadways are being gouged downwards to a depth of several feet to cater for the renewal of most if not all services. There are still cast-iron water mains down there believe it or not (as with much of the city) all of which, along with telecoms and gas, are being renewed with sturdy plastic equivalents which hopefully will last another 100 years with any luck.Regarding the pedestrian crossing, clearly TV3 News will have a piece on it this evening:
There is quite a lot of interest amongst the public at the crossing now, with people looking along the ‘kerbline’ etc.
This is the view presented to the individual when approaching from North Earl St – yoo can see how there is confusion:
Indeed even as I was standing there for about 30 seconds, no less than two women walked right out onto the roadway without even noticing and then jumped back in again!
The visibility from the other side is a little better given the bollards and the nature of the median, but still isn’t great:
From certain angles the different areas are simply invisible:
The difference with the Plaza is the marked increase in levels which makes the roadway stand out more, whereas at the crossing the pavement just flows right into it.
And just another pic of that pointless granite paving on the roads – sorry but it really bugs me! It’s just thrown down for the sake of it and erodes the otherwise strong lines of the paving scheme on the street – blandly ‘plazafying’ it.
Rip it up and lay down tarmac; the existing border of the pink granite and basalt(?) around the Plaza is more than adequate a ‘buffer’ between the two.
-
September 21, 2005 at 9:28 pm #729644
Anonymous
InactiveI entirely disagree with this ripping up; I like the way the plaza is laid out as it is refreshingly different and it reacts very well with the other materials used. I would suggest that there have been many more accidents at the College Green junction particularly at the blind spot at the Bank of Ireland and that all of the accidents here are ultimately down to driver/pedestrian/cyclist behaviour. What is required in my opinion is that further traffic reduction is carried out on O’Connell St once the Upper section is completed; in particular proper enforcement at the Parnell St northern access point. Signage should be errected at O’Connell Bridge to advise motorists to turn onto Eden Quay to Access N1 N2 N3 and the Airport. Only one lane of traffic should be encouraged onto O’Connell St and there should not be one bustop South of the GPO.
-
September 22, 2005 at 12:28 am #729645
ctesiphon
ParticipantTP-
You seem to think that “driver/pedestrian/cyclist behaviour” is independent of environmental stimuli? Surely behaviour is a result of cues in the environment? What has been said above is that pedestrians have been misled by a combination of confusing ground treatment and visual distraction (in the form of the Spire)- a theory I would fully endorse.
What is it about College Green / BoI that has caused the accidents, if it’s not “driver/pedestrian/cyclist behaviour” you cite in the case of O’Connell St? I can’t place the blind spot you mention. In fact, can a curved building have one? 😉
I’d think that, if anything, the behaviour:environment ratio would be leaning more towards the behaviour in College Green than in OCS, i.e. it’s less the ‘fault’ of the designed environment.Graham-
Instructive pictures indeed. I’m usually paying too much attention to the traffic and trying to stay on my mount to notice such effects as that perceived from North Earl Street. And what about those discreetly placed service hatches? Such subtlety.
But what are the chances of DCC admitting their error? Or risking further alienating the public with more works? -
September 22, 2005 at 1:21 am #729646
GrahamH
ParticipantOne thing I would just want to say is that I hope any of the images don’t come across as jumping on the reactionary ‘outrage’ bandwagon. Having used the North Earl St junction most mornings since it was laid, it was instantly notable how vague the paving parameters were and potential for danger.
It must be said that when standing on the median side, individuals are much more aware of the roadways by definition of having had to cross a carriageway on one side of the street to get onto the median in the first place; hence these pedestrians are much more cognisant of the traffic lanes. Saying that, there is still room for improvement by redefining the roadway.
For some reason approaching from Henry St seems to be less of a problem than from Nth Earl St as people do tend to stop here – yet to figure out exactly why. It could be the huge volume of people at this GPO corner that makes pedestrians more aware of the crossing.Perhaps the use of the term ‘ripping up’ was unwise earlier – essentially all the job would involve is the lifting of a small amount of granite cobbles and their replacement with simple tarmac, in line with the rest of the roadways.
It seems to me one of the main reasons this granite was laid down was to cover up the fact of just how narrow the median is around the Spire – so small infact that the Spire base fills the entire width of the median, even forcing the bollards beyond where is desirable. Having same granite paving on the roadway conceals just how narrow the space really is…
Not sure what could’ve been done about this though.On the related issue of buses, I have never seen a more ridiculous scene in all my life as I saw at 9.30 this morning on O’Connell St. No less than at least 25 buses were inching along in a slow-moving procession down one side of the street alone! – the eastern southbound carriageway. ONE side of the street! Crossing over from the bridge outside the Irish Nationwide there you could see them stretching far into the distance the whole way along the thoroughfare, all piling up at various traffic lights. It was unreal!
The vast majority of course being Dublin Bus, with about 4-5 private operators, all forming a two-storey broken yellow and blue wall between us and the other side of the street. It really has got beyond a joke.Also had the amusement yesterday of seeing this driver pull out outside Eason’s only to rip his mirror off on the parked bus in front – much to the delight of passers-by 😀
The driver meekly scurried out, picked it up and chucked it back into the bus and continued on 🙂
-
September 22, 2005 at 1:44 am #729647
Anonymous
Inactive@ctesiphon wrote:
TP-
pedestrians have been misled by a combination of confusing ground treatment and visual distractionCould you explain this in english please?
-
September 22, 2005 at 1:22 pm #729648
ctesiphon
ParticipantSure thing, TP.
The ‘confusing ground treatment’ is the granite paving that runs across the carriageway (as shown in Graham’s pictures, above, particularly his last one of 20th Sept), giving people coming from North Earl Street the impression that they have right of way, which as we have established is not the case.
The ‘visual distraction’ is the Spire itself, as I said in my original post. This was a reference to an earlier post which mentioned that The Spire was designed to draw the eye of the approaching viewer upwards as they got nearer- the original words coming from Ian Ritchie himself, I believe.
This combination has probably contributed a considerable measure of confusion to much of the pedestrian activity in the vicinity of the Spire. -
September 22, 2005 at 2:06 pm #729649
Anonymous
InactiveWith all due respect the provision of traffic lights at this location should be sufficent given the amount of pedestrian space; if people behave like lemmings there are consequences.
-
September 22, 2005 at 5:58 pm #729650
GrahamH
ParticipantJust as the lemming theory is a myth, I think the notion that traffic lights are sufficent in this case is equally so.
Even if a minority of people walk about with their heads in the clouds, it doesn’t mean they must be ignored – they have to be catered for. Yes you do have to draw a line somewhere and this line is reflected in the Plaza I think; there is a sufficient demarcation at work here to cater for all but the most oblivious.
By contrast, the busy nature of the crossing, and all the ‘distractions’ about requires a more careful treatment around the Spire.Even if you’re well used to the crossing it is still difficult to know where to stand at the crossing – usually you have a kerbline making it easier to judge just how close vehicles and bus wing mirrors are passing by. It is much more vague at this crossing.
-
September 22, 2005 at 6:06 pm #729651
jimg
ParticipantA simpler solution might be to impose a 15 or 20km/h speed limit for vehicles through the plaza bit. I know it wouldn’t stop all vehicle/pedestrian “interactions” but it would make the area far safer. It would also make the area far more pleasant – even while standing on a kerb, it isn’t particularly nice having vehicles go by in close proximity at 50km/h. It’s only a short stretch so it shouldn’t affect journey times for vehicles at all given the bottlenecks elsewhere.
-
September 22, 2005 at 6:08 pm #729652
Anonymous
InactiveIf society catered for the head in the clouds division all the time nothing would get done; there are serious issues relating to O’Connell St but this certainly isn’t one of them. In no other European City have I seen such brazeness on the part of pedestrians; they (myself included) rarely cross at designated junctions and fail to observe traffic signals. One can only expect the system to deal with compliance, a fair analogy I feel would be with apartment balconies; if someone were to jump should we cover all our balconies over for reasons of safety?
-
September 22, 2005 at 6:24 pm #729653
GrahamH
ParticipantYou think that’s fair analogy?! – deliberately jumping over a balcony railing?
Still it raises an important point, those that deliberatly choose to break the lights, and those that just don’t realise there’s a crossing.
I could not agree more about the pedestrian indiscipline in Dublin, and especially at this crossing. It is astounding the level of breaches of the lights here in even the most dodgy of circumstances – people are so stupid it beggars belief at times.
Saying that, on the Henry St side it is more than just a little tempting to break the lights when the whole Plaza and beyond is clearly empty – in such a case I must also admit to having broken the lights on occasion…But a distinction must be made between those who deliberately choose to ignore the signals and those (usually old(er)people) who just don’t see them.
The adoption of a lower speed limit is a good idea, though ought to be a given in any case in such a pedestrian-dominated environment.
Wasn’t there something published this week about local authorities adopting a standard low urban speed limit? -
September 22, 2005 at 6:34 pm #729654
Anonymous
InactivePossibly a solution could be a really annoying audio message or even crossing gaurds for a limited period of time. The problem here is not the materials used it is a combination of excessive traffic volumes over and above the design spec for the plaza and as stated above ‘head in the clouds type behaviour’ I’d also say that most people going off balconies are doing so accidentally through horse play or drunkeness.
-
September 23, 2005 at 1:25 am #729655
GrahamH
ParticipantThere is a paving material problem, and if anything there is far less traffic here than at other junctions in the city so this really is not the issue – rather it is a vague paving scheme coupled with a surrounding pedestrianised environment that lulls the pedestrian into a false sense of security. It’s fine to have such an environment provided where pedestrians and road traffic come head to head the boundaries are clearly defined.
It’ll be interesting to see if anything comes of the incident either way…
Just on another matter, there’s a great new book just out by Jim Keenan called ‘Dublin Cinemas’, and features many of the city’s urban and suburban cineamas photographically, with complementary text on the opposing page.
Naturally of particular interest are the O’Connell Street cinemas 🙂 of the 1920s and 30s.There’s a wonderful image of the Savoy just after completion which shows the orginal elegant canopy in all its glory. It was a lovely slender piece of work – flat, with ridged detailing running along the edge, somewhat reminicent of the Arnotts canopy with possibly bronze used as the cladding material, matching the windows upstairs.
Having seen the canopy in Hodges Figgis and then the current-day ‘refurbished’ silver box 15 minutes later, it’d make you want to cry 🙁
I’d never seen the original canopy before, and it really was just so elegant – it hangs with the upper facade perfectly.The original Portland stone piers on the ground floor are also evident (these are to go back in soon I think) and there’s great big roundy arc lamps illuminating the upper facade 🙂
It really is most surprising in the light of the recent lavish and respectful refusbishment of the interior that the horribly flash and clunky silver box was deemed appropriate for the exterior, especially given the apparent high standards of the same management.
There is perhaps a glimmer of hope that the silver cladding was a temporay measure to get the cinema through its anniversary year, before the exterior being tackled… -
September 23, 2005 at 2:06 am #729656
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
– rather it is a vague paving scheme
Substitute the word Vague for subtle and you are getting somewhere.
-
September 23, 2005 at 10:13 am #729657
Anonymous
InactiveThomond Park wrote:In no other European City have I seen such brazeness on the part of pedestrians]This is a two-way street, so to speak. Irish pedestrians are definitely a law unto themselves. This, however, should not be about one particular crossing in O’Connell Street or about one street in Ireland. It is an educational and infrastructural issue. The number of pedestrian crossings in Ireland is pitiful so pedestrians are left with no alternative but to cross when and where they see an opportunity and that opportunity very often presents a risk to their lives.
Now if you want to live your life on one side of a road only and deal with all of the obvious existential issues that such an existence would bring with it, then yes the lack of pedestrian crossings is not a problem. If, however, like me and many others, you like to cross a street once in a blue moon, then you have a problem. The solution is simple. Here is the safe cross code:
1. provide a thousandfold more pedestrian crossings around the state (one or two at every junction and street corner would be about right) so that pedestrians have a viable alternative to death;
2. educate pedestrians on how to use them;
3. educate motorists how to use and respect them;
4. penalise pedestrians that don’t use them;
5. heavily penalise motorists that don’t respect them.After a few years of doing this, the crossing in O’Connell Street will not be a problem.
I wonder how people manage to get by in countries that are snow bound for 4 months a year and they cannot see any surface at all, whether it be vague, subtle, granite, or tarmac.
-
September 23, 2005 at 12:50 pm #729658
ctesiphon
ParticipantMost countries that are snow-bound for 4 months of the year have developed means to deal with this fact. If Ireland was snow-bound it might be a different story, though…
In New York, for example, it is the responsibility of building owners to maintain the pavement outside their buildings- I believe if someone slipped on the pavement the fault lay with the owner for insurance purposes. The first sight that used to greet me on leaving my building on a snowy morning was our maintenance man dilligently shovelling snow into banks, so there was always a buffer between path and street, with gaps left in the banks at crossing points and junctions. If anything, it made walking safer as there were fewer places at which to cross the street and there was that buffer between people and traffic.I think you could double or treble the lights at this O’Connell Street junction and still not solve the problem- it is so much more than just that. As I said above, it is the designed environment that confuses the users, rather than simply users choosing to ignore the green man.
If society catered for the head in the clouds division all the time nothing would get done
There is a counter argument to this, which is if society didn’t listen to dreamers then no progress would ever be made (and O’Connell Street would never have changed, women would never have got the vote, the world would still be flat, &c. &c.). 🙂
-
September 23, 2005 at 1:32 pm #729659
Anonymous
Inactive@ctesiphon wrote:
I think you could double or treble the lights at this O’Connell Street junction and still not solve the problem- it is so much more than just that. As I said above, it is the designed environment that confuses the users, rather than simply users choosing to ignore the green man.
You mean people who deliberately ignore traffic lights and then choose to use lame duck excuses to extract large amounts of insurance compensation. We all owe a duty of care to other users of the urban environment, by all means cross the road away from traffic lights or even when the light is red, but do so in a way that you can justify if it goes pear shaped. ‘Your honour I got distracted by the unique symmetary of the spire’ will not wash and to argue it will is extremely niave.
@ctesiphon wrote:
There is a counter argument to this, which is if society didn’t listen to dreamers then no progress would ever be made (and O’Connell Street would never have changed, women would never have got the vote, the world would still be flat, &c. &c.). 🙂
Never make the mistake of confusing poor concentration or downright ‘mad out of it’ with the level of vision and discipline required to secure the acheivements you have listed above.
-
September 23, 2005 at 5:04 pm #729660
ctesiphon
ParticipantYou wouldn’t be trying to patronise me there by any chance, TP, would you?
When I write something in a post it is carefully considered, so I resent being told what it is that I mean. For the record- No, I don’t mean “people who deliberately ignore traffic lights and then choose to use lame duck excuses”, I mean exactly what I said originally (see above)- I mean that features of the environment in O’Connell Street have created cicumstances whereby people who would normally not walk out in front of a moving bus do so because those environmental features not only are not as legible and unambiguous as they should be, they also cause much of the behavioural confusion by virtue of their design, i.e. they aren’t just failing in their task of assisting law abiding citizens to adhere to the rules of the road, they are in fact actively encouraging people to engage (subconsciously) in dangerous behaviour that other designs would not. Or, put yet another way, some people choose to jaywalk, some people have jaywalking thrust upon them. That is what I mean.
Re. your second point- I was being mildly facetious in my original post about dreamers, but this arose as a result of your use of the phrase “the head in the clouds division”. This phrase, in my experience, is normally reserved for society’s dreamers, and I do firmly believe that without dreamers, by which I mean people who look at the world and see it not as it is but as it might be, our society would long ago have stagnated. I don’t deny that the balance is more towards perspiration than inspiration, but without the initial spark the perspiration is worth far less than it otherwise would be.
To take your original point seriously, I still disagree. Society must take into consideration the “the head in the clouds division”, if by this you mean those who have been distracted by the environment. Had you said that society should not take into consideration those who wilfully ignore the rules or environmental cues with which they are familiar, then I would be in agreement with you. It is not, nor will it ever be, possible to legislate for every eejit me feiner who, say, knowingly dices with vehicular traffic when it has right of way.I don’t know whether the women last week deliberately and knowingly crossed while the traffic had right of way, but I do know that many others have done it accidentally.
Incidentally, sad to report that the badly injured woman passed away last night as a result of this incident.
-
September 23, 2005 at 5:28 pm #729661
Anonymous
InactiveIt was a highly unfortunate accident and the fact that her bag was stolen as she lay there fatally injured is one of the most obscene incidents I can ever recall in this country. I am however not aware of how she came to be in the path of the bus but can only speculate that she may have lost her balance or been jostled into the accident.
I am not trying to patronise you; this is a discussion forum there is no patrimoney for distribution in this place. I am however perplexed by your assertions that urban designers need to be dictated to by poor concentration and willful recklessness. Designers need to work within the accepted norms of risk modelling; what you are suggesting is truely revolutionary and in my opinion over considered. Over analysis can be more dangerous than under analysis in some cases; In this particular situation O’Connell St could change from having a very distinctive paving scheme to an auld dollop of tarmac arrangement. For the simple reason the paving is protected and maintained; once an asphalt/tarmac surface was laid there the street would become a free for all patchwork quilt as designed by our utility companies.
-
September 23, 2005 at 7:33 pm #729662
ctesiphon
ParticipantI’ll say it again- it’s one thing to have a neutral effect on behaviour, quite another to create the conditions for subconscious self-endangerment. The designers made a mistake. It’s not a case of dictating to them, it’s a case of them observing some basic environmental-psychological facts.
There’s no reason to presume that a new paving scheme would be any less well cared for than you think the current one will be. -
September 23, 2005 at 7:46 pm #729663
Anonymous
InactiveI think I have heard it all now,
The designers created an attractive environment at the Northsides most important landmark junction and they got it wrong; the definition for negligent endangerment is the pedestrian lighting arrangement outside the Flowing Tide Bar on Lower Abbey Street where a green man appears and leads you directly into the path of the ultra silent Luas system which is directed to go about 10 seconds after you are. The only deviation required to your end is one metre beyond the steel barrier in the direction of the Abbey.
To presume infers to have experience or knowledge of comparable cases; on that basis there is every reason to suggest a patchwork quilt of utility degradations would emerge in a matter of months rather than years. The different nature of these materials makes it much easier to deny consent in this strategically important area.
-
September 23, 2005 at 11:06 pm #729664
Alek Smart
Participant” it is a combination of excessive traffic volumes over and above the design spec for the plaza “
This sentence IMO cuts directly to the chase in relation to O Connell St and many other Irish Grande Projets.
How,why and by whom were these Traffic Volumes allowed to remain at and indeed exceed the levels which had been used during the Planning and Design phase of O Connell St`s rejuvination process.
For example Dublin Bus vehicle movements along the street in addition to the elongated dwell time at stops surely must have merited some form of professional consideration before being nodded through ?
Once again it is the simplest questions which appear to baffle our planning and design elite.
Questions such as why have Airport Bus/Coach services picking up at the narrowest point of the entire street when most Bus Drivers can attest to the extreme levels of delay which exists with Airport Bound foreign commuters having to burrow for Fares and Ask various questions of the driver.
Most Non-Professionals could forsee delays at such points and make alternative arrangements….not so DCC or indeed Dublin Bus.
The Official line appears to be that O Connell St must present a “Business as Usual” image to the world and no amount of increased risk will deter DCC from its chosen strategy. -
September 24, 2005 at 3:02 am #729665
GrahamH
ParticipantI’d agree about the unacceptable level of buses on the street, and their use of it in potentially dangerous circumstances, but the level of traffic on the street does not interfere with pedestrian crossings – if there’s 2 buses or 20 buses on a lane they still have to stop in a safe fashion at crossings.
A lot of good points have been made – I think what stands out is TP’s noting of spatial standards set by designers and planners; these are used in all newly-planned crossings. To suggest that we change this model to cater for absolutely everyone is something that just cannot be done.
On O’Connell St there is perhaps an exception to this rule as ctesiphon notes, in that one is to an extent encouraged to break the rules, even if subconsciously. If there’s echoing empty space surrounding the crossing, i.e. an empty Plaza or roadway stretching into the distance, people will cross, especially if the roadway paving is the same as that you’re standing on, and with no height differential. The nature of the new O’Cll St layout whereby traffic gets held up at certain sets of lights resulting in large expanses roadway lying idle does encourage people to break the lights. I’m not sure that this is a bad thing – if there is no traffic in a largely pedestrianised area, is it not acceptable to do this?
Saying that, the problem arises when traffic gets closer and people continue to hurry or run across; as mentioned before it is this previous casual crossing of others that encourages people later on to put themselves in danger. But again you have to ask, it people cannot exercise good judgement when they see traffic approaching, then whatever danger ensues is entirely of their own makingBut it is those who do not notice the crossing that are at greatest, and if possible to say, most ‘legitimate’ risk. There is a problem in this respect. I remember in Dundalk in the early 90s a horribly busy crazy-paving scheme was laid out in front of the Court House, made up of roadways, islands, and pedestrian crossings, but all made up of different coloured paving bricks.
Eventually it was simplified with the roadway being laid out in tarmac again, likely due to a great many pedestrian complaints – people simply didn’t know if they were on the road or on pavement.The same goes for the Spire crossing, even if things are more clearly defined with the many traffic signals – the crossing is still ambiguous. I fully agree about people being complacent and not looking at where they’re going – I can’t get over how so many people don’t realise there’s a crossing, but you just have to work with the fact that many people just aren’t observant!
Even from my own perspective and knowing the crossing very well, I’d still like to see the kerbline defined more – it’s always difficult to know where to stand to wait.As for a quality paving ‘scheme’ being replaced with ‘cheap’ tarmac, I suggest to you TP that you don’t know this crossing very well. The granite cobbles on the roadway here have nothing at all to do with the beautifully patterned Plaza scheme, nor do they fit into any greater scheme in the street at large. Their removal would have little impact in this area.
Furthermore, the laying of tarmac would do the exact opposite of what you suggest about a ‘patchwork’ effect – rather the crisp black roadway would flow effortlessly from the Upper Street right up the the Plaza – no patches.
And if anything it would improve the current look of acres of bland granite swamping the area around the Spire; elsewhere on the street it is broken with attractive accent tones: at the crossing there is nothing. It is dull, it is boring, it blandly plazafies the area, and above all it is unsafe.Perhaps a contributory factor is that Dublin and Ireland at large is simply not used to this type of scheme – we’ve all grown up with concrete kerbstones and different cloured roadways. Yes we can deviate from this model, but not at the expense of those who are put in danger with the alternative.
-
September 24, 2005 at 3:57 am #729666
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
But it is those who do not notice the crossing that are at greatest, and if possible to say, most ‘legitimate’ risk. There is a problem in this respect. I remember in Dundalk in the early 90s a horribly busy crazy-paving scheme was laid out in front of the Court House, made up of roadways, islands, and pedestrian crossings, but all made up of different coloured paving bricks.
I was in Dundalk for rag week in 1992 as guest after the event at the Imperial Hotel was shut down by the local constablery/Siochalinies and re-opened when they supplied ‘an acceptable dj’ we all had our few pints went home or to our borrowed sofa in my case. One of the girls from that house who I didn’t know, got confused by that paving scheme, sat down in an open fashion on the road and had her legs driven over by a car. It was quite horrific and she suffered very serious injuries; the drunk driver did time for it.
-
September 24, 2005 at 4:43 am #729667
GrahamH
ParticipantHow horrible. I’d say there were quite a few similar incidents with that paving scheme.
And how sad about the O’Connell St woman dying – it is always so sickeningly sad to hear of pedestrians being killed, regardless of who was at fault. The notion that you’re innocently going about your business one moment and are seriously injured or even stone dead the next is too depessing for words.
How her companion on the day, her family and the bus driver must feel doesn’t bear thinking about.
I see P45 notes she and the lady with her walked out onto the road as part of a large group of people – typical not just of this crossing, but indeed all crossings in Dublin city centre.
The Gardaà had a small pedestrian safety campaign on O’Connell Bridge about two years ago, handing out leaflets.
An attempt at least, but a much broader addressing of pedestrian culture in Ireland is needed. One need only go 40 miles across the Irish Sea to note the stark difference in attitudes to road safety. -
September 25, 2005 at 7:52 pm #729668
Anonymous
InactiveI saw an excellent campaign earlier this year where mime artists used paddles to act in tandem with the traffic lights; it was pure street theatre and taken as educational humour.
On the subject of street theatre I note that the number of events held on the plaza appears to be dramatically lower than last year which can only be described as dissapointing.
-
September 26, 2005 at 11:47 pm #729669
GrahamH
ParticipantI take it you don’t include the Shinners’ commandeering of the space yesterday as an event? 🙂
Heheh – the GPO didn’t quite provide the political backdrop desired:
Poor old Fidelity is looking lost up there:
…whilst Mercury is poncing about as usual 🙂
So clearly the statues are due a bit of treatment too given the height of the scaffolding.
It seems the south wing of the building won’t be tackled for a while yet. -
September 27, 2005 at 2:23 am #729670
Alek Smart
ParticipantAs Jemmy Brown once sung……”Papa`s got a brand new Bag”……………….
Good man Graham,you quite obviously waited to catch the essential nous of the entire GPO plazafication scheme…Full marks for gettin the 3 Motorcycles in ALONG with the relevant regulatory signage….Top-ho old boy as they were chanting on Saturday last 🙂 -
September 27, 2005 at 12:27 pm #729671
jimg
ParticipantWalking by the GPO over the weekend i was struck by how horrible it looks while under refurbishment. I guess the messageboard can pat itself on the back for banishing that PHILISTINE (I can’t remember his name) who suggested using high quality visually pleasing shrouding around buildings under refurbishment using the advertising revenue to pay for the conservation work. I mean, nasty plywood and flapping cheap plastic is obviously far better than anything allowing anything COMMERCIAL to taint our fair city, even if it did look good. Those idiot Europeans who went for the guys business model must be such gready capitalist tasteless pigs. 😉
-
September 28, 2005 at 3:27 pm #729672
Anonymous
InactiveQuote ” Those idiot Europeans who went for the guys business model must be such gready capitalist tasteless pigs. “unquote
Many years ago when I was an aspiring member of the young capitalist class I tried to rent the gasometer from the Alliance and Consumers Dublin Gas Co , use it as a hoarding and paint it to represent a pint of Guinness. The idea – particularly the changing height of the head – appealed to Guinness (who were prepared to pay good money) but I got totally bogged down in the bureaucracy of D Gas and left for sunnier economic climes.
-
September 28, 2005 at 6:23 pm #729673
Anonymous
InactiveTrying anything new in this city can be frustrating at times; I do however feel that Mr Banner should have used the development plan submission as his avenue as opposed to lobbying.
-
September 28, 2005 at 9:06 pm #729674
ctesiphon
ParticipantThe choice isn’t between corporate-sponsored banners and tatty clingfilm-and-sellotape. It is possible to erect shrouding that doesn’t look tatty but that equally doesn’t scream ‘you need this cologne’. Didn’t anybody see the pope’s funeral on tv? One of the buildings facing onto St Peter’s Piazza was fully shrouded with a simple but decent replica of the building it was shrouding. Probably somethng to do with a city council that values the environment of which it is the guardian and, more importantly, one that is resourced sufficiently to carry out its tasks.
And anyway, I kinda like the current shrouding- sort of a Christo feel to it.
And there’s no shame in doing work to a building and thus using standard shrouding.I think it’s unfair to say we ran our shrouding friend out of town- he seemed to leave of his own accord. Also, I got the distinct impression he was touting for business on these threads- his lack of input into non-shrouding related threads gave me this notion. You might say no harm in that, but it does tend to colour one’s impressions of a person’s opinions. And I’d debate the fact that his shrouds were:
@jimg wrote:visually pleasing
Eyecatching certainly, but Calvin Klein ads make me feel a bit queasy. All that wholesomeness…
-
September 28, 2005 at 10:05 pm #729675
Anonymous
InactiveI agree with the broad thrust of what you are saying; it would be possible to get a structure and set of rules for shrouding that is mildly positive at best and negative at worst.
However what I found distasteful was the piecemeal unsolicited lobbying behind the manouver; if it went in at development plan time it would have received the attention of all the policy makers in the field who would have had the opportunity to seek modifications to make it operate in a way that was positive for the City.
I am deeply suspicous of lobbyists as they will put a spin on what they have heard from others which serves only to blur the entire process; in contrast the development plan route offers a very transparent and democratic route for all.
-
September 28, 2005 at 10:33 pm #729676
Morlan
ParticipantHere’s an example of shrouding on a historical building under refurbishment. Unfortunately, I didn’t get a shot of the whole building, but it is shrouded from tip to toe with a picture of the facade.
(Cathederal Barcelona)
-
September 28, 2005 at 11:20 pm #729677
ctesiphon
ParticipantShroud? What shroud? I can’t see a thing. 😉
-
September 29, 2005 at 12:53 am #729678
GrahamH
ParticipantI agree about the current shrouding of the GPO – it has a fantastic stark quality that just commands attention.
And for those of us who know it, we wonder what the finished product is going to look like, while those who don’t – tourists and the like – just wonder what it is that’s underneath 🙂
It’s a great talking point at the minute.Just a quick shot of the Upper St, quite a bit to go yet:
Had to laugh at this – guess the statue 🙂
-
September 29, 2005 at 10:56 am #729679
GregF
Participantermmm ……..Father Matthew?………….only kiddding!
-
September 29, 2005 at 2:00 pm #729680
johnfp
ParticipantGraham,
Great photo of the upper section. Have the stone facades of the bulidings on the left of your photo been cleaned recently as they look quite brilliant. -
September 30, 2005 at 12:40 am #729681
Anonymous
InactiveCtesiphon wrote “St Peter’s Piazza was fully shrouded with a simple but decent replica of the building it was shrouding.”
Not a very modern idea, this had to be done to the Arc de Triomph in Paris for Napoleon’s big entry; in his case the builders were far behind schedule (just shows things have not changed much in 200 years). To improve the perspective from the Champs Elysees / Concorde they also lowered the height of the mound on which the Arc was built; the spoil was dumped further down and the hillock later built upon – rue Balzac.
-
September 30, 2005 at 12:50 am #729682
Alek Smart
ParticipantThe interesting aspect in Graham`s Pic is the angle of the Traffic Signal array at the Cathal Brugha St/O Connell St junction.
Both of the signal poles have now been turned (by the wind ?) so that the Straight-Ahead green arrow beams its come-on over towards The Royal Dub.
This ensures that Drivers going straight ahead simply sit at what they think is a red signal,which is in fact the Red for Traffic Turning Into CB St.
It only a relatively minor delay BUT it contributes to a knock-back which impacts on the Parnell St North-South flow.
Rather more to the point it underlines once again the TOTAL lack of interest in the small items which go to make up any cohesive and efficient Traffic Management plan.
Rather more serious,but on the same topic,is the latest example of Dublin City Councils lack of interest and understanding of what the requirements of SAFE Traffic Management are.
The location is Leeson St between Pembroke St and Stephens Green where for the past week some serious Night-Time Road Planing and resurfacing has been going on.
In spite of the major nature of the work with much heavy machine movement and associated bits of shrapnel flying around there was NO attempt to have any Professional supervision or Traffic Control on site.(At a location such as this I`m afraid the labourers do NOT suffice)
Needless to Say Bus Atha Cliath similarly ignored the reality of its customers having to race across trenches and fissures as well as it`s own drivers being presented with a conspicuously unsafe environment to work in.
However today`s (Thurs) performance really held the City Council and the Gardai up for the disinterested bunch of “Observers” that they actually are.
Having completed the overnight resurfacing work the Contractors headed off to their warm beds leaving behind a series of pristine newly tarmacadam`d stretches of Leeson St.
The chorus of “Lovely Stuff” could be heard rising from this site……However,this being The Free State nobody appeared to notice or to be concerned at the fact that there were now NO road markings at all on the CONTRA-FLOW BUS LANE (Outbound) side of the street.
This lack of ANY statutory markings led to a traffic situation easy the equal of anything that downtown Tirana or Freetown could manage.
Unfamiliar drivers coming from Pembroke St to turn right into Leeson St simply turned sharp into what they presumed to be a one-way system,keeping over to their right to allow for the converging traffic coming from their left.
This seemingly sensible manouvere now left them sitting smack bang in the centre of the outbound CONTRA-FLOW N11 QBC ….
It was danger in extremis and continued all day,with only the occassional message from Dublin Bus controllers sitting isolated in their control room`s to the effect that Caution Was required at this point….As Peter Cook was wont to say…..Stating the Bleedin Obvious !
The Gardai,as ever,were conspicious in their absence with my only sighting being of a Traffic Corps 4WD officer lecturing a young female woman Moped owner on her riding skills before hi-tailing it off towards Wexford….
Is it that Dublin City Council and the Gardai are unaware of the dangers of a major arterial road having NO Roadmarkings ?
Do these bodies reckon that it is a bit of craic for foreign or unfamiliar motorists to be placed in positions of great danger ?
Did any member of the Garda Traffic Corps or DCC`s Burgeoning Roads and Traffic management team bother to come down and observe the crazy situation ?
It would appear that there is no monitoring of any of the work being carried out.
The official line seems to be “Lets wait an see if somethin happens-if it does,we`ll have an enquiry and if it does`nt we`ve saved money to spend on more fantastic projects”
it`s becoming a Mantra of mine but yet again I have to repeat ……
IF The City Councils SENIOR Management refuse to address the blatant lack of safety related approach to major on-street works then they should resign(or be sacked) in favour of somebopdy who will.
The same applies to the Senior Officers of the Dublin Metropolitan Area of the Gardai.
Ah well….Up until 1530 today (Thurs) there are still NO road markings at one of the City`s Busiest Pedestrian crossings on College Green….How Many months now Graham….????
It really is looking as if there will be no change in Official Attitude until The City Manager himself and/or his deputy are held to account following some Road Traffic Accident at one of the ever increasing locations where this Blind-Eye policy is in effect..
Perhaps if a group of concerned citizens were to buy some paint ,a few brushes and a straight edge we could do it ourselves…….Then send them the bill….. 😎 -
September 30, 2005 at 2:30 pm #729683
Alek Smart
ParticipantWell Hells Bells and fair play to the power of the web……Overnight the Traffic Cone Fairy swooped on Leeson St and left a considerable legacy of her wares.
At least the Street is now in a safer state than it was immediately following the original work……
The BIG question is why if the location merits coning today was it not done as part of the original job………
A fatal accident can occur in a millisecond whereas DCC appear to be prepared to take a Paddy Power attitude to the entire question…. 🙁 -
September 30, 2005 at 2:36 pm #729684
ctesiphon
ParticipantKerryBog2 wrote:Not a very modern idea, this had to be done to the Arc de Triomph in Paris for Napoleon’s big entry]I’ll see your early 19th century Paris, and raise you an Inigo Jones temporary outdoor stage set in London (1620s)- scaffolding shrouded to look like classical architecture. 😉
What’s the time-lag (cooling and drying) between laying new tarmac and it being ready for painting?
-
September 30, 2005 at 10:20 pm #729685
Alek Smart
ParticipantWell Ctesiphon……Funnily enuf Kildare St must have had Extra-Quix Dry Macadam laid as within 48hrs it was well decorated with NEW sparkling double-yellow lines and Stop Markings at the Molesworth St junction,which apparently is one of the busiest and most strategically important intersections in the Country,although for the life o me I can`t think why….. 😮
Now all we have to do is get Dail Eireann to relocate to the OLD Parliament Building on College Green and I have no doubt The City Manager and his Deputy would be down there themselves in white overalls painting the required statutory markings….either that or they`d be sacked…!!! Could`nt have members of the house riskin life and limb trying to cross a busy unmarked junction now ….could we…?? 😉 -
October 1, 2005 at 7:17 pm #729686
Anonymous
InactiveIts funny that you menntion that Alek,
The Buswells traffic lights must be the most responsive traffic crossing in the city in total contrast to College Green which must be one of the most dangerous for pedestrians and insurance policies alike.
-
October 2, 2005 at 9:44 pm #729687
ctesiphon
ParticipantThis makes me wonder…
It is entirely possible that the only pedestrian crossing our elected representatives ever use is this Kildare Street one, giving them the notion that all others in the city must work just as efficiently, thus drawing the conclusion that we commoners are a deluded bunch of eejits who complain about things that obviously have nothing wrong with them.
Yes, that might explain so much. -
October 2, 2005 at 9:53 pm #729688
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterI believe its a similar scenario at Westminster – once the division bells go, you only have so long to get in to vote so the pedestrian crossing are set to go immediately
-
October 2, 2005 at 9:57 pm #729689
Anonymous
Inactivei can’t wait until the street is finished. construction work has been going on here for far too long. i’ll be glad to get the street back.
-
October 3, 2005 at 11:39 am #729690
Anonymous
InactiveBut the critical difference between Westminister and Leinster House is that Westminister does not have a large illegal carpark
-
October 4, 2005 at 1:32 am #729691
GrahamH
ParticipantI’m glad others have noted the Leinster House lights – they never fail to raise a cynical eyebrow every time one uses them.
There is no question that these are sequenced in the fashion they are for no other reason other than they’re outside the seat of Government – heaven forbid a TD or Senator should have to wait more than 10 seconds to nip across the road to RTÉ’s offices on the corner there (which incidently has recently had delightful mirror glass installed in its sashes :rolleyes: ).
The CC fall on their knees round here in an effort to make a good impression – especially on Merrion St.The only other lights in the entire city that I know of to be as responsive or even more so than these are those outside the Carmelite Church on Aungier St; they always change instantly to facilitate the older people here – and hence everyone else 🙂
-
October 4, 2005 at 3:02 pm #729692
Richards
ParticipantIn fairness to DCC, the reason the traffic lights are so ‘Pedestrian Frendly’ is due to the fact that this facilates traffic from St Stephens Green thru to Merrion Row. Since the Luas arrived all this thru traffic must make its way down Dawson st, turn right on to Molesworth St and turn right again on to Kildare st. The traffic lights facilate the larger volumes of traffic on Molesworth st wishing to turn right on to Kildare st.
-
October 4, 2005 at 3:47 pm #729693
kefu
ParticipantAnd also in fairness to DCC, the relative volume of traffic from Nassau Street up Kildare Street is miniscule even at busy times, which means they can easily afford to have an automatically changing pedestrian light.
I have no doubt the Council would love to have something similar in place on the Quays and on College Green but the volumes of traffic are so large that those on foot will have to wait.
There are many similarly responsive pedestrian lights around the suburbs as well, especially near schools.
As has been highlighted many times before, there are also pedestrian light buttons, which are there purely for placebo effect and have no function whatsoever. -
October 4, 2005 at 5:54 pm #729694
-
October 4, 2005 at 11:58 pm #729695
-
October 5, 2005 at 1:26 am #729696
GrahamH
ParticipantSome people take that one step too far though – we’ve all come across the eh ‘irritable’ ones who slam the button in about 20 times thinking it’ll change the lights faster.
In fact, the amount of people who do this is quite bizarre…To move back north of the Liffey again :), a detail that always seems to fascinate people on buildings is a date inscription, whether it be in masonry, timber, terracotta, Coade stone, metal or whatever.
Why there was a particular fashion for this practice in the early 20th century I’m not sure – does anyone know? Was it the dawn of the new century that caused people to think more about space and time? Was it the resurgence in classicism that encouraged people to almost point out that ‘this time round’ the neoclassical architecture was of the 20th century and not the 18th, or 14th or whatever?
There’s lots and lots of examples of completion dates adorning facades around Dublin, especially from 1910-1930. O’Connell St is particularly rich of course : )
Saying that, one may be surprised at how few there are given the level of rebuilding that took place, and a (perhaps imaginary?) public perception of there being lots of such interesting features on the street given how historic a place it is.Anyway, there’s six dates in total on the street, with a seventh not relevant to the practice of ‘completion dating’ as it were. Some we’ve seen before…
First up, and perhaps most famous of all is Eason’s 1919 date, beautifully executed on a bronze plaque with copper plated? lettering. A lovely piece:
Presumably this is original, certainly the limestone arch is. I’ve been searching about for an older image of the plaque but to no avail.
Directly across the road and Unity Building (Sony Centre) has a most obscure date, one you’d barely even notice – 1918 AD and the name of the building executed in crisp limestone, along with some intricate elegant carvings:
Probably the first building to be reconstructed following 1916, it was a remarkably fast build. And by no means a rushed job either, it being one of the finest buildings on the street.
The crude floodlight is unfortunate, though at least its weathering has blended it in!A little further up on the same side, and another date you’d pass by in a second – a quite faint 1920 AD inscription on a raised circular granite plaque above Ann Summers. Some fine detailing here:
Across the road and further up on Upper O’Cll St is the old Revenue? building next to the Garda Station. Up at the very top on a sharp angular pediment is yet another date. The least noticeable of all on the street, it’s really only visible to those who are crawling the thoroughfare with a toothcomb 😮 *whistles looking the other way*
1925 AD, this building was built following the 1922 destruction, along with its two other neighbours (have some more detail on these buildings soon).
Almost across the road, the chunky corner building featured previously has its date emblazoned across the upper façade along with fancy text – how very pompous : )
Similar to the McDonald’s Building on Grafton St, the owners were clearly at pains to point out how established they were, despite the 1922 destruction.
And finally, zipping way down to the bottom again, another highly elaborate carving that is very prominent yet at the same time is well hidden is the 1923 completion date of the splendid Ulster Bank:
It’s most unusual – almost gothic in character – executed in a flamboyant rococo/baroque style, which contrasts with the otherwise rigidly neoclassical architecture of the building.
As with all of the dates, there’s no wide shots going up to show this is on the building, as it’s more fun to find them for yourself : )
We all probably know most of them, but some are quite obscure.And just to prove the 1923 date is correct, here’s the domeless Bank just about to be topped out in November of 1922!
Also as an aside here’s a date on the corner of Hammam Buildings facing Cathedral St, commemorating Cathal Brugha:
-
October 5, 2005 at 2:44 pm #729697
kefu
ParticipantRegarding the as always terrific post by Graham, there was also a trend in the late 1980s and early 1990s for some of the terrible terrible apartment buildings on the quays to get a date stamp as well. It was almost like a final kick in the teeth for those of us forced to look at them.
-
October 6, 2005 at 4:48 pm #729698
Anonymous
InactiveOne must wonder if in the coffee houses of the 1920’s were schemes with a plaque comemorating the year of construction as lambasted as they are today?
-
October 6, 2005 at 9:46 pm #729699
ctesiphon
ParticipantCosgrave Bros have a tendency to put a date on most of their projects- I’ve even seen it on a fairly innocuous late 1980s scheme of sheltered cul-de-sac housing out in Monkstown. Not poor stuff, but just not all that pride-worthy (and a date does seem to imply an eye on posterity).
However, dates are a god-send to the inventory compiler! (Yes, NIAH town surveys back in the day were fully comprehensive, the logic being that: 1> it’s best to do it all in one visit rather than in stages; and 2> it’s up to future generations to judge what we produce today.)TP-
Do you see archiseek as the contemporary equivalent of 1920s coffee houses? 🙂 Now there’s a thought! -
October 7, 2005 at 12:46 am #729700
GrahamH
ParticipantWell there’s been no arguements that have spilt over onto the street yet – well not that I know of anyway 🙂
Yes there’s something very pretentious about sticking dates onto buildings, but it’s a practice that completely mellows with age.
I think it’s always acceptable on public buildings – from ceremonial State headquarters down to the local school, but private developments always seem that bit full of themselves in using the idea.
Particularly private houses, and especially those of ‘lesser’ shall we say merit, or developments like the Gardiner St boxes hinted at at by kefu.
I know of a red brick multi-gable house, PVC bells and whistles etc, that has a granite block erected high up on a gable with ‘1997’ carved into it – a significant moment in the development of mankind I’m sure :rolleyes:
You see these quite often in ‘executive’ housing estates, or one-off mega-piles.I wonder in the post 1916 and 1922 reconstructions of O’Connell St, Henry St and North Earl St were the builders conscious of how significant the Rising events would be held into the future, and that they weren’t just erecting a building or two but a ‘master plan’ that would be scrutinised in years to come? So they dated their buildings to make them stand out as being of the ‘rebuilding era’ of the early 20th century?
Yes dates must be very handy for the NIAH, esp school buildings etc. I find them so even just from a casual perspective such as the terraced housing around the Synge St area in Dublin: hmmm are they 1820s or later, or maye even a bit earlier… and then bing! a granite date block appears at the end of the terrace – 1832 – and you fool yourself: but of course it’s 1832, knew that all along, like I need a lump of stone to tell me – and then wander off in a huff 🙂
They’re also handy for setting a definite line down to which neighbouring buildings can be more accurately compared – even on O’Connell St this works quite well. -
October 8, 2005 at 2:21 pm #729701
Alek Smart
ParticipantWell at least we have White Lines on College Green….and double yellow one`s too.
I`m sure Graham will join me in a chant of UMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmm accompanied by the slow rythmic beating of a Goatskin Drum in thanks for this major advance in safety.
ALTHOUGH………..I wish I had taken some pics of the ORIGINAL markings as the new lines look VERY narrowly spaced with just about enough width for 3 Grenadier Guardsmen to stride across in…..
That is of course,assuming they want to cross legally and safely…….
And now it`s back to Graham in the studio………. -
October 8, 2005 at 6:50 pm #729702
GrahamH
ParticipantStop that nonsense!
Though yes I too noticed the new lines on College Green on my way out to Montrose this morning 🙂
And agreed, the crossing is ridiculously narrow – indeed when the lines were missing pedestrians splayed out along the entire kerb length of the Green such is the amount of people here, and yet the lines were just put back in in their original narrow format…Indeed most of the city centre has been relined and resurfaced in the past few weeks which is very welcome; Kildare St looking particularly resplendent in its new sporting stripes :), and not before time.
The GPO’s scaffolding is coming down now – the north wing is completely unveiled and the portico should be revealed by Monday, while the south wing is just being covered up now to be cleaned.
As expected there’s no major difference in the granite, though some interesting things have been revealed like how warm and rust coloured it is in places, and post-1916 inserted blocks being very apparent.Maybe it’s best not to post any wides of the building till it’s complete so here’s just a taster of the north wing :).
The portico should look fantastic when unveiled – the windows as above, newly painted an almost black shade of brown look exceptionally well.
-
October 9, 2005 at 1:38 am #729703
JPD
ParticipantThanks for the pic Graham I hope the rest looks as good.
-
October 9, 2005 at 4:03 am #729704
Morlan
ParticipantAt last, now I can eat my dinner off the GPO wall.
-
October 11, 2005 at 9:05 pm #729705
Anonymous
Inactivea few aerial pictures of the plaza attached …
Google Earth has updated its images of the city centre, appears to be from March / April of this year …
they’re pretty good to get an overall perspective on the plaza in relation to the GPO & the rest of the street.I think Graham suggested that the granite section adjoining the plaza, in line with princes street, was oversized & should be replaced with tar macadam … have to say i disagree Graham … was looking for a good aerial shot of the plaza for a while to set both sections of granite in context … what do you think ?
-
October 12, 2005 at 5:57 pm #729706
GrahamH
ParticipantGreat pictures – and to think you can even see those damn motorcycles from space :rolleyes: 😀
Still have to disagree about the granite Peter; even when viewed from above it still unnecessary even if more palatable that at street level. But it is street level that counts, not the view from space, a helicopter, traffic cameras or whatever – and at street level I think it dilutes the effect that the other elements like pavements, trees and median are trying to generate.
There is a certain logic alright in addressing the Spire side of the Plaza given the prominence of it (though it could more than survive without special treatment), but certainly not the southern side.CC workers were out today digging more holes in the Plaza paving – more bus stops or signs going in it would seem…
-
October 13, 2005 at 2:51 am #729707
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterFindlater House sold
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=302&si=1485953&issue_id=13123 -
October 13, 2005 at 6:03 pm #729708
GrahamH
ParticipantInteresting. Will they wait till 2011 when Eircom’s lease expires before revamping I wonder?
Whatever about the design, it is in poor condition too at this stage, especially the ground floor.
There are no signs of life whatever regarding Musgraves’ plans for a supermarket here – the ground floor has been dismally derelict for a long time now, maybe even running into a few years.
Is that mansard yoke what they call a ‘penthouse suite’ nowadays? :rolleyes:
-
October 13, 2005 at 9:49 pm #729709
Richards
ParticipantSince they got rid of the trees that building is far more prominant.
-
October 16, 2005 at 2:14 pm #729710
Anonymous
Inactive@Richards wrote:
Since they got rid of the trees that building is far more prominant.
All the buildings down there are much more prominant; one wonders if architectural awareness will increase as a result of so many buildings becoming more exposed in such a heavily used location?
-
October 17, 2005 at 11:35 pm #729711
GrahamH
ParticipantWell judging by the amount of people now standing at bus stops on the street hopefully so 😉
When you look at O’Rourke’s unified terrace of Upper O’Connell Street, it will come as no surprise that there was strong legislative clout behind it to get it to look as it does.
Similar to an Act that was introduced post-1916, the ‘Dublin Reconstruction (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1924′ makes for a fascinating read. In the days long before planning permissions this was quite an ambitious Act, introduced with the aim of giving Dublin Corporation powers to rebuild Upper O’Connell St after the Civil War (what is described as ‘recent disturbances’ :)) in a coherent fashion, essentially according to the City Architect’s own vision and taste.
It’s available in its entirety online on the Statute Book’s website , but a couple of key design extracts include:
“Where…the Corporation require to purchase land…for the purpose of widening, opening, enlarging, extending or otherwise improving streets in the City of Dublin in connection with the reconstruction of areas, streets, houses or buildings destroyed or damaged in the course of the recent disturbances, they may be authorised to purchase the land compulsorily by means of an order submitted to the Minister.â€
“If in the opinion of the Corporation and the Minister the site or sites of one or more buildings which were destroyed in the recent disturbances is or are, by reason of narrowness of frontage or inconvenient arrangement, incapable of being built upon so as to harmonise with the general scheme for the reconstruction of the area, the Corporation may be authorised to purchase such site or sites compulsorily…â€
Most importantly for the City Architect Horace O’Rourke, and what led to the palatial façades we have today:
“If it appears to the city architect, having regard to the nature and situation of the site of the proposed new building, or of the building proposed to be restored or altered, or the external design of any buildings erected or in the course of erection in the neighbourhood of that site, that the character of the proposed new building, restoration, or alteration is such as would be injurious to the amenity of the street which the front of the proposed new building or the building proposed to be restored or altered faces, whether on account of the proposed external design, the proposed line of frontage, or the materials proposed to be used in the external walls facing that street or in any portion of the building which will be visible from that street, he may require such reasonable alterations to be made as respects the design, line of frontage, and materials as he thinks proper, and may require the plans, sections and elevations to be amended accordingly.â€
Compensation to building owners was paid directly to them by the Minister for Finance with funds allocated by the Oireachtas via the ‘Damage to Property (Compensation) Act, 1923’. From what I can gather Dublin Corporation provided mortgages to some owners who wished to avail of one to reconstruct their buildings which was also sufficient to cover legal bills etc, and this was then paid back by the owner presumably using the State compensation funds that were perhaps issued upon completion?
It’s fascinating to note how the street was literally frozen in time by the authorities:
“No… building or house destroyed, nor any such building or house when rebuilt, shall be liable to be valued under the Irish Valuation Acts at a sum larger than the valuation in force on the first day of April, 1922, in any valuation coming into force before the thirty-first day of March, 1930.â€
“No building or house destroyed, nor the land on which the same stood, shall be assessed or liable to any local rate before the 31st day of March, 1926, except such rates as shall be imposed upon temporary buildings…â€
“In the case of any public-house, hotel, or other licensed premises in the City of Dublin, which have been destroyed or damaged in the recent disturbances, and in which business has in consequence been suspended during the period of rebuilding or restoration, the licence…shall be deemed to continue in force up to the time of the completion of such rebuilding or restoration…â€
Also an interesting little sign of the times:
“Upper Sackville Street or Lower Sackville Street (commonly known as “Upper O’Connell Street” and “Lower O’Connell Street” respectively).†😉
-
October 17, 2005 at 11:49 pm #729712
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
When you look at O’Rourke’s unified terrace of Upper O’Connell Street, it will come as no surprise that there was strong legislative clout behind it to get it to look as it does.
Those bus stops always had a poor visual appearance; to think it could have been a metro long before the RPA monster was hatched
-
October 18, 2005 at 8:23 pm #729713
Anonymous
InactiveI wonder would any City official be given such power over privately held developments today? It certainly worked very well then and raises the point on what is the point of pre-planning consultation if the issues aren’t sufficiently clarified.
-
October 20, 2005 at 12:28 pm #729714
Anonymous
InactiveThe spike has severe drainage problems
I noted yesterday that after a days rain that the spike has no drainage at its base; a large amount of water collects in the ruts and I saw a couple of people nearly land on their ear whilst crossing the slippery metalic base. Surely someone in the design team could have seen this coming.
-
October 22, 2005 at 1:50 pm #729715
Morlan
ParticipantIs the path on the lower end of the street nearing completion yet? Seems to be taking forever.
-
October 22, 2005 at 5:17 pm #729716
GrahamH
ParticipantThese are from a few weeks ago. Quite a bit of progess has been made since as there’s a kerbline already in for some if not the whole length. Paving is now starting to be laid.
Hopefully the grand pillar box in the first pic will go back in – restored.
-
October 24, 2005 at 4:02 pm #729717
urbanisto
ParticipantI notice that Fingal CoCo have vacated their offices on OConnell Street. Theres a notice up advertising a sale of furniture and property if anyone is interested. Has the building been sold off. There are a couple of urgent revamps due on the street and this building is one. The Royal Dublin Hotel, Findlaters House and JWT and National Irish Bank on the corner of Henry St as well.
Progress on the paving seem,s to be coming along nicely. I think thje median should be complete by the end of the month (its almost there) and the side pavements are being made ready. What chance of a fully completed project by Patricks Day (and obviously definately for the new 1916 parade) -
October 24, 2005 at 4:06 pm #729718
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterUrban Legend Alert: perhaps they’re trying to finish it in case CJ Haughey dies, so that Bertie can give him a state burial and parade down O’Connell Street?
-
October 24, 2005 at 4:08 pm #729719
urbanisto
ParticipantOoooh thats harsh…. shame on you!
-
October 24, 2005 at 5:11 pm #729720
-
October 24, 2005 at 11:27 pm #729721
anto
Participantare they granite kerb stones in your picture Graham? would be good if they could be recycled for some other scheme
-
October 25, 2005 at 12:30 am #729722
GrahamH
ParticipantYep – they line all of Upper O’Cll St too. Presumably they’re all going into CC storage yards for reuse elsewhere.
I wonder if they are original to the street, i.e. from the 19th century commercialisation of the thoroughfare, or if they were put down by the Corporation in the 70s or 80s having been dug up from elsewhere in the city?Good news about Fingal – have a feeling it just may have been sold off a few years ago, perhaps as part of the Carlton wrangling, with a lease-back arrangement – not sure though.
-
October 25, 2005 at 7:44 pm #729723
urbanisto
ParticipantThey werent too careful about lifting them though…..guys were working around them for quite a while oblivious to whether they got damaged or not. They should be reused – maybe on Capel Street which is due a repaving or even OConnell Bridge itself.
-
October 26, 2005 at 3:57 pm #729724
Rory W
Participant@Graham Hickey wrote:
Good news about Fingal – have a feeling it just may have been sold off a few years ago, perhaps as part of the Carlton wrangling, with a lease-back arrangement – not sure though.
It was bought by the McGettigan family (of Baggott Inn fame) a few years ago and was being rented to fingal for a while until their new place in Swords was finished – don’t think its changed hands since then though
-
October 27, 2005 at 12:58 am #729725
GrahamH
ParticipantAh – thanks. There were plans floating about for a hotel in the shell of this building about three years ago – don’t know if it was a concrete proposal or if it’s still alive…
Isn’t one of the great sights of Dublin, and easily the best of O’Connell St itself the fantasy skyline of the Lower street?
It’s so exciting approaching from College Green and Westmoreland St, with the imposing architecture, theatrical cupolas and the intimidating Clery’s with its proud array of flags standing upright along its heavy parapet all emerging in the distance 🙂The theatre of light you constantly see here can be great to observe as the sun plays on the bold features with heavy dark clouds looming over the city:
And Himself too:
It’s such a crying shame the terraces abutting North Earl St weren’t redeveloped in such a grand fashion as the Abbey St junctions – they barely even acknowledge the corners at all, let alone feature any type of skyline interest. The drop from Clerys down to the Ann Summers terrace is also a shame, it lets the street down significanty when viewed from the south (though does exaggerate the scale of Clerys as some consolation).
Likewise having such small four storey buildings in the centre of the city’s main street is disappointing.
-
October 27, 2005 at 6:57 pm #729726
Devin
ParticipantInterestingly, when you see pre-1916 photos / prints showing that part of the street, there is a similar mini-terrace of Georgian buildings where the Ann Summers terrace is – so there was a precedent. I often think that even now, the addition of an extra storey onto that terrace would be a big improvement for the street. And it wouldn’t affect Clery’s – even with a storey added onto the terrace, Clery’s would still dominate the block.
-
October 28, 2005 at 2:04 am #729727
GrahamH
ParticipantYes, here’s the view from Westmoreland St with the hole evident in the middle:
It’s such a great pity there isn’t a distinguished corner to the north Earl St junction – so instead of a grand street with every junction defined, essentially all we have is the single Abbey St crossing highlighted with 3 and a half properly designed corner buildings – such a cop-out.
What a difference it would have made from the Bridge to see the junction of Earl St equally well defined with cupolas or domes. What sight it would have been, and such an important contribution to spatial definition on the street.But especially as Devin says about the pre-1916 terrace being rebuilt to the same low height as before – nothing short of farce on the part of those in charge of reconstruction. If there is one enigma on O’Connell St it is this little terrace – why was it constantly kept small through the ages?! :confused:
As posted before, here it is lower than all the WSC terraces in about 1820:
It may even have been rebuilt again later in the century to the same low height – have yet to find that one out….
-
October 28, 2005 at 11:16 pm #729728
ake
ParticipantGraham – great pictures- may I ask what camera that is?
-
October 29, 2005 at 3:22 am #729729
GrahamH
ParticipantThe first pic I took with the Panasonic FZ5:
…and Sackville Mall with the Sony TRV2000 Time Machine 😀
It’s a middle-range camera, with a 12x optical zoom which was the real attraction. Only got autofocus though which is the catch – otherwise a decent camera, does the job.
…except when you’re in a rush :o. Some pics of a dark Upper street here. It’s really very strange up there now as for the first time in goodnees knows how many decades you can really appreciate the sheer width of the street, vacant of traffic and clutter – almost as it was in 1800s:
And looking south on the eastern side:
The delight that greets guests of the Gresham 🙂
The new taxi rank emerging – the median proper is absolutely minute to accommodate the cars:
It’s not clear if the tree planting pattern is going to be maintained along here. The paving the cars sit on brings the space out to the width of a regular median.
And the holes for the trees and LEDs already in place behind Fr Matthew:
-
October 29, 2005 at 4:08 am #729730
-
October 29, 2005 at 4:26 am #729731
GrahamH
ParticipantA fantasic camera alright – alas not all of us have such vast quanities of cash be be splashing about 😀
Yikes those pics are spookily identical! Is that a crop of a wider view you took Morlan?
Hmmm now which is better…..doesn’t need a rocket scientist to work that one out 😉
I’m never on the street that late to even see, let alone capture that beautiful saturating evening sun – the whole city looks so much better at that time. Red brick in particular is spectacular in such light, as above. -
October 31, 2005 at 3:26 am #729732
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterGPO to become 1916 monument
Archiseek / Ireland / News / 2005 / October 31The General Post Office on O’Connell Street in Dublin will cease to be used by An Post and will be converted into a national monument. Under plans being drafted by the Government, the GPO would become the memorial for the 1916 Easter Rising, along with other aspects of the State’s history.
-
October 31, 2005 at 4:21 am #729733
Anonymous
InactiveHow can a building largely built in the second decade of the twentieth century be a national monument?
the bar was always 1700 and god knows how many monuments have been destroyed for political expediency;
This is also an attempt to undermine the definition of protected structure this building is already fully protected by virtue of its
1> Architectural merit
2> Social significance
3> Cultural significance
4> Historical SignificanceWhy isn’t a motion passed by DCC to tie its use as the GPO under the Bewleys mechanism?
If this building was anything other than the Central Posts and Telegraphs Office it would not have been the centre of the rising.
-
October 31, 2005 at 1:03 pm #729734
asdasd
ParticipantYes. The best historical preservation is to have the building function as it did during the rising – does it contain a museum?
-
October 31, 2005 at 1:04 pm #729735
asdasd
ParticipantThat, or a starbucks, of course.
-
October 31, 2005 at 3:09 pm #729736
Anonymous
InactiveA starbucks in the arcade would be most welcome 😉
-
October 31, 2005 at 8:48 pm #729737
DublinLimerick
ParticipantThe GPO as a monument of national independence (and of the 1916 Rising) would be most appropriate.
Internally, it should be beautiful, simple, austere and where there would be space for private reflection. -
November 1, 2005 at 12:43 am #729738
GrahamH
ParticipantHow very sad that the GPO could be celebrating its 200th birthday with the extinguishing of the very use that brought it into being, and its tokenistic conversion into a sombre chamber of nationalistic reflection.
The GPO is our General Post Office, a place that belongs to the citizens who use it on a daily basis, and should remain as such for as long as we have anything resembling a postal or national communications service in this country. It is not a tool to be used by any political party (I’m guessing this’ll get cross-party support) for the purposes of celebrating their own organisations’ foundations.
The GPO is a staple of O’Connell Street, Dublin city and the country at large, a public place that is as relevant and as much in use as it was in 1818.
The notion of ridding it of its purpose, of its very origins, and replacing it with a museum is quite literally repulsive.By all accounts convert the rest of the vast building to the rear – it’s hardly the most efficient use of An Post’s resources to be headquartered in the contraints of that inner city, traffic choked location anyway.
But to take away the Public Office underneath that great portico would be a criminal act.I agree that this building’s use is as significant as the structure itself and ought to be protected by law.
-
November 1, 2005 at 1:03 am #729739
Ciaran
ParticipantI absolutely agree. the GPO as a post office has been an integral part of the city for as long as I can be remember. Also with all the changes that have gone on over the past 10 – 20 years it is even more important to have this link to the past. There is plenty of room to the rear for a museum etc.
-
November 1, 2005 at 10:49 am #729740
notjim
ParticipantIts a stupid plan, its such a privelege to have everyday, routine, use of the GPO in its finery: turning it into a museum takes it from a part of the city frabric and turns it into a set-peice, diminishing it. How great it is still in its original use, how silly to loose that. If we want a dedicated museum to the rising, what about the customs house, not currently accessible to the ordinary pedestrian, so we gain, and, well we could have a museum of the civil war there to and maybe even a tourist centre.
-
November 1, 2005 at 11:35 am #729741
jimg
ParticipantIts a stupid plan, its such a privelege to have everyday, routine, use of the GPO in its finery
Absolutely. I challenge anyone who is in favour of turning the GPO into dead museum to go in a buy a stamp and experience the place. It has a unique atmosphere and feel in Dublin; we have so few grand public utilitarian spaces like this. Usually cities at least have one impressive railway station or something of that nature – Dublin only has the GPO.
-
November 1, 2005 at 12:06 pm #729742
Frank Taylor
ParticipantWhy would you take a working public building and turn it into a mausoleum? I suspect it’s another threat to An Post and all semistates that if they go on strike, the state will evict them and privatise them.
-
November 1, 2005 at 12:45 pm #729743
Anonymous
Inactivei agree. i think they should leave the gpo as it is and where it is.
-
November 1, 2005 at 2:23 pm #729744
Paul Clerkin
Keymaster@notjim wrote:
Its a stupid plan, its such a privelege to have everyday, routine, use of the GPO in its finery: turning it into a museum takes it from a part of the city frabric and turns it into a set-peice, diminishing it. How great it is still in its original use, how silly to loose that. If we want a dedicated museum to the rising, what about the customs house, not currently accessible to the ordinary pedestrian, so we gain, and, well we could have a museum of the civil war there to and maybe even a tourist centre.
nail on head…. its not a good idea… another does of museum-interpretivecentreitius is about to break out I think
-
November 1, 2005 at 5:57 pm #729745
GrahamH
Participant@Frank Taylor wrote:
I suspect it’s another threat to An Post and all semistates that if they go on strike, the state will evict them and privatise them.
Ah yes – the classic ‘do as you’re told or we’ll make you into a national monument’ ploy 😀
Yes notjim and jimg sum it up perfectly – it’s the only grand public building in the city that most of the public have access to or have reason to use on a regular basis. The Public Office has an austere but welcoming grandeur to it – as Paul memorably put it, the impressive ceiling ‘floats serenely overhead’ 🙂
Likewise walking in from the street from (almost) underneath the great portico is quite an experience – you get a certain feeling of industriousness and importance walking in to ‘do my business’ 🙂It’s a working building – leave it alone.
-
November 2, 2005 at 7:46 pm #729746
Sue
ParticipantGiven that the government’s new transport plan involves building a metro under O’Connell Street, won’t that mean that all the paving etc. has to be ripped up again in a few years? Or can they tunnel underground without causing too much disruption on land? (The Port Tunnel would suggest otherwise)
-
November 2, 2005 at 8:18 pm #729747
Morlan
Participant@Sue wrote:
Given that the government’s new transport plan involves building a metro under O’Connell Street, won’t that mean that all the paving etc. has to be ripped up again in a few years? Or can they tunnel underground without causing too much disruption on land? (The Port Tunnel would suggest otherwise)
They will have to rip up the lower end of the street in order to build to subway station. Please god I hope they don’t cut-and-cover the whole of O’Connell St., uprooting the spire, etc. 😮
-
November 3, 2005 at 9:25 am #729748
aj
Participant@Morlan wrote:
They will have to rip up the lower end of the street in order to build to subway station. Please god I hope they don’t cut-and-cover the whole of O’Connell St., uprooting the spire, etc. 😮
i cant see them using cut and cover not in o`connell st anywaycan you imagine the the disruption and uproar it would cause
-
November 3, 2005 at 10:04 am #729749
JJ
Participant@aj wrote:
i cant see them using cut and cover not in o`connell st anywaycan you imagine the the disruption and uproar it would cause
I was fortunate in having the opportunity to see some of the feasibility study plans for the metro stations a few years back ( was it really so long ? )
The station was located north of the spire and took up the whole width of the median. This would have to be built using cut and cover.
Theres also the linked Luas lines which are most likely to follow the old proposed alignment which would mean that the median south of the spire and the roadway would be disrupted. If full four way connections are made then O’Connell St./ Abbey Street junction will be dug up as well.
The latest plan envisages continuing Luas northwards on O’Connell Street up to Parnell Square so effectively that s the whole place B*&&^%^erd up. If you believe the timescales published this week the works could begin within two years.
And talking of Parnell Sq aren’t there plans to upgrade that whole area soon. Probably just in time to rip it up for new Luas lines.
Planning me ….. :rolleyes:
jj -
November 3, 2005 at 11:02 am #729750
Frank Taylor
Participant@JJ wrote:
I was fortunate in having the opportunity to see some of the feasibility study plans for the metro stations a few years back ( was it really so long ? )
The station was located north of the spire and took up the whole width of the median. This would have to be built using cut and cover.
At the time the station was originally planned, the idea was to intersect with Tara Street DART. So they needed to put the metro station at the north end of O’Connell street to get the angle right to aim for Tara. Now that the DART intersection is Stephen’s Green, they can build elsewhere on O’Connell Street. Although the station will be cut and cover, the metro line won’t be because it will have to be far deeper to get across the river.
-
November 3, 2005 at 2:11 pm #729751
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterThey should actually take the opportunity to put it under the ILAC centre redevelopment or some other building due to be demolished and rebuilt
-
November 3, 2005 at 2:20 pm #729752
GregF
Participant@Paul Clerkin wrote:
They should actually take the opportunity to put it under the ILAC centre redevelopment or some other building due to be demolished and rebuilt
The east end of Parnell street could be ideal….this is a decrepit part of the city compared to its west side which has undergone massive redevelopment in recent years!
-
November 3, 2005 at 2:30 pm #729753
ctesiphon
ParticipantOr the Carlton site.
Though getting one project underway will be troublesome enough, never mind trying to synchronise two. -
November 3, 2005 at 3:12 pm #729754
-
November 3, 2005 at 3:29 pm #729755
Frank Taylor
ParticipantCarlton site is a great idea
-
November 3, 2005 at 3:43 pm #729756
GregF
ParticipantI think the Carlton site should be kept as an entertainment venue of some sorts , whether it be theatre, cinema, concert hall, etc.. The shopping mall walkway could be incorporated into this too. I think it would not only add a mass of people to this part of the street but also a bit of glam too rather than just a train station. With the Carlton, the Savoy, the Ambassador and the Gate Theatre as well as a new metro in the decrepit east Parnell Street, it could be a bustling part of the city. (almost like London’s West End, ahem!)
-
November 3, 2005 at 3:54 pm #729757
ctesiphon
Participant@GregF wrote:
I think the Carlton site should be kept as an entertainment venue of some sorts
Agreed, Greg. All I was thinking was that an underground entrance could be provided on the site- right in the middle of the street (there was a post a couple of months ago that said how wonderful it would be to get a train in from the airport and arrive slap bang on O’C.S.). And it would minimise the excavation works if one could be provided while the site is being redeveloped (ambitious, I know, but a man can dream! 🙂 ).
-
November 3, 2005 at 6:10 pm #729758
Sue
ParticipantUnder the Carlton site is a good idea for a metro station but…. wouldn’t that mean they have to tunnel under the Spire? And wouldn’t THAT mean that the spire would have to come down, at least temporarily? 😮
-
November 3, 2005 at 6:15 pm #729759
GrahamH
ParticipantIf there’s one advantage to destroying O’connell Street, it’ll be that the Metro project will have to be finished by the 2015 deadline for the 1916 centenary :rolleyes:
One can imagine the uproar from businesses on the street should such works be carried out here, and I wouldn’t blame them in the slightest – having to go through that all over again. If the station could be located underground on the Carlton that would be beneficial on a number of levels – don’t know how deep the Spire goes though…
Likewise Parnell St East as Greg suggests – the derelict end happily being the one closest to O’Connell St.Even after a station is built under the median, what sort of impact would this have at ground level? Yes London Underground stations are virtually non-existant at street level save some railings, but in the median context they will probably completely consume its width, not to mention a substantial depth. Even the taxis don’t have that impact…
And as for a Luas interchange on the Lower street…. 😮
Interesting diagrams on this PDF as to what might be done on O’Connell St in constructing a station by means of a median cut and cover:
http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/capconstr/sas/feis/pdf/figure3-07.pdf
-
November 3, 2005 at 6:57 pm #729760
Anonymous
InactiveSad really to compare what might eventually be a rather large cave under St. S Green with the beautiful Grand Central. Should they dig up the Green where will our Freemen grave their sheep?
The reason Park Avenue in NYC is so wide is due to the fact that the lines were overground until the tracks were re-done on a cut and cover job; anyone know when that happened? Heavy trucks are prohibited from Park Av. for that reason. The lines re-emerge about 96th St.(?) which is where and why the property prices drop.
Would it not have been considerably easier and cheaper for the Govt. to have an additional tunnel running with the Port Tunnel and then have an elevated train running along the M1 a la JFK-NYC route? Or is that too obvious? -
November 3, 2005 at 8:57 pm #729761
Boyler
ParticipantDid anyone see Capital D on RTE1? Couldn’t they use the underground tunnel as part of the new metro for Dublin? I was also thinking why couldn’t they build a kind of Luas for Cork City?
-
November 4, 2005 at 10:01 am #729762
GregF
ParticipantI agree, Cork should have a tram/light rail system.
Also, I think once O’Connell Street is completed there should be no further roadworks for at least a millennium. The present redevelopment has been an arduous ordeal. The installalation of a Metro station would just cause further unnecessary turmoil in the vicinity for many more years.
-
November 4, 2005 at 6:21 pm #729763
electrolyte
ParticipantHmmmm…
How can work on a metro station under O’Connell Street be considered “unnecessary”….I’d consider it quite essential…
I think they should close it off totally (or upper then lower) for the duration of any major metro works. The problem is too many people consider it when travelling into and out of town. Were it closed, they would have to take alternate routes….no big deal! It would be for the greater good. But perhaps not many DRIVERS would see it that way. :pAnyway I think long term, it’s image should be pushed as a “public plaza” more than as a “traffic thoroughfare”…..
-
November 4, 2005 at 6:50 pm #729764
Morlan
Participant@Boyler wrote:
Did anyone see Capital D on RTE1? Couldn’t they use the underground tunnel as part of the new metro for Dublin? I was also thinking why couldn’t they build a kind of Luas for Cork City?
Yes, I saw this. The problem with using the Park Tunnel us that there’s no capacity at Connolly to take these trains. This is why we need a new station at Spencer Dock with its own tunnel going to Heuston.
-
November 4, 2005 at 6:55 pm #729765
Morlan
Participant@GregF wrote:
I agree, Cork should have a tram/light rail system.
Also, I think once O’Connell Street is completed there should be no further roadworks for at least a millennium. The present redevelopment has been an arduous ordeal. The installalation of a Metro station would just cause further unnecessary turmoil in the vicinity for many more years.
If it’s going to give us a massively improved transport system for the next 100 years, I’d happily see O’C ripped up again. Either way, the tunnel under O’C will have to be very deep in order for it to pass under the river. It’s safe to assume then that they will not use cut-and-cover method. The lower end of the street will be excavated in order to build the station.
-
November 4, 2005 at 9:56 pm #729766
GrahamH
ParticipantThe notion of ripping up some/all of the street furnishings before they are even laid is really too difficult to bear – especially in the context of having waited 20 years for the IAP to come about in the first place!
And it’s not drivers that are affected by works electrolyte, feck the drivers – it’s pedestrians that have to suffer! 🙁The idea of the paving and street furniture being ripped up almost straight away, indeed it being proposed before a considerable amount of it is even laid, must surely go down in history as one of the great farces of the 21st century. Is there any point in even continuing the Upper works? – though there will be a 3/4 year breathing space (also a political breathing space).
Though if it has to be done….it has to be done. A good excuse to get rid of those lampposts anyway 🙂Hmmmm, notice anyone missing from the new crossing at the very top of the street?
These four fellas of course:
I presume they are going back in, and have just been hauled up for a bit of a scrubbing down. They certainly better be. Like the GPO bollards they are protected, so ought to be returning soon.
Again a shame to have them lifted, even if only temporarily, presumably not having been moved since their laying. The connection with the past is gone. -
November 4, 2005 at 11:01 pm #729767
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterDo you think they have enough traffic lights posts there?
-
November 5, 2005 at 1:25 am #729768
GrahamH
ParticipantYeah I was looking round this morning trying to source another bit of room for a handful more – lots of free space in the middle there, it’s only being used as a ‘pavement’ or something….
To be fair, quite a few are temporary alongside the permanent ones – unfortunately all the new ones do seem to be needed, bar that pedestrian pole on the far left in the first pic. Surely the lights on this could be hosted on the right-hand pole along with whatever is going on it? -
November 5, 2005 at 8:47 pm #729769
dc3
ParticipantAlways room for more traffic signals in Dublin.
Just by the way the latest traffic lights being added around Dublin are set in light grey coloured boxes, rather than the usual black. Indeed I dont think I had seen a grey enclosure before this year.A second passing thought – why have so few business premises abandoned displaying street numbers?
-
November 6, 2005 at 12:30 am #729770
anto
Participantdid u mean to say “so many”?
-
November 6, 2005 at 9:34 am #729771
dc3
ParticipantIndeed I did mean so many ANTO, numbers are going the way of public clocks.
-
November 6, 2005 at 1:20 pm #729772
Maskhadov
Participantdid anyone read the article in the times today ? it just highlighted that tunnelling underground o connell street would be a potential nightmare and it could all go wrong. Plus cut and cover techniques will just make a pigs dinner of all the improvements that are being made on the street.
-
November 6, 2005 at 4:40 pm #729773
Morlan
Participant@Maskhadov wrote:
did anyone read the article in the times today ? it just highlighted that tunnelling underground o connell street would be a potential nightmare and it could all go wrong. Plus cut and cover techniques will just make a pigs dinner of all the improvements that are being made on the street.
Look on the bright side. They won’t start the Metro contruction for another 7/8 years so that’s plently of time for us enjoy our new street.
-
November 6, 2005 at 5:37 pm #729774
Maskhadov
Participantwell lads and lassies. enjoy it while it lasts 🙂 I just think its YET another example of government waste. We couldnt plan a picnic.
-
November 6, 2005 at 5:48 pm #729775
Anonymous
InactiveI personally suspect that the Metro will never be built and that the O’Connell St Boulevard is perfectly safe.
-
November 7, 2005 at 10:49 am #729776
urbanisto
ParticipantSuch a sceptic! Im a bit sceptical myself actually. I think the Lucan Luas line is DEFINATELY an election play (such a ideal constituency to get on board and isnt Ms Harney’s seat out that way) and so Dame Street can heave a sigh of relief yet. The Metro has had a lot of political mileage though so I wouldn’t completely right it off. Good to see Martin Mansreagh highlighting Bordeaux’s LRT system at the weekend which uses overhead wires until it reaches the city cenbtre core and then a ‘contact mat’ technology which means the trams travel through without and overhad clutter. The French also used the LRT as an opportunity to completely reinvent their city centre. Visit it and weep…. http://www.aerlingus.com
-
November 7, 2005 at 11:12 am #729777
SeamusOG
Participant@StephenC wrote:
Good to see Martin Mansreagh highlighting Bordeaux’s LRT system at the weekend which uses overhead wires until it reaches the city cenbtre core and then a ‘contact mat’ technology which means the trams travel through without and overhad clutter.
Yes it was good to seem him mention this. It might be useful, though one of the problems with it, I believe, is that the mat can get waterlogged if the rain water, etc., does not flow away freely. I predict that this would be more of a problem in Dublin than in sunny Bordeaux. 🙂
But isn’t Mansergh such an awful apologist for this government. Every week, the same old twaddle justifying the latest bungling. I don’t know why the Irish Times bother employing him. I can hardly read him, as you know what you’re going to get. At least Garret had the decency to try and damn this new plan with the very faint praise it deserves.
-
November 7, 2005 at 11:18 am #729778
urbanisto
ParticipantYes I agree. He is also unsufferably boring although I have to say Garret is not far behind. And the there is Breda at the top, ever the good Catholic. All in all makes Saturday’s comment page exceedingly dull (as Mr Kipling might say)
-
November 8, 2005 at 1:19 pm #729779
Alek Smart
ParticipantWell Folks,anybody out an about in An Lar last evenin will certainly now be harbouring doubts on the wisdom of giving €34 Billion to ANYBODY associated with the present “Works” in the City Centre.
At one point in the proceedings the ENTIRE stretch of wire barrier from the Aer Lingus H/O to Henry St had blown over onto the “Carriageway” this was in addition to the barriers on the opposite side which had been lying on the ground for a while already.
However as this occourence was due to the high winds we can safely assume that it`s qualified as an “Act of God” and therefore no liability is attaching to Dublin City Council,it`s servants or agents for any injuries suffered as a result of them not bothering their collective arse`s to listen to the weather forecast.
At one point the entire North Central Garda compliment of two Members were frantically attempting to warn and divert northbound motorists from running into the collapsed fencing.
This well practiced routine consisted of the Bicycle garda energetically waving his flickering LED bicycle lamp whilst jumping up and down in an attempt to avoid being struck by motorists already accelerating away from the Spire Crossing.
The other member was clinging to one of the barrel mountings clutching a short piece of nylon rope in a vain attempt to keep his finger in the dyke.
It was nearly two hours before some burly-builder types arrived with some more rope and cable-ties to secure the fencing ……at least we now know why Dublin City Council is so taken with erecting a pole for every sign…..it`s part of a secret anti-hurricane programme left over from the NDP….(Remember that ? )
Callers to the City Council Traffic Control centre were being told that …”It`s a bit heavy allover tonight luv”……
There is a very real danger that Transport 21 funding will allow the present grouping of intensely sane Professional Planners to actually go forth and multiply therefore granting them total dominance over us all for ever….
Remember that the events of last evening are available on the City Council`s Traffic Camera system and so therefore could have been studied to good effect by REAL planners if any were still in the building at 17.30 ish yesterday…..
By now it will all be only gossip with the Professionals tut tutting to each other over a rich Burgundy about how the native Dubliner is SO predisposed to exaggeration………
Has anybody got a number for Manuel Melis…? 😮 -
November 8, 2005 at 1:25 pm #729780
urbanisto
ParticipantI often look for you Alex wandering the streets of Dublin with steam coming from your ears! 😀
Now that Owen Keegan is heading off to run Dun Laoghaire Rathdown and chancve you might see yourself in the job of Director of Traffic? 🙂 -
November 8, 2005 at 2:32 pm #729781
Anonymous
InactiveI wonder will he take his pro-pedestrian/public transport ideology with him and refuse to endorse the Eastern By-pass?
-
November 9, 2005 at 3:06 pm #729782
Alek Smart
ParticipantI`m glad you raised that point,but first let me just go back to…….. 🙂 🙂 🙂
-
November 10, 2005 at 10:30 pm #729783
GrahamH
ParticipantThis railing has appeared unsafe for a while – last week or the week before it was also blowing over in lighter winds than those of two nights ago, but happily this problem was quickly addressed with ‘do not walk near the fencing’ signs! Is this for real? On a congested city centre street? What exactly constitutes ‘near’? Is it now the responsibility of pedestrians to estimate the line of fire for collapsing railings?
Also on the Upper street the taxi rank is as good as finished now and going on what has been constructed there, not a single tree to be planted for the entire length of the taxi rank median, spanning the whole central section of Upper O’Cll St.
This yoke has literally been bulldozed onto what was going to be a largely cohesive street plan – shovelled in by the demands of some loud voices without the slightest consideration as to its impact on city’s central street, or the Area Plan drawn up specifically to avoid this very type of development that has such negative impacts on the character and unique layout of O’Connell St over the years.It is more than notable that this rank was not included in the IAP drawngs.
One suspects some in the O’Connell Street Office are not best pleased with this either.
-
November 11, 2005 at 2:37 am #729784
jimg
Participant@Thomond Park wrote:
I wonder will he take his pro-pedestrian/public transport ideology with him and refuse to endorse the Eastern By-pass?
I can over almost all of my disappointment over aspects of Transport 21 because it looks like the Eastern Bypass has been killed for another 10 years at least.
-
November 11, 2005 at 2:48 am #729785
Alek Smart
ParticipantYea Graham…wat a pity our egalaterian tolerant City Administration has not a “Whistleblowers Corner” perhaps around the old Bird Market near Thomas St (Close enuf to Civic Buildin`s) where the Canaries,Finches,Warblers and the occasional visiting Tit could trill to their little hearts content.
To my glass-half-empty eye this Tacasai Ranc has driven a Coach and Four or several of them through the original (and innovative) IAP.
What we now have is simply the “Old” O Northern end of O Connell St repaved with sweet FA in the way of boulevard or boardwalk……At the very least surely the Council could have put somebody up to acknowledge that the Plan had been “Tinkered with” and perhaps to offer an explaination.
Ah well..not to worry they`ll make it up on Parnell Square…won`t they…???????? 🙂 -
November 11, 2005 at 3:39 am #729786
GrahamH
Participant‘Old O’Connell Street’ – what a nice term. Never thought of it like that before. That is what it is after all.
And it still feels old too – aside from the ‘down-at-heel-environment’ to quote that classic diplomatic phrase from the IAP 🙂 – it has a different character to the southern end, more varied and visually interesting.It’s a shame in a way that one of the elements that helps generate that atmosphere is now going – the old paving. There were interesting kerbstones and granite insets about the place that are going to disappear. Can’t be helped.
-
November 12, 2005 at 4:56 am #729787
GrahamH
ParticipantAlso just a pic of the new lighting on trial for the GPO – can’t say I’d be overly enamoured by either the bulk of the units or the effect generated…
The old uplighters were removed as part of the building’s cleaning programme:
For years these used to be a ridiculous mixture of different colours but were regularised to white last winter.
It’s a pity the building can’t be flooded but this just isn’t possible given the location, and also the tall buses etc going by in front. Attaching lighting units to the building itself is the only option.
Flooding behind the columns in white similar to Govt Bldgs ought to be very effective. -
November 12, 2005 at 8:18 pm #729788
urbanisto
ParticipantI have to agree atbeing annoyed by the taxi rank on Upper OCSt being devoid of trees. Its going to make a big difference to the planting scheme for the street. I cant help but wonder why other streets couldnt have been better utilised to provide a taxi rank – Sackville Place and Cathedral Street or even the wasted patch of space around the church on Cathal Brugha Street. A bit of repaving, some good lighting a some planting would have made getting a cab much more enjoyable and allowed for the median to be planted more cohesively on Oc St
-
November 13, 2005 at 3:48 pm #729789
Alek Smart
ParticipantBecause it`s always been tradition to have a cab stand on Old O Connell St thats why…..
Incedentally …has anybody got some info on what was goin on at the NorthBound Abbey St/O Connell St junction yesterday….Men in suits,men in low slung backsideless jeans,JCB`s and the Boulevard reduced to a single lane to allow TWO holes to be closely inspected (To see if they could contain €34 Billion in black plastic sacks ??)
The entire performance was accompanied by NO Gardai or any token attempt to warn/divert northbound traffic from the scene of the crime.
“Its usually quiet of a Sahada”…was the official line I believe closely followed by “We`ll finish it off on Wensda,that`s half-day ye kno”…..
Happily we now have a rather splendid two-piece temporary reinstatement job which brings out the nicely darkening tones of the granite paving in a truly Rubensesque pastiche of colour……
Hopefully we still have €33,999,999,000 left…..???? -
November 13, 2005 at 7:26 pm #729790
Morlan
ParticipantYou should have asked them what they were doing. Surely this bit of road is going to be repaved to finish of the lower end of the street, or was is already freshly paved? 😡
-
November 14, 2005 at 11:44 am #729791
Richards
ParticipantThat explains the Traffic Mayhem in the Centre of Dublin on Saturday Afternoon. There were traffic tailbacks all the way from O Connell Bridge back the whole way to St Patricks.
-
November 15, 2005 at 12:12 am #729792
GrahamH
ParticipantVery strange – must take a look…
No doubt there were quite a few pile-ups in the 1870s too. Just when you think you’ve seen every hackneyed photograph ever taken of Sackville Street, another fascinating image comes along to blow you away, namely the construction of O’Connell Bridge – Wow!
Isn’t it extraordinary?!
For years I could never understand why the construction of O’Connell Bridge was always referred to as the ‘widening’ of Carlisle Bridge, even amongst the most ‘learned’ of historians, considering that O’Connell Bridge is a completely different structure to the previous hump-back Gandon bridge. But now it is evident as to why they use that language – Carlisle Bridge remained in place as the new bridge was built either side of it, exactly as what would be done today!The traffic continued to use Carlisle whilst the piers were extended and the arches and surface of the new sections either side constructed. Then, just as would happen now, the new sections opened for traffic while the old bridge was either removed completely, or perhaps more likely the foundations retained and a new structure built on top. Even so, O’Connell Bridge today is still ever so slightly hump-backed if you look closely:
There’s so much going on in the first photo, including the cutting of the kerbstones we know so well today as evident at the top of the image below – incredible!
Also, as highlighted in red, they even have temporary lanterns to light the tramway, just as the pedestrian walkways do in the first image – exactly like the bulkheads you see attached to construction site hoarding covering pavements today! 🙂
The picture dates from 1879, so the bridge is nearly finished – you can even make out the lovely little curved balustrades at either end of the median that are already in place, as are all of the lamp standards. The balustrading looks fabulous too – bone white, sparkling new Portland stone.The bridge structure would seem to be hollow in places, notably underneath the median section where even today there’s little grills you can look down. The bits of pipe everywhere in the above image are perhaps suggestive of huge water and gas mains using the bridge as a crossing point – a gas explosion in around 1927 would also seem to support this 🙂
Never seen photographs of Crlisle Bridge before – only prints. What a magnificent bridge it was: very austere:
You can see the little 1870s lanterns that were all over the city on top too 🙂
Rather strange the Port saw fit to replicate Gandon’s design for the most part, rather than take the opportunity to create something new and more befitting of the ‘Industrial Age’.
Wonder if the pier panels are original or replicas – probably the latter…They’ve weathered quite poorly…
Much of the information, including the photos above is derived from an excellent and thoroughly researced piece of work by Michael Phillips and Albert Hamilton, entitled ‘Project history of Dublin’s River Liffey bridges’ available here:
http://www.berthamilton.com/13329.pdf
I’ll presume that any coprwirght that may exist on the above images belongs to the authors of the article – though they are well over 100 years old.
-
November 15, 2005 at 1:09 am #729793
anto
Participantwho’s statue is that at the top of d’olier street?
-
November 15, 2005 at 11:09 am #729794
GregF
ParticipantGreat photos Graham! I was thinking the same thing too Anto. It’s the statue of William Smith O’ Brien who is currently on O’Connell Street today. It was moved to its present site in 1927 due to the traffic. What a great place to have a statue at the apex of D’Olier and Westmoreland streets.
O’Connell Street median is nearly finished; trees are ready to go in this week. It looks great too!
-
November 15, 2005 at 11:30 am #729795
dodger
Participantfabulous photos alright. how anybody could have built O’connell bridge house in the middle of that scene though..shudder..
we already have Wolfe Tone, would have thought finally a statue of Pearse himself should be considered.
-
November 15, 2005 at 11:54 am #729796
Devin
ParticipantGreat find! The quality of the image reproduction is excellent too.
-
November 15, 2005 at 7:12 pm #729797
Morlan
ParticipantThe best old Dub pics I’ve seen.
Look, no loop line! It’s great to see those little boats moored up beside the bridge too.
It’s a damn shame that nice little corner building was replaced with O’Connell House 🙁 Why oh why?!
Those mini balustrades are lovely 🙂
-
November 15, 2005 at 8:50 pm #729798
ctesiphon
ParticipantDoes anyone know what the road surface would have been in those pictures?
-
November 15, 2005 at 9:50 pm #729799
GrahamH
ParticipantCobbles. Whereas this pic dates from Nov 1922, it’s pretty much gauranteed they were cobbles in 1880 too:
A huge undertaking to pave all that by any standard.
To see the bridge in the earlier pictures in all its coordinated custom-designed glory makes the placement of orange bulbs in some of the lamps all the more frustrating 😡
There’s an even worse lop-sided one too.
The condensation on the lens here generated the effect from the Bohemian Rhapsody video 😀
Agreed the D’Olier St site was a fine location for a statue island – what a shame O’Brien was moved.
-
November 15, 2005 at 10:06 pm #729800
murphaph
ParticipantI’ve always favoured the Dawson St-College Green-Westmoreland St-O’Connell St alignment for the Luas link up and seeing those old photographs of the wonderfully wide strcture makes it all the more appealing. Imagine a city centre axis (Parnell sq-Stephen’s Green) devoid of the private car! It would be such a great location for trams, though of course DCC won’t be inclined to agree with the digging up of O’Connell St again!
-
November 16, 2005 at 12:06 am #729801
ctesiphon
Participant@Graham Hickey wrote:
Cobbles.
Thanks. In fact, looking more closely at the pic Morlan posted, it’s fairly obvious they are cobbles if you look at the lower edge. I suppose I could blame my screen resolution…
I’ve often wondered when cobbles were introduced and became widespread in the city, figuring the 1870s was about right. Dublin was presumably far ahead of other towns, where Lawrence Collection and other photos often show towns with muddy roads into the 20th century.@Graham Hickey wrote:
what a shame O’Brien was moved.
“I see a little silhouetto of a man…” 😮
-
November 16, 2005 at 11:20 am #729802
eoin82
ParticipantHi all. I guess I’m what you could call a ‘lurker’ on these boards: I enjoy reading them every day, but rarely post anything. However, on my way into college today one thing cought my attention, namely the ballustrades (is that the right word?) on the east side of O’ Connell Bridge. Having not passed this way in a few days, I looked out from my bus this morning and noticed that one was missing, about halfway up on you left hand side as you go from Westmoreland St. to the northside. A little bit further up, a huge chunk has been gouged out of the stonework on top of the ballustrades. Looks like someone took a sledgehammer to it in the middle of the night. Has anyone else seen this? Does anybody know what happened? It’s a pity to see such damage, especially so soon after the bridge was given a well-overdue cleaning.
-
November 18, 2005 at 1:25 am #729803
GrahamH
ParticipantYes this has been kinda annoying me too for the past 6-8 weeks at this stage eoin82:
It disappeared around that time – did it plunge down into the river? If nothing else it is very unsafe for small children whatever about being unsightly, located in the very spot where people stop to take pictures of the Liffey looking west.
Surprised it hasn’t been dealt with yet, suppose it’s up to us as the public to contact the City Council about it as a matter of safety.Also the concrete patch-job on the lintel revealed by the recent cleaning. Classy :rolleyes:
-
November 18, 2005 at 11:13 am #729804
GregF
ParticipantThat looks reallly bad, but I’m sure the council have an eye on it.
The trees have been planted on the central median. Its all gradually coming together. Looking great too.
Anyone see the new Christmas lights on Henry Street. A rather modest affair. Sad to see that the old cast iron black bins are still installed. Totally incongruous with the look of the street. Put the silver bins back pleeze! -
November 18, 2005 at 11:19 am #729805
urbanisto
ParticipantGone are the days of the spectacular extravaganza of lights on Henry and OConnell Streets….or is that because we were kids. I agree this years ‘illuminations’ are a bit of a let down. Even Clerys seems to be opting for a muted display.
The trees are moving in and should really bring back a bit of structure to the street, There’s two rather large gaps though which cause concern. The first is the taxi rank as mentioned above which is nothing short of a scandal and the second is just after the Spire – a large empty space with no trees and by the looks of the finished paving no lighting. Its most likely going to be the spot for one of the kiosks. We’d probably forgotten all about them. They’ll realy alter the look when installed
-
November 19, 2005 at 4:25 am #729806
GrahamH
ParticipantYes things are progressing fast up there, so much so it’s still a bit difficult to make out exactly where is getting trees and where isn’t – so much for the kiosks arriving in July though. Still very wary about the impact of these on the street……
Yes I’ve been getting very annoyed with Clerys over the past three years – their Christmas trees have been getting progressively meaner and their lights duller over this period. I remember when the MTV Music Awards of all things came to Dublin in November about 5 years ago, and the establishing report of the city showed the Clerys Christmas trees in all their magnificent glory, big, bushy and grand, and covered in sparkling white lights. By 2005 they are little more than twigs with a couple of strings of coloured lights strung around 🙁
Also they ought to turn off the main floodlights as they blast up under the trees completely wiping out the tree lights.
Henry St is very dull looking alright, though this could be down to the problems of mounting decorations on buildings as there’s the big derelict Dunnes site, plus the Ilac redevelopment that would have interrupted the traditonal ‘big star’ scheme 🙂Yikes now I see what eoin82 means about the cracked lintel of the bridge in the pic below – what happened here?!
It’s the very piece of concrete featured above as taken a few weeks ago, clearly it’s all just caved in!Interesting all the same to see the supporting iron armature encased in the middle of the baluster; this is what must be holding much of the bridge together. Not electrical tape as previously thought.
-
November 20, 2005 at 12:25 am #729807
aj
Participanthas anyone any views on how the spire is lit at night.. I thikn it would look much better if it was flood lit at along its length
-
November 24, 2005 at 10:01 pm #729808
ihateawake
ParticipantI like the way it is lit now, but woud really like to see it flood lit.
Can i ask peoples opinions on television screens in the city center?
-
November 25, 2005 at 2:20 am #729809
GrahamH
ParticipantThis project is rather bizarre:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool/content/articles/2004/07/31/bigscreendebut_feature.shtml
Can’t say I’d be a fan of big screens. They have a certain appeal when established for so long like in Piccadilly Circus in London where they’ve become part of the character of the area, but they would be very difficult to introduce in untouched territory, especially historic areas as the centre of cities inevitably are, let alone whole cities where the concept is completely alien as with Dublin (though yes the 40s did set a form of precedent).
Don’t know about others, but I find the appeal of urban areas is their being a form of television and advertising in themselves, with so much to watch, see and do – you go to these places to get away from such media distractions…Not to divert too much, but just some quick pics of the Upper street here. Most notably a single species of what seems to be ornamental ash is being used here in contrast to the mess of the Eason’s median – what a step forward.
So the original plan of having a mixture of 24 weeping birch and 38 ornamental ash down the centre seems to be dead – thank goodness! Having a single species is so much more ordered; they’re still being planted in groups of six though, presumably with the intention of providing views of the buildings in between. They will never have the impact that a linear planting scheme would have had though 🙁
Saying that, the planes along the side pavements are going to look fanatastic up here when finished.
The granite kerbstones of the side pavements being carefully stored:
And not quite architectural, but the underground ‘scene’ of the street is always interesting – here you can see the old iron water mains are being cleverly used as a route for modern plastic piping:
-
November 26, 2005 at 9:54 pm #729810
ihateawake
ParticipantI think one would look welll on stephens green, it would blend well with Irelands new cosmopolitan corner and with the new status of importance and modernism the area would gain with the completion of the hub of the capitals new transport system. It would also cover up that nasty corner building(bus stop newsagents)
-
November 28, 2005 at 12:26 pm #729811
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
This project is rather bizarre:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool/content/articles/2004/07/31/bigscreendebut_feature.shtml
Can’t say I’d be a fan of big screens.
There was a very interesting report in the Sunday Times a year or so ago that focussed on the development of two large screens – one in Vienna and one London. The screens would be able to relay real time images and sounds from one city to the other – in short, you could walk up to the screen in Vienna and be seen on the screen in London at the exact same time thereby combining the two city streets in real time cyber space. The advantages and implications are quite amazing as you could effectively meet your friend in London while living in Vienna and have a normal conversation. Interesting development. Unfortunately, I have not seen any sign of it on my travels to Vienna and nor in London. In principle, however, it should work. Now there is a concept for a building (albeit very expensive). Cover the building is such screens (I am sure the technology will become cheaper and the screen material capable of covering larger expanses) and have real-time images of streets reflected through the screens. The skin of the building would become a panorma of world urbanism in real time. And who said that exciting things could not happen in Irish architecture – still hope for Dublin.
-
November 28, 2005 at 3:12 pm #729812
Morlan
ParticipantSo what’s the ETA on completion of O’C upper? Obviously not before christmas anyway. Any hope of the street being finished by Paddy’s day? How are they getting on at the lower end of the street?
Also, is there any set date for the commencement of Parnell area revamp?
-
November 28, 2005 at 6:26 pm #729813
ihateawake
ParticipantNow there is a concept for a building (albeit very expensive). Cover the building is such screens (I am sure the technology will become cheaper and the screen material capable of covering larger expanses) and have real-time images of streets reflected through the screens. The skin of the building would become a panorma of world urbanism in real time. And who said that exciting things could not happen in Irish architecture – still hope for Dublin.
this was imagined/planned for dublin?? very surprising
has there ever been any applications for a big screen in dublin?
-
November 28, 2005 at 7:45 pm #729814
Morlan
Participant@PDLL wrote:
There was a very interesting report in the Sunday Times a year or so ago that focussed on the development of two large screens – one in Vienna and one London. The screens would be able to relay real time images and sounds from one city to the other – in short, you could walk up to the screen in Vienna and be seen on the screen in London at the exact same time thereby combining the two city streets in real time cyber space. The advantages and implications are quite amazing as you could effectively meet your friend in London while living in Vienna and have a normal conversation. Interesting development. Unfortunately, I have not seen any sign of it on my travels to Vienna and nor in London. In principle, however, it should work. Now there is a concept for a building (albeit very expensive). Cover the building is such screens (I am sure the technology will become cheaper and the screen material capable of covering larger expanses) and have real-time images of streets reflected through the screens. The skin of the building would become a panorma of world urbanism in real time. And who said that exciting things could not happen in Irish architecture – still hope for Dublin.
An IP camera, broadband connection, and a big ass video-wall in each city, job done. The only reall cost is the maintenance of the large screens. I’m sure this could be covered by advertisers.
It sounds interesting. I’ve never seen it in action myself.
I was trying to think which city Dublin could be paired with. Live broadcast Dublin-Barcelona? Dublin-Helsinki?
Now if every capital city in Europe had the same technolgy, you could rotate live broadcasts from city to city each day – I’m sure that would keep people interested.
-
November 28, 2005 at 10:01 pm #729815
-
November 28, 2005 at 10:26 pm #729816
Anonymous
Inactivethink somebody suggested on the site before that large screens could be used to cover the loopline looking to sea from o’connell bridge, seamless screens could replicate the view of customs house etc. that would be, if the loopline wasn’t there, and of course whatever else you fancy when required …
-
November 28, 2005 at 10:35 pm #729817
ctesiphon
ParticipantI’ve heard that in South Korea there are television screens on the street that show Baduk games in real time, such is the country’s passion for the game (called Wei-chi in China, Igo in Japan, and Go internationally). Can’t think of an Irish equivalent. Maybe one of those reality tv shows?
-
November 28, 2005 at 11:04 pm #729818
Anonymous
Inactive@ihateawake wrote:
this was imagined/planned for dublin?? very surprising
has there ever been any applications for a big screen in dublin?
No – should have been clearer in the way I phrased it. It is my suggestion – wouldn’t it be an innovative concept for a building – if, say, one side of it was covered in some form of screen-like skin upon which images of another building or streetscape could be projected in real time. In effect, a building in Dublin ‘could become’ another building. All very expensive I am sure, although technologically possible and, I am sure, will be affordable in perhaps 20-30 years time.
-
November 29, 2005 at 12:36 am #729819
SeamusOG
Participant@Peter FitzPatrick wrote:
think somebody suggested on the site before that large screens could be used to cover the loopline looking to sea from o’connell bridge, seamless screens could replicate the view of customs house etc. that would be, if the loopline wasn’t there, and of course whatever else you fancy when required …
I’ve often wondered about that (and I don’t wish to take up too much space given that this is an O’Connell Street thread rather than a loop line bridge thread).
The television pictures used for Formula 1 are able to show different advertising on bridges over the racetrack depending on whether the country receiving the pictures has a ban on, say, tobacco advertising or not. i.e. even though the spectators at the Grand Prix are able to see cars speeding under a bridge with MARLBORO written on it, countries which have a ban would show cars speeding under a bridge with ORANGE on it, countries which do not have a ban would show cars speeding under a bridge with MARLBORO on it.
If you’ve ever watched premier league football in England you may have seen advertising which appears to be on the pitch beside the goal (e.g. flybe.com, which looks like it is actually printed on the pitch, in much the same way that some advertising is actually printed on the pitch, like Permanent TSB for rugby matches). If you look at the reverse angle, flybe.com isn’t there.
The architects who designed the millenium pedestrian bridge – I’m afraid I can’t remember their name – did a clever thing with the lights which are set into the bridge. Apparently, within the bridge, there is a light meter which measures the length of the day. There is a fibre optic system which lights up the lights along the bridge and some kind of a coloured wheel through which the light passes. Depending on the duration of nighttime, as measured by the light metre, the wheel moves at different speeds, so that the light along the bridge changes from white to blue to green and back to white between dusk and dawn. (It struck me as clever when I found out about it a few years ago, though it may have been quite commonplace).
Anyway, the point is this: the technology appears to exist to be able to not show us things which actually are present (e.g. cigarette advertising), and to show us things which are not present (e.g. advertising beside the goal in football). The technology also seems to exist to measure the length of the day and apply it to lighting of a bridge. Could it also be applied to taking a picture of the skyline, in real time (scurrying clouds, etc.), as we would see it if the loop line bridge were not there?
Now clearly the loop line bridge needs to exist as it is a vital transport link, but could a combination of the above technologies be used to show us, as we walk along Burgh Quay or Eden Quay, what our vista would be if the loop line bridge did not exist? I’d imagine this would have to be done with screens of some sort.
Even if it could be done, I’d acknowledge that the most obvious flaw with this arrangement is that it would discommode people who like the look of the loop line bridge.
-
November 29, 2005 at 3:53 am #729820
asdasd
Participant“Live broadcast Dublin-Barcelona?”
Best excitement would be Dublin-Warsaw.
I notice the tree is up and lit in O’connell st. And the trees are lit, at least in the middle. Looks good – white christmas lights are the business.
-
November 30, 2005 at 3:29 am #729821
GrahamH
ParticipantWell the GPO is currently being unwrapped like a giant Christmas present, and spot on schedule too. Just the frieze is peeking out at the minute and it looks magnificent.
Can’t wait to see the finished result – already the bone-white columns are glowing through the protective gauze. -
December 2, 2005 at 3:57 pm #729822
Maskhadov
Participant@Graham Hickey wrote:
Well the GPO is currently being unwrapped like a giant Christmas present, and spot on schedule too. Just the frieze is peeking out at the minute and it looks magnificent.
Can’t wait to see the finished result – already the bone-white columns are glowing through the protective gauze.Anyone got any pictures ? maybe there are some examples on the net of what the columns will look like when its completed ?
-
December 4, 2005 at 8:37 pm #729823
Daragh
ParticipantI have to say GregF I completely agree with you about the bins on Henry Street. They really don’t fit in with the ‘new’ look of the street. Does anyone have any idea why the Council got rid of the silver ones a few years back and replaced them with those awful, dirty black ones? It seems all the more surprising given that the Council has placed the new silver ones all along O’Connell Street. Furthermore, the paint or the iron or whatever it is on those black bins always seems to seep away after a few weeks and ruin the underneath paving surrounding the bins.
Having said that, I’m a huge fan of the new lights on Henry Street. Simple and reasonably elegant looking. I think the old ones were so tacky and cheap looking. An embarrassment really when one looks at the Christmas lighting erected in major cities like Paris, Strasbourg and even Oxford Street in London. What bugs me though is that the Council never seems to test the lights properly before they put them up each year. If you look at some of the Christmas lighting on Exchequer Street, George’s Street and even Grafton Street you’ll see that half the bulbs aren’t working on some of the decorations. It makes cheap and tacky lighting look even worse.p.s. I know this post doesn’t really concern O’Connell Street but I wanted to reply to Greg’s comments
-
December 4, 2005 at 8:50 pm #729824
Pepsi
ParticipantI heard a while back that the Spire is due to be cleaned. When are they going to get a start on that?
-
December 5, 2005 at 1:15 am #729825
anto
Participant@Daragh wrote:
I have to say GregF I completely agree with you about the bins on Henry Street. They really don’t fit in with the ‘new’ look of the street. Does anyone have any idea why the Council got rid of the silver ones a few years back and replaced them with those awful, dirty black ones? It seems all the more surprising given that the Council has placed the new silver ones all along O’Connell Street. Furthermore, the paint or the iron or whatever it is on those black bins always seems to seep away after a few weeks and ruin the underneath paving surrounding the bins.
Having said that, I’m a huge fan of the new lights on Henry Street. Simple and reasonably elegant looking. I think the old ones were so tacky and cheap looking. An embarrassment really when one looks at the Christmas lighting erected in major cities like Paris, Strasbourg and even Oxford Street in London. What bugs me though is that the Council never seems to test the lights properly before they put them up each year. If you look at some of the Christmas lighting on Exchequer Street, George’s Street and even Grafton Street you’ll see that half the bulbs aren’t working on some of the decorations. It makes cheap and tacky lighting look even worse.p.s. I know this post doesn’t really concern O’Connell Street but I wanted to reply to Greg’s comments
The black bins have a greater capacity I imagine
-
December 5, 2005 at 4:11 pm #729826
Maskhadov
Participantwell why dont they get the council out to collect the rubbish more often with the smaller bins. Thats what they do in spain. THey collect the rubbish EVERY day and DONT leave it sitting for a week.
-
December 5, 2005 at 4:36 pm #729827
urbanisto
ParticipantIn fairness they dont leave it there for a week either….its removed very regularly, at least in the city centre area. Its just we tend to generate alot more!
-
December 6, 2005 at 12:29 am #729828
Daragh
ParticipantI think you’ll find that the black, iron bins actually contain less..
-
December 6, 2005 at 1:54 am #729829
J. Seerski
ParticipantMy God how shockingly derilict the northern end of O’Connell Street has become recently – most of the major commercial premises have become vactant in the past year, some for much longer, with no sign of any change. Consider the following list:
Carlton – Still a pathetic sight of its former self and the main part used as nothing
Fingal Co Co – completely vacant.
Aer Lingus Offices – Empty since 2002
Eircom (Findlater House) Empty for over a year now.
Bank of Ireland Cavendish Row – vacant for over a year now.
These are enourmous premises and their continued state of disrepair and idleness makes the area feel more decrepit than it has ever been before. Taking these premises in total, one third of Upper O’Connell Street could be said to be vacant.This is surely a shocking indictment of the councils efforts in trying to re-juvenate the area? Am I hoping in vain that things are so bad that the only way is up for this part of the street?:(
-
December 6, 2005 at 2:17 am #729830
GrahamH
ParticipantYes these are without doubt a big stain on the area. The fact that Findlater House is now up for let yet again is not encouraging. Also the planned redevelopment of the Royal Dublin Hotel has come to nothing, as seemingly has the restoration of No 42, the RDH townhouse, and its conversion to high-spec offices with public access to the house.
And when is the appeal hearing due for the Carlton site? 🙁 🙁@Maskhadov wrote:
maybe there are some examples on the net of what the [GPO] columns will look like when its completed ?
Jacqueline O’Brien’s GPO image in ‘Dublin A Grand Tour’ from 1994 gives a good indication I should think – always admired how clean it looks (below)
The GPO was restored upon the creation of An Post in 1984, so perhaps it was then that the building was last cleaned. Think it was renovated in the 70s too, and possibly in the late 80s also!
The portico is still wrapped in scaffolding, despite the permit expiring on the 30th of November…
-
December 6, 2005 at 11:33 am #729831
aj
Participantis the development of upper o`connell street being massively held back by the ritz carlton debacle
-
December 6, 2005 at 5:32 pm #729832
fergalr
ParticipantIt my honest opinion, everything on both sides of the street from the Spike north, with the exceptions of the Gresham, the georgian part of the Royal Dublin and the buildings predating the 1920s/30s rebuilding should be knocked or reclad.
They have no architectural merit. The massive scheme from the Gresham down to Burger King is impressive, but phenomanlly ugly, as the pics above bear out. The Gresham could theoretically stand as its own building, without the rest of the scheme.
But if the rest is to stay, it all needs to be brightened up. Dublin is not a city for grey brick. The georgians and Wide Street Commissioners knew that.As for the west side….it all has to go, with minor exceptions.
-
December 6, 2005 at 6:48 pm #729833
Maskhadov
Participantgood job Graham Hickey. I cant wait to see the GPO finished for good.
It my honest opinion, everything on both sides of the street from the Spike north, with the exceptions of the Gresham, the georgian part of the Royal Dublin and the buildings predating the 1920s/30s rebuilding should be knocked or reclad.
They have no architectural merit. The massive scheme from the Gresham down to Burger King is impressive, but phenomanlly ugly, as the pics above bear out. The Gresham could theoretically stand as its own building, without the rest of the scheme.
But if the rest is to stay, it all needs to be brightened up. Dublin is not a city for grey brick. The georgians and Wide Street Commissioners knew that.As for the west side….it all has to go, with minor exceptions.
The city would never hear of it
-
December 6, 2005 at 6:55 pm #729834
fergalr
ParticipantWell a fair bit is gone already. Fingal County Hall is vacant and is hardly going to have objections to its demolition.
The Carlton is in legal limbo…The Royal Dublin is a monstrosity (most hotels are..)
And what happened to the Council’s plan to terminate the leases held by the fast food restaurants? And the regulations on shop front design?
-
December 6, 2005 at 7:18 pm #729835
GrahamH
ParticipantAre you suggesting that the Carlton be demolished Fergal?
I disagree about the 1920s terrace being ugly; it is this very monumental character that makes it distinctive. While most of the infill between the signature buildings is nothing much, not least the Cathedral St corner, collectively they compose a grand whole that is worthy of preservation.
The Savoy has a wonderful elegant facade, Hammam Buildings is more austere (though would be less so if the plastic crap at ground floor level didn’t detract from the fine pilasters), the Gresham also has a monumental quality though softened by its ground floor detail that is not concealed in this case, and the infill in certain areas such as left of the Savoy is equally worthy of note.Similarly there are a great many fine buildings on the western side: the National Irish Bank, the Carlton, the old Revenue offices, the Garda Station, the AIB at the very top, Lynam’s Hotel – even Joe Walsh tours with a bit of work. It is the very hodgepodge nature of Upper O’Connell Street that makes it special; it reads as an open book more than most streetscapes do. It’s interesting to be able to present an official, palatial facade to the world down at the Liffey on Lower O’Connell St, whilst keeping the original grain and character of the thoroughfare tucked away at the northern end, with almost every plot maintaining the same width since 1748.
Sure there’s some bland stuff up there; Dr Quirkey’s springs to mind a possible condender for reinvention, but for the most part is most certainly a lack of maintainance that is the problem up there, not architecture.
-
December 6, 2005 at 9:11 pm #729836
fergalr
ParticipantNo I wouldn’t for one minute suggest the Carlton be demolished. Would have been a smart place for the Abbey to go.
But I would like the CC and courts to resolve the planning dispute over it. -
December 7, 2005 at 8:02 pm #729837
GrahamH
ParticipantThe view down the plane tree-less street now from Parnell Street is nothing short of breathtaking – the eastern terrace looks spectacular in the sun:
(slightly over-exposed)…Horace O’Rourke’s terrace in particular looking incredibly monumental, as does Clerys way in the distance.
The interior of the refurbished Savoy has yet to be posted – here’s the foyer in all its magnificence. What a transformation!
During the ripping out of the 60s alterations, the original plasterwork or elements of it were discovered, and so it was restored to how it originally was. And sure enough, looking at a 1920s picture of it, it is almost identical!
The plasterwork also reflects the basic theme underlying the design of the Savoy Cinema – the merging of classical and Art Deco/Modernist styles. At a casual glance, the plasterwork looks like a fairly standard, almost Edwardian design, but on closer inspection you can see that the outer ‘ring’ of each centrepiece sweeps around in a broad rounded curve, overlapping in the very middle – classic Art Deco, especially evident in the central bay above.
The chandeliers add a wonderful touch of glamour and elegance, also brought up to date with what seem to be clusters of sparkling halogen bulbs inside.
And from the Irish Independent a while back:
After some more research of chandelier designs from the 1930s and with the help of Falks Lighting, Terenure, a design was decided upon. The chandeliers were then custom manufactured in Italy to the specifications provided.
“We always felt the floor finish would be of major importance and after several samples provided we decided to use the Nero Marquina porcelain tile imported from Italy,” the designers add. It was felt from an early stage that the main staircases leading to the first floor would be a major focal point in the space. In order to give the visual effect of two grand staircases, Lough Construction spent considerable time providing different templates on step designs to give the feel that was required.The flooring effect was continued up the staircases to the first level, along with a custom designed and manufactured carpet, manufactured by PFL carpets in Limerick. The carpet features a stylised version of a fan design inspired by research of the 1930s. “The evidence in early photos showed a dark wood panelling around the foyer space,” McCabe Design adds. “We decided to use walnut as the main wood material for all major joinery in the space. As the grain in walnut was so regular we designed the walnut wall panelling in its simplest form possible. We felt there was no need for unnecessary raised panel details.
“We accented the panelling with 5mm stainless steel strips which were rebated into its surface. This helped to visually link the wall treatment to the custom stainless steel hand rails which were placed to the interior as required to satisfy current regulations. All the lighting for the refurbished foyer was fitted with warm colour bulbs in an effort to replicate the warm tungsten light evident from 1930’s lighting.” As part of the refurbishment an old shop unit was converted to the new ticket sales area. The joinery for the box office desk, manufactured by Lough Construction, is provided in walnut and continues its links with the main foyer space with its stylistic approach to 1930s design. Stainless steel signage throughout provides a sparkle.
Ends
The walnut and inlaid steel strips is beautiful, one of the finest aspects of the restoration. Overall, one of the best projects of its kind I’ve ever come across.
The balance between contemporary design and respect for the origins of the building is spot on – a quality, timeless look has been achieved. -
December 8, 2005 at 11:22 am #729838
GregF
ParticipantHorace O’Rourke’s terrace looks great alright. These substantial buildings have an air of London or Paris about them.
I hope they leave the interior of the Savoy well alone now…….why oh why they always have to pull and drag.
-
December 8, 2005 at 12:09 pm #729839
corcaighboy
ParticipantThose pics looks absolutely stunning. Looks like they did a fantastic job.
-
December 8, 2005 at 6:09 pm #729840
TLM
ParticipantYeah the interior looks like a great job but I hope they now make some moves to improve the facade
-
December 8, 2005 at 6:34 pm #729841
Morlan
ParticipantWhy does the SAVOY sign protrude about half a metre from the facade?! I think it spoils the building. Has it always been like this?
-
December 8, 2005 at 8:11 pm #729842
kefu
ParticipantOne of the most peculiar things about the refurbishment of the Savoy is that little bits of it have been left unfinished like they ran out of money. Anybody who has taken a visit to the gent’s toilet will notice that. If you look closely around the interior, there are also little bits and pieces that haven’t been finished off. It’s like the snag list was done but never acted upon. I think all the city cinemas are suffering as a result of the resurgence of the Cineworld (former UGC/Virgin). As a very regular cinema-goer, there are regularly 100-yard queues in UGC and hardly ever a queue in either the Savoy or the Screen. Not really sure why.
-
December 8, 2005 at 9:48 pm #729843
jdivision
ParticipantAnd when is the appeal hearing due for the Carlton site? 🙁 🙁
The Books of Appeal were lodged in the Supreme Court in late November and Paul Clinton’s solicitors are pushing for an early hearing according to a document I received recently. Whatever happens though it’s going to take years for the redevelopment to take place (see story below). Joe O’Reilly will certainly lodge a new planning application to take advantage of the increased densities being allowed by the city council and he will also now have to take account of the listing of the houses on Moore Street. He has also bought a number of additional properties adjoining the site including the former Fingal Co Co offices and will integrate them into his development.
As I wrote earlier this year regarding the redevelopment:
Sunday, March 27, 2005 – By Neil Callanan
The Carlton cinema site on O’Connell Street in Dublin may not be redeveloped until after 2012.According to a contract between the two parties, Dublin City Council will give developer Joe O’Reilly “approximately’‘ seven years to develop the site after planning permission is obtained and any judicial reviews are completed.
The local authority is trying to buy the site from its owners, the Carlton Group, via a compulsory purchase order (CPO). The High Court recently upheld the CPO, and the Carlton Group has yet to decide whether to appeal the decision.
Dublin City Council wants a substantial retail, commercial and residential development built on the site in accordance with the city’s development plan.
The agreement between O’Reilly and Dublin City Council states that the council will give “whatever comforts are required’‘ to O’Reilly’s bankers to fund the development of the site.
The local authority “does not warrant that it will be in a position to entirely satisfy the developers’ bankers,” the agreement states
According to the document, O’Reilly has entered into a number of contracts to acquire most of the properties that make up the site.It says that O’Reilly and the council acknowledge “that it would be of benefit to the developer if Moore Lane were closed to the public and the casual trading area and traders in Moore Street were relocated’‘.
If any part of the Carlton cinema site has to be sold, leased or otherwise disposed of by the developer, then the local authority has agreed to release it from the CPO. The local authority has also agreed to sell any parts of the site it acquired under the CPO to O’Reilly for the price at which it bought them.
If O’Reilly breaches the terms of the agreement then Dublin City Council will “allow sufficient time for the developer’s bankers to obtain a further developer to carry on the development before it exercises fully any of its powers under the CPO’‘.
-
December 8, 2005 at 10:10 pm #729844
Morlan
ParticipantThe Carlton cinema site on O’Connell Street in Dublin may not be redeveloped until after 2012.
Bit confused here. Does that mean he may not develop until that date or he must develop before that date?
Good to hear that the fugly Fingal offices will be demolished!
-
December 9, 2005 at 1:38 am #729845
GrahamH
ParticipantThanks for that information jdivision. So who exactly owns the site as of now? Is it in a state of limbo, or do the CC own it as a result of the CPO, albeit being contested?
It may take seven years to develop the entire site, but there’s little reason why the main body of the Carlton link couldn’t be up in two years, post planning of course. Seven years would seem to be the contractual timeframe, but hopefully it’ll be up and running long before that.
As for the Savoy signage Morlan, what of the ghastly silver box its tacked on to?! Saying that, it just may be possible that the current arrangement is temporary to get the cinema through its anniversary year. It makes sense that for the high profile events, and general media attention through the year, that the dirty old yoke of a canopy be quickly clad over with a quick-fix material.
There just may be a flicker of hope that the original 1929 canopy will be reinstated…It doesn’t make sense that such a lavish refurbishment take place inside, that proposals be made for wholescale quality alterations the exterior including the reinstallation of cut stone piers at ground floor level, and a restoration of the bronze windows etc, all to bring the cinema back to how it once was, but that that heap of junk be permanently erected over the doors.
Hopefully it’ll disappear…. -
December 9, 2005 at 3:03 am #729846
GrahamH
Participant…and the opposite with this baluster. Dublin wit ever-present 😀
Pity they couldn’t have put it to good use three weeks ago :rolleyes:
Was so tempted this morning to chalk on ‘makes a change’ 🙂
-
December 9, 2005 at 3:21 am #729847
Morlan
ParticipantJesus, considering those balus were cleaned a while ago, they really are hangin to bits.
And is that a feckin mouldy scarf hangin off the balu to the right? Hahah, good old Dub. -
December 9, 2005 at 1:56 pm #729848
jdivision
Participant@Morlan wrote:
Bit confused here. Does that mean he may not develop until that date or he must develop before that date?
Good to hear that the fugly Fingal offices will be demolished!
If and when he controls the site he will then make a new planning application to develop it and the other buildings he has bought there. That will take about two to three years as invariably somebody will appeal. Then he will have seven years from the date planning is granted to build it. I suspect it’ll be around 5 years before it’s done, depending on the length of time the court case takes, as it won’t take seven years to build. The plan was to increase footfall into the Ilac centre – which he owns 50 per cent of – by bringing people through the Carlton cinema site and then across the street but as I said the listing of the Moore St buildings complicates that. The traders on Moore St will have been moved on, per the agreement.
-
December 9, 2005 at 2:27 pm #729849
jdivision
ParticipantGraham Hickey wrote:Thanks for that information jdivision. So who exactly owns the site as of now? Is it in a state of limbo, or do the CC own it as a result of the CPO, albeit being contested?It may take seven years to develop the entire site, but there’s little reason why the main body of the Carlton link couldn’t be up in two years, post planning of course. Seven years would seem to be the contractual timeframe, but hopefully it’ll be up and running long before that.
QUOTE]Ownership of the site is still being contested. Side A claims it owns most of the land, Side B says it does. Side A has entered an understanding with Joe O’Reilly to sell what they say is their property to him. DCC has agreed not to implement the CPO if O’Reilly can buy the whole site. Side B is still disputing ownership. This one will run for a while yet.
-
December 12, 2005 at 12:25 pm #729850
Anonymous
Inactive@jdivision wrote:
Ownership of the site is still being contested. Side A claims it owns most of the land, Side B says it does. Side A has entered an understanding with Joe O’Reilly to sell what they say is their property to him. DCC has agreed not to implement the CPO if O’Reilly can buy the whole site. Side B is still disputing ownership. This one will run for a while yet.
It only has another 4 years to run to eclipse the Stephens Green Centre as Irelands longest running site assembly to project delivery saga. One would love to be a fly on the wall for some of the goings on in this one. I like yourself can see the lawyers grabbing a lot more loot before this one is sorted by which ever party ends up with control of the site. A pity really given the prominence of the site on such a potentially grand street.
-
December 14, 2005 at 11:24 am #729851
Maskhadov
ParticipantO’Connell Street overhaul due to be completed in May
Olivia KellyThe redevelopment of O’Connell Street in Dublin, which has caused huge disruption to traffic and pedestrians for the last four years, is due to be completed next May, six months ahead of schedule.
The final phase of construction, at the northern end of the street, began on April 26th this year; it was estimated it would continue for 18 months. However, the city council said the work had been accelerated and was now scheduled for earlier completion.
The first phase of the regeneration of the capital’s main street began in 2001 and was completed late last year. It involved the creation of a central plaza outside the GPO and the installation of the Spire.
This second phase comprises the area of Upper O’Connell Street from the junction of Henry Street-North Earl Street northwards to Parnell Street. It also includes the east side of Lower O’Connell Street from Abbey Street Lower southwards to Eden Quay.
Work on the section of Lower O’Connell Street will be “substantially completed” by Christmas, the council said yesterday, and Upper O’Connell Street, a larger and more complex area of redevelopment, should be finished in the early weeks of May.
The acceleration of the project was made possible in part because of good weather, Martin Kavanagh, executive manager of the council’s development department, said. “It really makes a difference to schedules.”
No major difficulties were encountered with underground services such as tele-
communication lines or water and waste service, which also helped to shorten the work.
The council now proposes to begin work on the Parnell Square improvement scheme. A public consultation project will start early in the new year. During the first phase of this project the road will be narrowed on Parnell Square North to two lanes, where a new gate to the Garden of Remembrance will be opened. Paving, lighting and tree-planting will also start.
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2005/1214/534538783HM5OCONNELL.html
© The Irish Timesgood news:)
-
December 14, 2005 at 8:52 pm #729852
Pepsi
ParticipantThat is good news. It has taken far too long to do up this street. It is nice to hear that it will be back to normal sooner rather than later.
-
December 15, 2005 at 4:04 am #729853
GrahamH
ParticipantThe northern end is certainly skipping along nicely, faster than the Lower phase it seems – the Plaza in particlar seemed to take forever at the time. Good news about May – remember hearing the 2006 deadline all those years back and thinking how far away it seemed!
A great pity the GPO isn’t unveiled for Christmas, especially Dec 8th when so many people in spite of the odds still come up to Dublin for the day.
There’s no activity going on inside though, and the job appears to be finished. Perhaps there’s a lighting contractor that’s holding things up… -
December 21, 2005 at 2:12 am #729854
GrahamH
ParticipantTwo parking bays as shown in the plans released last year are being installed – outside the Gresham Hotel and the Royal Dublin Hotel.
It is a shame that these will impact on the otherwise straight run of pavement and trees along the entire length of Upper O’Cll St west, and for most of Upper east.RDH
Gresham
It remains to be seen just what effect they will have.
-
January 5, 2006 at 1:55 am #729855
ctesiphon
Participant@Graham Hickey wrote:
Two parking bays as shown in the plans released last year are being installed – outside the Gresham Hotel and the Royal Dublin Hotel.
It is a shame that these will impact on the otherwise straight run of pavement and trees along the entire length of Upper O’Cll St west, and for most of Upper east.Could they be for wheelchair taxi purposes? Or are they long enough for the Aircoach? As has been noted here before the stopping of the coach on OCS is a big problem- perhaps a dedicated bay is justified?
-
January 6, 2006 at 12:55 am #729856
GrahamH
Participant@ctesiphon wrote:
Could they be for wheelchair taxi purposes?
Well considering what is probably the State’s largest taxi rank sits about four metres away, with a dedicated pedestrian crossing and wheelchair-friendly kerbline, it would certainly be a pity if they were built just for this reason.
As for Aircoach, surely Cathal Brugha St, again but a handful of metres away from the main door of the Gresham would be capable of catering for residents’ needs? If Aircoach terminate other services here (I don’t know, do they?), well surely O’Connell St is the last place they ought to be ending up – again more ‘Pillarism’ as Alek Smart has referred to.
Again, it remains to be seen if the bays have much impact – they may only require the uprooting of one tree, though coupled with the Cathal Brugha break right next to the Gresham, it’s an unfortunate arrangement.
It seems parking bays are being provided for the two hotels because everyone else has one – the Westin, the Merrion, the Conrad, the Shelbourne… -
January 6, 2006 at 1:52 am #729857
ctesiphon
ParticipantAircoach doesn’t terminate here, but it does stop for boarding/dismounting, one of the longer pauses on its journey. I thought perhaps it was a traffic flow measure? Maybe not just for Aircoach, but for coaches in general? I fear you might be right about the ‘but mommy I want one too’ mentality.
Not being a taxi getter I don’t know the answer to this, but do wheelchair accessible taxis have large doors on both sides or just on the left/passenger side? If not, it might explain the unsuitability of the Callely strip (remember him?;) ).
-
January 6, 2006 at 2:09 am #729858
GrahamH
ParticipantWho? Never heard of him…..
🙂
-
January 6, 2006 at 5:50 pm #729859
Rory W
ParticipantIt’s just one of those drop off points for the hotels – if you look outside the Fitzwilliam there is one there, Chief O’Neills has one and there is a few knocking about around most new hotels
Not an aircoach in site
-
January 23, 2006 at 1:52 pm #729860
urbanisto
ParticipantWhats the likelihood of the street being completed for St Patricks Day? Or Bertie’s Military Extravaganza at Easter? There is still a lot of work to do. However the first section (Plaza to Abbey St) seemed to have been competed in noi time once they had a bit of pressure applied (for the May Day Concert that never materialised). Perhaps they can get some speed up in Feb.
Meanwhile the GPO is still under wraps!
-
January 23, 2006 at 5:56 pm #729861
Alek Smart
ParticipantI noticed the other night that around a third of the Downlighters along the eastern side between Nth Earl St and Eden Quay are out to lunch and have been for quite a while now.
There is obviously a great improvement in the general lighting situation since the erection of the new boulevard poles however it is only when the searching eye moves up that the lighting defecit becomes apparent.
I wonder if the Council has decided to simply allow them to wither and die on the vine or is there a new Lighting masterplan ready to surprise us all….? 😮 -
January 24, 2006 at 10:06 pm #729862
GrahamH
ParticipantWell most certainly a lighting masterplan is something that ought to be developed for the buildings on the street – not that many aren’t trying something or other out at the moment, but many more properties ought to ‘take part’, and in a fashion better than what most currently do. And it would be better still if a lighting contractor was paid for by property owners to maintain the scheme.
To have most of the buildings on the street floodlit would be a great boost for nighttime O’Connell St. A reasonable attempt is made with buildings like Clerys, Grand Central, Irish Permanent, Easons, Lynam’s Hotel and Best on the corner with Nth Earl St, but it could be much better. The usual problems of mishmashed colour temperatures, blown bulbs, inconsistant light intensities, mis-directed floods etc abound – the Gresham and Clerys being two of the worst.
A spectacular, permament lighting scheme ought to be drawn up for the whole street, or at the very least owners encouraged and incentives offered for such work to be carried out. -
January 25, 2006 at 4:28 am #729863
Morlan
ParticipantIt’s sounds lovely Graham but will it ever happen? I’m not sure the council will want to spend more money on the street after the rejuvination. I can’t see property owners paying for something that doesn’t benefit them either.
Many European cities put a lot of money into flood lighting for their buildings. It would be great if Dublin could do the same.
-
January 29, 2006 at 4:51 pm #729864
Alek Smart
ParticipantAs a daily user of O Connell St end to end I must confess to an increasing concern at the emerging end-game.
My expectations (elevated perhaps) were of a wide traffic-free environment which was also devoid of clutter.
This open-vista looked good in the CG images and encouraged me to keep schtum on my concerns.
What we appear to be facing into as an outcome of the total HAR Programme is essentially a road resurfacing and cobblelock job.
I get a very strong sense of Dilution,especially at the Northern End of the street where the primacy of the private car has it seems overridden the potential for increased pedestrian/public transport usage.
One only has to watch a full size Articulated Truck attemting to reverse into Princes St to get a feel for the loss of direction which the street now appears to stand for.
When added to what appears to be a total indifference to the issue of signage,street furniture and public lighting we really are back to asking ….”Is it worth it” ???? 🙁 -
January 30, 2006 at 12:25 am #729865
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
The usual problems of mishmashed colour temperatures, blown bulbs, inconsistant light intensities, mis-directed floods etc abound
The blown bulbs comment is particularly apt. Just look at many of the state owned buildings that have poorly maintained flood lights, and just because of lack of will to change the bulbs. For a couple of years Government Buildings had a number of blown bulbs yet suddenly on the 2nd of January 2004 I saw two maintainance men replaceing all the bulbs, Methinks it was no coincidance that this was the day Ireland took over the EU Presidency.
I understand that the OPW has mamoth task in maintaning all the state properties but theres many examples of poor maintance just look at the weads growing out of the portico of Green Street Court House, a protected structure into the bargain.
-
February 1, 2006 at 7:04 pm #729866
adhoc
ParticipantIt looks like the O’Connell Street kiosks are firmly back on the agenda now that the paving element of the rejuvenation plan nears completion. DCC have just published a request for tenders for the finance, construction and completion of about 10 kiosks and 9 bus/taxi shelters along ‘Dublin’s historically premier street’.
The RFT states that the kiosks will be based on the design completed by LONDON BLOC ARCHITECTS, images of which are found at the reflectingcity website.
-
February 1, 2006 at 11:11 pm #729867
rperse
Participanthalf of upper o connell unoccupied and they act as if they have to sqeeze the last bit of retail space out of the street at the expense of the space and aspects the new layout should provide.
Oh, and most side streets with huge potential (sackville pl, nth princes, middle abbey st) almost devoid of people. If they want to see if these things work place them on a side street (within yards and view of o connell st)that needs a bit of help and please dont use o connell st as an experiment…..or worse turn it into another grattan bbridge set up.:mad: 😡 -
February 2, 2006 at 12:26 am #729868
Paul Clerkin
Keymaster -
February 2, 2006 at 1:07 am #729869
Devin
ParticipantThe caf
-
February 2, 2006 at 1:33 am #729870
GrahamH
ParticipantWas just going to say exactly the same thing – one of the runner-up projects was nothing short of a joke in the practicality department:
Can you imagine sitting in those chairs with buses roaring by 18 inches from your coffee cup!!! 😮
Far from all of O’Connell St becoming pedestrian-friendly, in my experience it is now one of the most hostile environments for the predestrian in the entire city. And its entirely down to the buses – it is simply a farce that the country’s main street has essentially become a giant bus stop. And because the Lower street has been successfully emptied of cars, the buses now have free reign to roar up and down the street as they please.If the kiosk operators paid me €2.80 for a coffee and sit there I wouldn’t do it – it’s difficult to think of a more horrible place to sit down for twenty minutes.
Again I just do not see the point to these kiosks – they will do nothing to the diversity of retail of the street, all they will do is replicate what is offered by the conventional shop units, and will add even more clutter to the already schizophrenic adornments to the median.They are nice pieces of design no doubting, but are they necessary?
I do like the street plan idea carved into their stone ‘bookends’ all the same: -
February 2, 2006 at 10:01 pm #729871
Maskhadov
ParticipantI think the kisoks look great and will do wonders for the look of the street.
However I agree with the above poster. Anyone sitting having a coffee there would require military grade hearing protection and also enjoy the same mentality as some of the Israeli settlers in the west bank 😛
We need quiter buses and less cars please.
-
February 3, 2006 at 5:23 am #729872
Morlan
ParticipantRed chairs, green roof. TACKY.
-
February 7, 2006 at 8:43 pm #729873
GrahamH
Participant😀
Though that was a runner-up – the winning designs by London bloc Architects can be seen here:
http://www.reflectingcity.com/index.html?a=5&t=23&p=29
“The suite of furniture will include two cafes, a ticket and information offices, five retail units, two news stands, two self-cleaning WCs, twelve public telephone boxes and nine bus or taxi shelters.”
Things are really whizzing along on the Upper street – upwards of 30 men are now working away up there, so much so it’s difficult to take a picture without being nabbed in one way or another 🙂
The new paving outside the Gresham:
The double-width pavements make such a difference to the northern end – there’s a wonderful sense of space and freedom to move about.
The paving outside Castle’s townhouse:
…and the scene further down looking north from Henry Street – quite a bit left to go here anyway, but again the new pedestrian space makes a remarkable difference:
Can’t wait to see it all finished, espcially the line of trees along the pavement edge.
Hope to have lots of before and after pictures which may be interesting.Delighted to see the Public Office of the GPO is getting a facelift, just as I was thinking how grubby it had become since last decorated in a rather pukey yellow, probably in 1984 or 1988. An elegant beige/tan colour is being used this time round with crisp white emulsion detailing – the contrast looks fantastic.
A real Edwardian look to it.
Now if only they’d do away with those naff 80s shopping centre light pendents and install something more befitting of the surroundings. Not that the original scheme in the 20s was any better – fluorescent tubes fixed to the walls were used to light the space! Though in pictures, up on the ceiling roses there seems to have been flush-mounted glass dome light fittings so typical of the era.
Why not go all out and install a glittering chandelier as the focal point and more contemporary fittings on the other roses? Something that would take your breath away every time you entered, like the Dargan Room in the National Gallery 🙂 -
February 8, 2006 at 1:24 am #729874
Morlan
ParticipantThanks for those Graham. It all looks very refreshing indeed. I’d happily eat me stew off that pavment.
What’s the building there with the fancy door surround in your second pic? The last time I saw it it was in a pitiful state. Won’t the owners be forced to clean it up as part of the rejuvination?
-
February 8, 2006 at 1:33 am #729875
GrahamH
ParticipantThat’s the Royal Dublin townhouse – the last on the street of course.
Yes the lintel is badly damaged, and has been for years, but nothing that can’t be repaired.
We’re lucky that well-proportioned one in particular survived – most of the other townhouse’s doorcases were big sprawling clunky yokes.The IAA pictures of the interior fully explain what Frank McDonald spoke about all those years ago in The D of D – it is devasted inside to an extraordinary degree. To the point that you’d wonder what the point if it all was – it all looks like wanton destruction just for damage’s sake. In which case I suppose it’s self-explanitory :rolleyes:
Luckily the magnificent stairwell has survived, but even today I think the drawing room fronting the street is still mostly bare breeze blocks.
-
February 8, 2006 at 1:59 am #729876
Devin
ParticipantI was in it a few years ago. It’s actually not that bad. The 1st floor rooms are reasonably intact, if in very poor condition. As far as I remember all of the bare breeze block work is in the basement – it was being altered for a nightclub :rolleyes: (back in the ’80s), but it never went ahead.
The stairwell/staircase definitely has the WOW factor. And the ceiling in that 1st floor front room is a knockout. There’s a full photographic survey of the interior as it currently exists in planning application 5336/03, available at DCC panning desk (when is the approved refurbishment going to go ahead, I’d like to know?!).
-
February 8, 2006 at 2:08 am #729877
GrahamH
Participant@Devin wrote:
it was being altered for a nightclub :rolleyes: (back in the ’80s), but it never went ahead.
It must have reached an advanced stage though as the lettering is still on the basement wall outside! Apollo or something – or is that Parnell Square?….
That’s good to hear about the first floor – certainly the impression given in the IAA photos with accompanying captions was of an almost gutted house including the drawing room. Is the outer hall bricked up do you know Devin – it seemed that was too.
But yes, the stairwell and landings are incredible. The wall panelling and semi-balconied landing is truly superb – and the chunky Venitian window as mentioned before 🙂
-
February 8, 2006 at 3:02 am #729878
Devin
ParticipantThe outer hall is not actually bricked up, but in poor condition nonetheless. You can just see it here through the arch on the left (picture on left). And a view in the opposite direction (pic on right). The white stuff on the stair handrail is a layer of bird droppings!
.
-
February 8, 2006 at 11:13 am #729879
johnfp
ParticipantAt last ! After nearly 3 years browsing this site I can finally see a structure emerging from the IAP and I have to say it looks fantastic. I live in Edinburgh and can safely say that O Connell St is rapidly getting to the stage where it can compare favourably with the Princes St thoroughfare. I always thought the street had beautiful buildings, in particular the GPO, Clerys, the Savoy, Gresham Hotel, Ambassador and the whole street is now starting to realise the potential already there. Hopefully, the momentum will continue and something will be done with the Carlton Site ( anyone know what the latest is on that? ) Findlater Building etc..
One building that continually irritates me is Burgerking at the lower end, in particular that hideous facade ( I`m talking about the semi circular window frame on the first floor) To me, that sticks out like a sore thumb and gives an awful impression. I thought there was a proposal not to renew the licences on these type of premises unless minimum standards were met regarding shopfronts etc? -
February 8, 2006 at 11:38 am #729880
GregF
ParticipantYep, O’Connell Street is looking great. It will look superb when finished. I will forever remember the cheap publicity seeking Green Party plonkers chained to the gnarled old trees holding up the works at the begining. I see the GPO’s portico is still shrouded in scaffolding. May as well leave it up, till after the cranky nordy Billy Boys Orange protest march at the end of the month. Will protect the building somewhat. There may be some trouble and I know they would just love to put the windows of the GPO in or cause some mark of damage to probably the main republican icon of the Irish Republic.
-
February 8, 2006 at 3:32 pm #729881
johnfp
ParticipantI know, cant believe they are letting that go ahead. As an Irishman living in Scotland I`ve come across a few of those thugs and it wouldn`t surprise me in the least if they caused havoc. Anyway, back to O Connell St, have they any plans for the Ambassador.I remember reading somewhere that it was proposed to relocate the stock exchange to there?
Cant wait to get back home. Anyone in a position to ofer me a job? I`m a liability claims negotiator.. -
February 8, 2006 at 4:38 pm #729882
johnbo
Participantquick question on O’Connell street, is ther any online pictures of the public submissions for the Spire?
Cheers
-
February 17, 2006 at 3:13 am #729883
GrahamH
ParticipantNot sure johnbo, but there are images in The Construction of Dublin anyway.
Oh dear 🙁
They never leave the poor fella alone, but particularly at this time of the year.
For those that don’t recall from last year, seagulls for whatever utterly bizarre reason, decide to defecate en masse in the first few months of the year, and in something of an um, ‘explosive’ fashion :o. Rather aptly in Dublin, they choose the handrail of the new Eden Quay Boardwalk on which to do it, as last year, which is hardly surprising given if I was a seagull Eden Quay would probably my first port of call too.
Sadly they completely destroy the Boardwalk, coating in particular, and I mean coating the handrail in the stuff. The City Council seem aware of the problem as they had a dedicated man-and-his-cart out cleaning it off with an array of cleaners and implements at what is hopefully the end of the ‘season’. Why the gulls only choose Eden Quay and nowhere else is a complete mystery, as is where they did it before the Boardwalk was built.
In that context :o, it is more than appropriate that the CC get one of their cherry pickers out from the Lighting Division and get poor aul O’Connell cleaned up – the scale of the devastation up there 😮 is a one-off, so it would be worthwhile getting rid of it: it really looks appalling. Indeed a picker ought to be sent out a few times a year to clean him and other monuments – I’ve been reliably informed that all of these monuments ought to be cleaned on a regular basis simply for protection from corrosion; the bronze of O’Connell Monument in particular ought to be cleaned and rewaxed every two/three years minimum – not every 120 years :rolleyes:
Simply from an aesthetic point of view it is really not too much to ask that O’Connell in particular be lightly washed down a couple of times a year, perhaps in tandem with cleaning of the Spire (assuming that’s ever going to happen). In spite of the seagulls, it’s very heartening to see how well the monuments have weathered nearly a year on from the conservation project – they all still look great, particularly the bronze of O’Connell. And the reasoning behind the use of limestone in its construction has been apparent ever since it was first cleaned (aside from nationalistic matters no doubt) – the Monument has a spectacular glowing blue quality to it that really shines on overcast days. It also contrasts well with the (later) Portland dressings of surrounding buildings.
If only the gulls could be curtailed – they are aptly described as weapons of mass-defecation on some sites.
Cheeky little feckers.
-
February 17, 2006 at 1:37 pm #729884
urbanisto
ParticipantIs it seasonal shit…I never realised! 😀 I actually say the guy cleaning the Boardwalk yesterday. What a crap job! Boomboom!
-
February 17, 2006 at 1:43 pm #729885
urbanisto
ParticipantIm terrible!
Anyhow, what I wanted to ask was how many of you think that:
a) the street will be completed for St Patricks Day
b) the street will more or less be complete, the paving finished just some final snagging, or
c) neither of the above but most definately all set for the Easter Rising Parade on 19 April (I think it is)After all I remeber way back in 2004 when the first section was being constructed there was a masive burst of activity to get the place ready for the (abandoned) street party to mark the new EU accession states. God May 2004 and here we are still up to our eyes in roadworks in Feb 2006. Still not long now….
On a small note anyone noticed the worrying ‘creep’ of signposts into the street. The Plaza is being slowly populated with them..hopefully only temporarily. However in Dublin with ‘temporary signage’ the signs are usual removed but the lovely pole remains…just in case…never know when it might come in handy.
-
February 17, 2006 at 2:52 pm #729886
ConK
ParticipantI live in the area. It strikes me as amazing that all work is conducted only during working hours. I hope the govt. have learn’t from the experience. . . in that, all works like this should be 24 * 7.
The silence on the street on a Sunday morning is weird. all the jcbs at a standstill.
Sometimes I regret not taking the corpo job offered to me 10 years ago with the crap pay.
-
February 17, 2006 at 7:30 pm #729887
-
February 17, 2006 at 8:20 pm #729888
Morlan
ParticipantStephenC, I read somewhere that the work will be completed by next May.. certainly not for Paddy’s Day. They’re already well ahead of schedule, believe it or not.
-
February 18, 2006 at 3:54 am #729889
GrahamH
ParticipantYes, and in fairness 2006 was always the finish date, stated as far back as 2002 – even if three and a half years is a frustratingly long period of time!
I can see Upper east easily being finished by March 17th and the median open assuming the lampposts and taxi furniture arrives in time, but not Upper west – there’s still a good bit to go there. That should be done by April, though perhaps the place looking like a bomb site would be rather appropriate…
I keep hoping to see a granite obelisk or two emerging from the muck in the trenches up there, but no luck thus far 🙂
-
February 19, 2006 at 11:44 pm #729890
J. Seerski
ParticipantWell no need to look far to find those obelisks….
At the Piazza for the Hugh Lane there are two, and in the gardens of the rotunda there a few more.
-
February 20, 2006 at 5:48 am #729891
GrahamH
ParticipantIs the there public access to that part of the Rotunda?
(1858)Though as mentioned before, it’s debatable as to whether the obelisks of Charlemont House came from Gardiner’s Mall.
Desmond Guinness says they feature in an engraving of the house from 1780, which makes things very tight with regard to their moving from the Mall. Considering works got underway to create Lower Sackville Street from 1777 onwards, it is just about conceivable that the Mall was dismantled in time, but difficult to believe all the same considering it took about seven years to build the Lower street and surely any dismantling would have happened last? And even then the Upper part mightn’t have been touched at all.
Indeed it’s possible the Mall wasn’t taken apart until the early 19th century. I can’t see the residents being overly pleased with the idea in 1777…
-
February 20, 2006 at 12:55 pm #729892
GregF
ParticipantI remember someone mentioned on this post that O’Connell Street is rather bare regarding statues up near the Gresham Hotel end. Who could we put here to fill the gaps and to add a certain grandeur to the newly refurbished street. I discovered I have this penchant for equistrian statues and something like the examples below would look cool, although 200 years out of date and out of place. I know too that they are always more than likely symbols of colonialism, conquered peoples, war victories and national myths. But I thought who could we prop up on a horse besides Eddie Macken and Ruby Walsh. How about Brian Boru; the Celts were masters of the horse, and he could become somewhat of a more prominent national hero figure. Would be a great tourist attraction for the street; sounds bonkers too I suppose.
-
February 20, 2006 at 1:40 pm #729893
GregF
ParticipantJust to add, regarding such statues, one foot of the horse raised indicated that the rider was injured in battle, two feet raised indicated that the rider was killed in battle and four feet firmly on the ground indicated the rider died in his bed or natural causes.
-
February 20, 2006 at 1:52 pm #729894
GregF
Participant….and here’s a statue of Boudicea in London
-
February 20, 2006 at 7:18 pm #729895
Morlan
Participant@GregF wrote:
Just to add, regarding such statues, one foot of the horse raised indicated that the rider was injured in battle, two feet raised indicated that the rider was killed in battle and four feet firmly on the ground indicated the rider died in his bed or natural causes.
Didn’t know that, thanks. 🙂
-
February 20, 2006 at 7:46 pm #729896
notjim
ParticipantWe have no momument to the Travellers; I always thought a fine, expressionist, bronze of a sulky rider would be great, it is so interesting that chariot riding has survived, persumably from the celtic times, as a sport among the Travellers.
-
February 22, 2006 at 1:30 am #729897
J. Seerski
ParticipantOne important question – has the statue of Jesus been removed from O’Connell Street? If it has its a ptiy as there was an interesting story behind it and the burning of the Gresham in the 1920s.
Oh and Graham, if you are looking for the other obelisks I mentioned, you need to go to the rotunda gardens behind the hospital where you will see several.
-
February 22, 2006 at 1:49 am #729898
GrahamH
ParticipantThough with the exception of the Spire, O’Connell Street I think ought to be kept the preserve of monuments to individuals rather than collectives or events, in line with by now well-established convention. Further monuments also ought not be abstract pieces, but very much so statuesque representations of people.
There’s one clear vacant plot just north of the Spire before Fr Matthew, with the possibility of another north of him again before Parnell Monument though that may be a bit of a squeeze…What definitely ought to be done – what I think would be a lovely idea – is to source one or two of Gardiner’s obelisks, even nick them from the Rotunda, and incorporate them into the median space of the Upper Street. He simply must be acknowledged on his Mall, not to mention the family’s wider efforts on the Northside. Considering a full-blown statue probably cannot be dedicated to the man due to ‘technical difficulties’ (which is perhaps not appropriate anyway for a property speculator) at the very least an obelisk and plaque is required up here.
The obelisks of Charlemont House most certainly are not Gardiner’s unfortunately – they’re of Portland stone, the mass use of which outside of the Parliament House would have been unheard of c1750.
Anyway, there’s no damage or any other indication as to their attachment to the abutting walls of the Mall.Down from the lofty heights of Parnell Square, Ann Summers is giving the GPO a run for its money in the scaffold stakes:
Part of the building’s window and probably wider restoration project.
Strangely the windows were removed before Christmas, only to be be put back in again in their original decrepit condition. Perhaps they were being measured up for copies 🙁
Think the steels of the first floor were also removed at the time. -
February 24, 2006 at 3:19 pm #729899
ConK
ParticipantFound this on an auction site. Apparently,
Original architect’s watercolour drawings showing the elevations of the GPO building €80,000 – 100,000
seems to be in a square. Sackvile square?
-
February 24, 2006 at 8:57 pm #729900
GrahamH
ParticipantWhat lovely things to have. What a ridiculous price to pay!
Yes it appears to be a square ‘effect’ rather than an actual square that Johnston was going for with Princes Street and Henry Street. I’ve seen a larger version and the flanking terraces are very striking indeed. Don’t know if he just painted the houses in as a mere idealised backdrop to his building, or if the terraces were actually proposed. Somehow the former seems more likely…
Nice chimneys and roofline there in the style of the Four Courts. It became a heaving mass of stacks by the late 19th century, as per the Custom House.
-
February 24, 2006 at 10:05 pm #729901
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterThat’s a lovely image, if I ever had money, that’s the kind ofthing I would buy and give to the archive
-
February 24, 2006 at 10:40 pm #729902
ctesiphon
Participant@GregF wrote:
Just to add, regarding such statues, one foot of the horse raised indicated that the rider was injured in battle, two feet raised indicated that the rider was killed in battle and four feet firmly on the ground indicated the rider died in his bed or natural causes.
So what’s this one? Died while playing polo?
-
February 25, 2006 at 4:30 pm #729903
J. Seerski
ParticipantDoes anyone agree and think that allowing any potentially ‘awkward’ demonstration down O’Connell Street in its present state a particularly irresponsible decision? The sheer volume of unlaid stone and piles of rubble as a result of the ongoing works would only make it a rioters/imbeciles paradise….
Political considerations aside, it was a wise decision to call off the march, considering the troublemakers which were baying for any excuse to start trouble.
-
February 25, 2006 at 4:37 pm #729904
Morlan
ParticipantThey’ve fucking trashed the place. Where the hell has all the fencing gone? 😡
-
February 25, 2006 at 4:39 pm #729905
Anonymous
InactiveO’Connell St in chaos as protestors and gardai clash
From:ireland.com
Saturday, 25th February, 2006Protestors at the Love Ulster Parade threw missiles at garda
-
February 25, 2006 at 5:28 pm #729906
Morlan
ParticipantWhatever about the marches and and all that political stuff, it’s a complete farce and the government should never have allowed it in the first place. It’s not really for discussion in these forums though.
Aaaanyway, It’s a bit of a set back for the redev of the street. ALL the fencing has been removed and people are walking on the newly layed paving willy nilly. Looks as though much of the loose bricks have been hurled around the street, probably damaged and will need to be replaced. Also, didn’t they plant the trees in the central medium? Where are they now?! 😮
-
February 25, 2006 at 7:15 pm #729907
GrahamH
ParticipantGood God – it is a warzone down there. An absolute disaster.
The Upper end has been destroyed – all of the construction railings are chucked in a massive pile outside the Gresham, and there is smashed glass and mortar covering what seems to be the entire Upper street like a blanket. Even burning wood and other rubbish beside the Spire.
On the Lower end there’s more missiles and glass everywhere outside Easons and a couple of Shinners were trashing one of the new bins there – I can only imagine the damage done to the trees and other furniture. Reports of looting from some premises, and there was a burning car with billowing smoke on Nassau St.
Most businesses on prinicpal streets have closed.Far from previous concerns over Unionists causing trouble, it appears to be 300 or so ‘breakway’ Shinners who see fit to trash their own city. Nice.
The place really is like a warzone – how embarrassing given the level of tourist couples who flood Dublin at the weekends.
Extended Six One tonight.
-
February 25, 2006 at 7:42 pm #729908
GrahamH
Participanthttp://static.flickr.com/38/104192110_00afef8924.jpg?v=0
What is this going to do for Dublin’s image abroad?
-
February 25, 2006 at 8:09 pm #729909
lexington
ParticipantA complete and utter disgrace! I’m horrified, shocked and appalled at this animalistic pathetic behaviour. I hope justice is served and comeupance is duly dispensed.
-
February 25, 2006 at 8:17 pm #729910
Anonymous
InactiveMaybe it my monitor but that image doesn’t look too bad; the one on RTE with the pink smoke looks much worse. In fact Harcourt Street looked worse than that during the Luas works as did O’Connell St during after last years Patricks Night incidents.
-
February 25, 2006 at 9:08 pm #729911
GrahamH
ParticipantThe building site works were aptly described as an ‘amunitions dump’ this evening – nearly every missile-throwing picture you see is that of thugs with blocks of granite in their hands. Similarly the fires were fuelled by their timber pallets, and the railings and other materials acted as ideal window-smashing implements.
This from one photographer – not credited:
(with tourists looking on)And the fire near the Spire:
I mean how did the situation arise that Garda
-
February 25, 2006 at 9:14 pm #729912
Anonymous
InactiveI’d say that Beleek would be a little high end for these Celts but I doubt that too many celtic jerseys are left in Footlocker a little different from the scene in The Plough in the Stars which describes the Piano being stolen from Clery’s.
The security gaurd downstairs thinks the whole thing is just typical of the Irish, this will take quite a while to live down.
-
February 25, 2006 at 9:36 pm #729913
The Denouncer
ParticipantI felt sick as news filtered through about this. How many of these Irish scumbags have no pride in their capital city? Looking at it on the News I felt embarrassed and resigned that so many fools, so many troublemakers walk amongst us. Thicks. No political knowledge, no interest in the city, no interest in anything. All they know is how to smash things, break things, burn things, rob things. Brainless scum makes me embarassed to be Irish. I hate them. 😡
-
February 25, 2006 at 9:49 pm #729914
kite
Participant@The Denouncer wrote:
I felt sick as news filtered through about this. How many of these Irish scumbags have no pride in their capital city? Looking at it on the News I felt embarrassed and resigned that so many fools, so many troublemakers walk amongst us. Thicks. No political knowledge, no interest in the city, no interest in anything. All they know is how to smash things, break things, burn things, rob things. Brainless scum makes me embarassed to be Irish. I hate them. 😡
😡 Scumbags from both sides… let them love Ulster up in East and West Belfast where those RETARDS belong….F**k our do gooder Government for letting those Nazis to come here to give “our” dopes a reason for destroying Dublin. Im Fuck**g mad as hell.
-
February 25, 2006 at 10:01 pm #729915
SeamusOG
Participant@Morlan wrote:
They’ve fucking trashed the place. Where the hell has all the fencing gone? 😡
I was sad to see the trees go on Upper O’Connell Street, but I have found it much easier to “see” the whole street now as you walk along it, e.g., to see the buildings on the opposite side of the street. That picture above sums it up. I know it was dreadful what happened today, but on the plus side, if you said to someone that that picture was of a major street in Paris after their recent riots, they might well believe you.:p
-
February 25, 2006 at 10:09 pm #729916
POM
Participant@kite wrote:
😡 Scumbags from both sides… let them love Ulster up in East and West Belfast where those RETARDS belong….F**k our do gooder Government for letting those Nazis to come here to give “our” dopes a reason for destroying Dublin. Im Fuck**g mad as hell.
Without taking it political, a democracy guarantees freedom of speech and expression. I don’t agree with the marches, I find them antiquated and gloating, however I am not willing to see our values of democracy eroded by the actions of utter scum. We should be above this. Furthermore, controls should have been established in advance to contain and manage such potential outbursts – we should anticipate nothing more for people like these (unfortunately). The Gardai were in a tough position today, but they need to be equiped with rapid response capacities in order to deal with such scenarios rapidly and effectively. I don’t think they did a poor job by any means but it could have very easily turned the other way. True Republicans would have shown a little more respect for their capital city and supporters of the march should consider the impacts of their petty actions. Undoubtedly, another 50% of the hooliganism on display today was run of the mill gougers looking to stir up a little crap and take advantage of a vulnerable situation. All in all, as my father would say, a shower of gombeens.
-
February 25, 2006 at 10:37 pm #729917
Frank Taylor
ParticipantWhere does this leave Bertie’s plan to steal a march on the chuckies by running a 1916 commemoration up O’Connell Street? Looks like he was beaten to it. Not just a commemoration but a re-enactment. I’m almost expecting the rebel leaders to be rounded up and executed by Michael McDowell.
-
February 25, 2006 at 10:46 pm #729918
Anonymous
Inactive@Frank Taylor wrote:
Looks like he was beaten to it. Not just a commemoration but a re-enactment.
Quote of the year 😀
-
February 25, 2006 at 11:00 pm #729919
Anonymous
Inactive -
February 25, 2006 at 11:17 pm #729920
Morlan
ParticipantThomond Park wrote:http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=o%27connell+street+riots&btnG=Google+Search&meta=cr%3DcountryIEsecond from top ]
And the first post is:
Paul Clerkin: “Excellent news….” 😮
-
February 26, 2006 at 1:32 am #729921
A-ha
Participant@kite wrote:
😡 Scumbags from both sides… let them love Ulster up in East and West Belfast where those RETARDS belong….F**k our do gooder Government for letting those Nazis to come here to give “our” dopes a reason for destroying Dublin. Im Fuck**g mad as hell.
Kite, I would watch what you are saying if I were you and turn up the volume in your t.v. Clearly you didn’t hear on the news that it was the Irish “Nationalists” , Sinn Fein and the like that were the obvious trouble makers. You musn’t have a clue what goes on in the world. You call people Nazis just for having an opinion…. you should be thrown into jail and beaten for saying a thing like that! You definetly got the whole “fu*king mad as hell” thing right, but I trust you were referring to your lack of sanity rather than rage. Don’t be so racist in the future, because it doesn’t suit you, oh and here it comes…. my baby hissy fit, NAH NAH YOU’RE THE RETARD! Also, this Love Ulster thing had no intention of destroying Dublin…. all they did today was sit in a bus while “our” dopes caused the damage. So next time Kite, think before you type, before you get it all wrong again. I hate bragging about all these political things, they really don’t belong in a site like this, but as soon as I saw your post Kite, I just had to reply. Also, nothing to do with your post, but the images on tv….. am I the only person that thinks it is a scene from Baghdad or some other city in Iraq. This cannot be good for tourism and we’ve just set ourself back 20 years.
-
February 26, 2006 at 1:57 am #729922
kite
Participant@A-ha wrote:
Kite, I would watch what you are saying if I were you and turn up the volume in your t.v. Clearly you didn’t hear on the news that it was the Irish “Nationalists” , Sinn Fein and the like that were the obvious trouble makers. You musn’t have a clue what goes on in the world. You call people Nazis just for having an opinion…. you should be thrown into jail and beaten for saying a thing like that! You definetly got the whole “fu*king mad as hell” thing right, but I trust you were referring to your lack of sanity rather than rage. Don’t be so racist in the future, because it doesn’t suit you, oh and here it comes…. my baby hissy fit, NAH NAH YOU’RE THE RETARD! Also, this Love Ulster thing had no intention of destroying Dublin…. all they did today was sit in a bus while “our” dopes caused the damage. So next time Kite, think before you type, before you get it all wrong again. I hate bragging about all these political things, they really don’t belong in a site like this, but as soon as I saw your post Kite, I just had to reply. Also, nothing to do with your post, but the images on tv….. am I the only person that thinks it is a scene from Baghdad or some other city in Iraq. This cannot be good for tourism and we’ve just set ourself back 20 years.
😉 I don’t give a shit for the oranges OR the greens in that shambles that happened in Dublin today, i just wish they and any other BLIND toerag that can’t take free speech (ring any bells A-hol*) would go and drown themselfs in the Liffey
-
February 26, 2006 at 2:24 am #729923
A-ha
ParticipantDon’t worry, I’ll call the ambulance when you jump from the Ha’penny. But was there really a need to call them Retarded Nazis? I mean…. you’re being prejudice against like a thousand different cultures just by saying that one word, not just the Orangemen or the families of IRA victims. It’s over the top and totally unacceptable, I hope someone will remove what you said before any more people read it.
-
February 26, 2006 at 2:36 am #729924
kite
Participant@A-ha wrote:
Don’t worry, I’ll call the ambulance when you jump from the Ha’penny. But was there really a need to call them Retarded Nazis? I mean…. you’re being prejudice against like a thousand different cultures just by saying that one word, not just the Orangemen or the families of IRA victims. It’s over the top and totally unacceptable, I hope someone will remove what you said before any more people read it.
Look A-ha a lot of people got a mad rush of blood to the head with what happened in Dublin today… I referred to the retards in EAST (loyalist) and West (Rep) Belfast…I just wish all those “RETARDS” would get a life (excuse the PUN) and let the normal people get on with living in the real world.
-
February 26, 2006 at 2:41 am #729925
A-ha
Participantk, i’ll shud up now if you do, lol. just realise that what you said was abit OTT.
-
February 26, 2006 at 2:47 am #729926
-
February 26, 2006 at 2:48 am #729927
altuistic
ParticipantI’m glad you have resolved your exchange however i feel the articulation of both your points are disappointing and you have done neither yourselves nor the forums any justice.
-
February 26, 2006 at 2:52 am #729928
kite
Participant@altuistic wrote:
I’m glad you have resolved your exchange however i feel the articulation of both your points are disappointing and you have done neither yourselves nor the forums any justice.
😮 You are right, sorry but today just got to me.
-
February 26, 2006 at 2:53 am #729929
A-ha
Participantyeah yeah, truce…. whatever it takes. i’m to tired to read anything at this stage… nite nite. :p
-
February 26, 2006 at 5:43 am #729930
Morlan
ParticipantHmmm…. I hate talking about this subject.. but
1. Nordies come down for a wee shindig
2. Some idiots throw a few bricks at the Garda -
February 26, 2006 at 10:55 am #729931
Anonymous
InactivePersonally, I was delighted to see the vibrant Saturday afternoon throng of a pedestrianized (albeit momentarily) O’Connell Street. Hopefully the new street works will continue to serve their purpose by making the street a dynamic and interactive urban space for the people of the whole island to enjoy on a weekend out. They certainly brought a new vibe to Dublin this weekend and managed to get O’Connell Street onto the BBC World Service, CNN, and German and French TV news. How bad is that – it should certainly attract more of the high-end tourist market which Dublin has been tapping into in the last few years – ie getting the lads and lassies of Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool to come over to Temple Bar for a riot of a weekend. DCC is truly the master of public manipulation.
I presume that this will mean that when Bertie’s commemerotive march takes place on O’Connell Street, there will be more security forces on the side streets watching it than actually marching down O’Connell street in the parade.
-
February 26, 2006 at 1:50 pm #729932
Maskhadov
ParticipantThe violance was very disapointing to see. I hate to type cast people but there is always trouble when nordies get into large groups. Dublin took a bit of bad press but nothing you wouldnt see in London with the anti war riots. €50,000 in damage isnt THAT much but any excuse for DCC to put back completion dates.
I just hope than any future nordie parade is properly marshalled with full riot Gardai.
-
February 26, 2006 at 1:52 pm #729933
ake
ParticipantIt’s a stupid idea to let any politically minded northerners out of their cage. How come scotland can ban marches?
-
February 26, 2006 at 3:40 pm #729934
Alek Smart
ParticipantIf anything positive can be said of Saturdays events it is how at Long Last the O Connell St project is being described as a “Building Site”.
For far too long now those of us who have to attempt to work in and around the street have been told its NOT actually a building site at all,merely a temporary disruption which can be easily catered for by excercising a little more care and observation.
The City Council sent out a fella called Charlie Lowe to bat on RTE news and he actually referred to his Duck as just that…a Duck…cos it looks like one,and it quacks like one…
The same Mr Lowe also without a trace of Irony said that the City Council could not have forecast this awfulness etc…just as the Gardai did`nt think it might happen either.
There is also now the benefit of having some sort of Game Plan for The Saint Patricks Day “Festival” which is imminent.
Many of the more youthful local colour who parttook fully in the site-clearance on Saturday would be well known faces to those who work or play around the “North Inner-City” and these young folks can usually be found on the 17Th in and around the same area attempting to do pretty much the same as what occurred on-site.
Now I am not suggesting for a moment that Saturdays hi-jinks could be seen as a dry run for the 17th but……….Prudent planning might just be in order….?
Mind you the view from Camera Number 3 does rather bring Baron Hausmann`s theories about wide uninterrupted avenues allowing for a clear and wide field of fire for the Troops into perspective..!! 🙂As Bertrand Aherne might say….L`Etat..?…C`est Moi…..!!!!
-
February 26, 2006 at 6:34 pm #729935
Morlan
ParticipantI honestly don’t forsee any problems with the 1916 march, just another piss up to most people.
-
February 26, 2006 at 8:34 pm #729936
Maskhadov
ParticipantJust a question about O Connoll street. How come we dont have a fountain ? I think it would really add to the street landscape. Something like what Madrid have.
-
February 26, 2006 at 9:33 pm #729937
Devin
ParticipantFoot Locker were back open today after being looted. Schuh weren’t though.
There was a surprisingly ‘normal’ atmosphere on the street today all things considered. -
February 26, 2006 at 10:57 pm #729938
Morlan
Participant@Maskhadov wrote:
Just a question about O Connoll street. How come we dont have a fountain ? I think it would really add to the street landscape. Something like what Madrid have.
The whore in the sewer? That’s foutainish.
Where’s it gone anyway? :confused:
-
February 26, 2006 at 11:12 pm #729939
kefu
ParticipantStill in storage but definitely being put back in at the Croppies Acre
-
February 27, 2006 at 12:33 pm #729940
GregF
ParticipantSaturdays events were disgraceful……It was horrific to see the street in ruins.
-
February 27, 2006 at 1:04 pm #729941
GregF
ParticipantHeres a few pics I took
-
February 27, 2006 at 1:06 pm #729942
GregF
ParticipantHere’s a few pics I took.
-
February 27, 2006 at 2:34 pm #729943
corcaighboy
ParticipantI like that first picture of yours GregF….the Spire looks quite good in that photo….very imposing presence. Interestingly….the events in Dublin barely got mentioned over here in Asia at all…and the mentions it did get were largely down to Sunday being a slow news day. Several of my Chinese friends were wondering why the police did not open fire!!! And if anyone has ever been to Korea, protests there are a common event….blood, riot troops, water cannons, and general mayhem. Those Koreans are full on….would probably put our bunch of heavies to shame.
-
February 27, 2006 at 2:41 pm #729944
aj
Participant@ake wrote:
It’s a stupid idea to let any politically minded northerners out of their cage. How come scotland can ban marches?
as a nordey i take great offence to this…. why are all nordeys being lumped in with idiots who feel the need to march in areas that they arent wanted… last time i looked there were about half the population of the north who classed them selves as irish and would be horrified to be linked to the orange marchers…
anyway as much as it pains me to say it (and it really does pain me) the trouble in Dublin was started by the scumbags of this city who not only embrassed the decent people that live in this city and are proud of it where ever they are orgianlly from but this whole country and give the nasty little orange bigots the biggest propaganda coup they could wish for.
-
February 27, 2006 at 4:05 pm #729945
TLM
ParticipantHow utterly disgraceful … Is there any idea yet of how permanent the damage to the street is? Have trees etc been completely destroyed? A very shameful episode.
-
February 27, 2006 at 5:36 pm #729946
Morlan
ParticipantHas the paving on the plaza or the south end of the street been fire damaged?
-
February 27, 2006 at 5:40 pm #729947
Frank Taylor
ParticipantAnd where was robocop when we needed him and his see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil colleagues who proved themselves so brave when knocking the shite out of a gang of hippy schoolkids on Dame Street?
-
February 27, 2006 at 5:46 pm #729948
Alek Smart
ParticipantAlthough some posters are a little wary of mixing architecture and strife on the board I would see Saturdays events in a somewhat broader context.
My view has little to do with Orange or Green as I feel that BOTH groupings are in their death throes as the New Ireland has Long Ago left BOTH floundering in it`s wake.
Todays O Connell St is far more likely to comfortably play host to a Chinese Falun Dafa protest or a Nigerian anti-deportation petition table than anything to do with our own limited sense of where we are at in terms of Nationalism or for that matter Loyalism.
What is FAR more impostant to me is the nuts and bolts of how this Capital City is managed and policed on the broad front.Already we have quite a contradiction appearing bewteen the City Council and An Garda Siochana.
We have had an Asst Garda Commissioner (How many have they got? ),Al McHugh and a senior City Council engineering toff,Charles Lowe each strongly contending that they had absolutely NO idea that any roughage was imminent.
However as was apparent from last Wednesday night,somebody in authority DID have an idea of what was coming and managed to order the sealing-up of ALL City Centre litter bins in preparation.Of course this instruction may well have come from An Garda Siochana,but if it did then it raises the spectre of an Assistant Commissioner not being aware of the views of other Senior Officers and their course of recommended action.
With both the “New Improved” Easter Parade and the “Traditional” St Patricks Day Festivities now imminent we really do need to know NOW what the abilities of both Council and Garda Siochana really are.
Its worth considering that Saturdays events was only the latest in quite a little line of Tactical Misadventures for An Garda Siochana and the regularity of these should certainly be giving cause for concern in relation to the Training and Motivation being instilled in the force
Perhaps most worrying is the ongoing acceptance which Garda Management appear to have with deploying unprotected members to Police contentious public order situations
The same Senior Garda “Sources” are to be found in the media venting to atmosphere on the business of Checking The CCTV footage in order to identify individuals.
The reality of CCTV in this instance is that even if individuals are pictured smiling as they lift a Granite Slab there is virtually No Chance of securing a conviction based on CCTV footage alone.
The courts will require FULL witness and corraborative evidence BEFORE even considering a custodial sentance or even a Fine.Perhaps this will give Mr McDowell an opportunity to bring forward the Garda Caution procedure which will no doubt reduce the Criminal Classes to a quivering lump of Chivers Jelly as a Senior Garda wags a disapproving finger and issues yet another “Last Chance” warning…..
If the Senior Gardai and City Admistration can manage to loosen their (masonic?) garter enough to pull up their socks then we might manage to secure a real advance in public order and safety provision in the Capital.
However I remain firmly rooted in the Korean camp…:eek: -
February 27, 2006 at 6:13 pm #729949
Anonymous
InactiveNot sure I would agree with the remarks about a New Ireland – this is true for us in the south as we have had a good few decades of political and economic stability behind us at this stage and, of course, this is to be welcomed. Long may our progress out of the pit of De Valera’s Celtic vision continue. In that regard, we are probably in the comfortable position of enjoying a new Ireland here in the Republic and certainly should be now mature enough to see a borader more European political spectrum.
That said, though, it is a hard slap in the face to our northern country-men to simply disown them and their sometimes contorted political reality simply because they were born on ‘the wrong side of the border’. To be honest, in my opinion it is a very selfish attitude which basically says ‘fxxk you’ to our northern counterparts as we drive away into the southern sunset in our new Mercedes cars. If they have a different, more ‘backward’, more ‘limited’, or provincial or primitive vision of political reality it is because they have grown up in a system which did not offer them anything else. We should at least try to understand that they have not been blessed with the same social and political secuirty as we have and not just damn them as raving lunatics. This, of course, is not to excuse what happened in Dublin – if they were true Republicans they could at least have respected their ‘true’ (?) capital city and their country people. But equally so, if they are dismissed as somehow illegimate Irish people not wanted by Britain and now not wanted in the Republic, why would they show respect to the Gardai or to Dublin and its inhabitants. It is quite arrogant just to dismiss them and their opinions, no matter how distastefully expressed, just because some of us have been more fortunate in where we were born on this island and didn’t have to contend with a society messed up by discrimination, militarism, and injustice.
In that regard, what is evident in some of the above posts is that if we are in a new post-Republican/post-unionist economically progressive Ireland, then it is a new Ireland also marked by a distinct and not so attractive crass selfishness which does little more than isolate those already isolated in a part of a country which they feel they rightfully belong to.
And before anyone accuses me of being nothing more than a Shin Feiner (would make a change from being accused of a Me Feiner, I suppose), this is not some form of an apology for Republicanism or what happened in Dublin. It is rather a comment on the self-centered ‘we are alright down here because we are rich now and don’t give a fxxk anymore’ mentality which pervades some of the above posts. Maybe what happened in Dublin was a little reminder to the conceited that not everyone has had it so good on this island.
-
February 27, 2006 at 6:16 pm #729950
lostexpectation
Participantthe thing I keep hearing about these ironbars being used to smash people and property, its those shiny bollards from oconnel street!
-
February 27, 2006 at 7:20 pm #729951
-Donnacha-
ParticipantI don’t agree with Alek Smart’s assertion that nobody will be convicted on the basis of CCTV footage. Video evidence is used to support prosecutions every day of the week in the courts. If someone is reasonably identifiable on video committing a crime, they will be convicted.
-
February 27, 2006 at 11:00 pm #729952
Anonymous
InactiveOrganisers to consider restaging march
27 February 2006 20:11
The organisers of the disrupted Love Ulster rally in Dublin are due to meet tonight to discuss whether they will attempt to restage the march.Members of the Families Acting for Innocent Relatives group says they will discuss their options following the weekend violence in the capital. A spokesman for the group, Willie Frazer, told RTÉ News they did not want to see a repeat of the riots.
This afternoon, the Northern Secretary said he believed Saturday’s violence in Dublin was a bad one-off event rather than some pattern for the future.
Advertisement
Peter Hain said he would not let the weekend trouble deflect him from seeking to successfully conclude political negotiations in Northern Ireland.
The DUP’s deputy leader, Peter Robinson, has indicated he does not believe the postponed rally should be restaged in Dublin.
Garda report
A Garda report into the riots, to be received by Justice Minister Michael McDowell, will be brought to Cabinet tomorrow morning.
Mr McDowell has already said that he expects further arrests to be made in relation to the garda investigation this week.
Gardaà have been studying closed circuit television footage from across the capital, which contains images of rioting and looting. 42 people were arrested and gardaà expect to make further arrests in the coming days.
Earlier today, the union representing rank and file gardaà called for an independent investigation into the contingency plans that were put in place by gardaà at senior management level for the loyalist march.
Speaking on RTÉ Radio’s Morning Ireland, the President of the Garda Representative Association, Dermot O’Donnell, said his members wanted the matter referred to the Health and Safety Authority.
Mr O’Donnell said he would contact the authority to ask it to investigate if the lives of gardaà were put in danger, adding that he believed there was not enough gardaà on the streets of Dublin on the day.
No advance warning: McHugh
The gardaà have defended the force’s handling of the Love Ulster parade and say they had no advance knowledge that protests on that scale were planned.
Speaking yesterday, the Assistant Garda Commissioner, Al McHugh, said intelligence did not indicate there would be violence on such a scale.
Mr McDowell said he accepted that gardaà had no advance knowledge that rioting was planned.
He added there would not be a public inquiry, but said the force needed to learn from what had happened.
Retailers in Dublin city centre estimate the riots will result in them losing millions of euro.
A number of shops and offices were damaged and looted during the violent protests.
The Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, has condemned the riots.
Dr Martin said there was something frightening in seeing organised violence on our streets.
Ding Ding
It’s not Ceasers Palace as much as Richard Quirke would like to think it is
-
February 27, 2006 at 11:35 pm #729953
asdasd
ParticipantAnd where was robocop when we needed him and his see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil colleagues who proved themselves so brave when knocking the shite out of a gang of hippy schoolkids on Dame Street?
that was also a riot, it seems you want different treatment for the working classes and the anarchist mobs – class tribalism, I suspect. I am happy to see either get the shite kicked out of them if they damage the city centre and attack the police first: although, to be fair, the anarchists did not stop me shopping unlike this crowd.
-
February 28, 2006 at 1:15 am #729954
PeterOB
ParticipantGiven all that’s happened if anyone else feels that a military parade for Easter 1916 is inappropriate, you can register your oposition here:
http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/no_military_parade/
Thanks
Peter -
February 28, 2006 at 2:18 am #729955
GrahamH
ParticipantIt would appear that a certain self-styled Grecian arcade provided much of the ammunition for the fun and games – unintentionally of course. Never would security permit so many snooker tables be rendered useless I’m quite quite sure.
Not that this really relates to development on the street, but what really baffles me about all of this is the fact that the parade was permitted to take place on a building site. Of course this has been said time and time again since the events and with the benefit of the 20/20 vision of hindsight, but whilst it might not have struck most of us, the public, beforehand, it most certainly ought to have struck the Garda
-
February 28, 2006 at 2:47 am #729956
Frank Taylor
ParticipantWas there not a mini-riot in Grafton Street on St Patrick’s day a few years ago, also fuelled by lose bricks from interminable roadworks?
Why not have the next Orange parade in Croke Park, available on pay-per-view? I’d watch it.
Colliseum Part II
-
February 28, 2006 at 2:52 am #729957
GrahamH
Participant@Frank Taylor wrote:
interminable roadworks
Indeed if any good has come of these events it has been the bringing to wider public attention the ludicrous timeframe of the O’Connell Street Project. Amongst other media outings, a gloriously ranting e-mail made it through to Pat Kenny this morning regarding the IAP works that really put the authorities to shame.
-
February 28, 2006 at 2:55 am #729958
asdasd
Participanta gloriously ranting e-mail made it through to Pat Kenny this morning regarding the IAP works that really put the authorities to shame.
Graham , from Dundalk, perchance?
-
February 28, 2006 at 2:56 am #729959
GrahamH
ParticipantDon’t know what you’re talking about…………..
*whistles*
But no. Not this time 🙂
-
February 28, 2006 at 2:55 pm #729960
GregF
Participant…….Apocalypse O’Connell Street
-
February 28, 2006 at 6:38 pm #729961
Alek Smart
ParticipantCorrect Andrew P,Video evidence is indeed used to “Support” prosecutions,however in this instance the suggestion is that somehow the Gardai will be able to nail a great many gougers merely on Video Shots alone….and that will not happen.
The Gardai can and do use Vid to support an accusation however it does not necessarily follow that a Judge has to attach ANY credence to that footage and in many cases a defence counsel will seek to have such footage restricted in its viewing to exclude the Jury.
The Law and particularly great big pus infected lumps of Irish Civil and Criminal law is not easily modernised or modified and the lower orders are more than well aware of those deficiencies.
Mar Shà mpla..do u think Bus Atha Cliath CCTV cameras manage to capture images of ANY persons smoking on its Buses…It sure certainly does and by the skipload too….
Can the company bring a successful prosecution on the basis of this Live,In-Your-Face evidence ?
Not on your life it can`t.
The offence must be witnessed either by an Bus Inspector,an Authorized Departmental Official,a Member of an Garda Siochana and only then can the No Smoking leglislation take its full course.
The reality of Last Saturday is that the Majority of those who took an active and well thought out part in the rioting can walk away secure in the knowledge that there is nothing the State can,or want`s to do about it.
There are SO many holes in the official story regarding Lack of Preparedness now that a half-decent Defence Lawyer would stick it right up the Garda collective backside and then move on to submit a statement of claim in relation to negligence on the part of the City Council resulting in his poor bewildered clients having to lash out in order to clear a path to safety etc etc…
Again the simple question…”Who ordered the sealing-up of the City Centre Litter Bins last Wednesday and what was the rationale behind that order ? “.
Whether it was preparedness or fear,that decision reflected a level of concern that Asst Commissioner McHugh and City Council Luminaries INSIST was not there.Mind U,its good to see City Manager John Fitzgerald sufficiently aroused to speak about the Council having to return for another look at restrictive leglislation regarding public gatherings on O Connell St.
Last time the Corpo tried that tactic they had to drop it quick-sharp after the Liberal Elite took umbrage at perhaps Senator Proffessor Norris being refused permission to perambulate along the street in pursuit of such hedonistic delights as Lambs Liver and Black Puddin of a Bloomsday…..which my friends presents the greater threat ?????
-
February 28, 2006 at 8:16 pm #729962
Anonymous
InactiveJ Fitz must have been refering to……
Ahern denies gardaà were ill-prepared
28 February 2006 17:42
The Taoiseach has denied opposition claims that gardaà were ill-prepared for the riots in Dublin city centre on Saturday afternoon.Bertie Ahern told the Dáil that the numbers involved in the riots could not have been foreseen by gardaÃ. He condemned what he called an orgy of violence, insisting that the disturbances had been organised.
The Taoiseach told TDs that those involved would not have moved quickly from O’Connell St to Kildare St without someone ‘calling the shots’.
Advertisement
Mr Ahern said there had been extensive consultation with Dublin City Council about securing the building site on O’Connell St.
He denied suggestions from Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny that the low key approach of gardaà had been a flawed one.
Mr Ahern said more than 300 gardaà as well as back up units had been on duty to police a parade of some 350 people.
He said some 50 to 70 republican counter-demonstrators had turned into a crowd of several hundred, many of whom had been drinking and that development could not have been foreseen.
Earlier, the Cabinet also heard that gardaà had no reason to expect the violence that erupted in protest at Saturday’s Love Ulster march in Dublin.
The Minister for Justice, Michael McDowell, briefed ministers on a garda report into the disturbances this morning.
The preliminary garda report deals with preparations for the march and maintains that officers had no intelligence that suggested that large-scale disturbances were likely.
It points to the involvement of large numbers of rioters wearing Celtic tops who had been drinking in nearby pubs and who dramatically swelled the ranks of the initial troublemakers.
Gardaà are not yet in a position to say who was responsible for instigating the violence, but it is likely that Mr McDowell will suggest that republican elements have to shoulder the blame.
The Garda Representative Association yesterday called for an independent investigation into the contingency plans that were put in place for the loyalist march.
42 people were arrested on Saturday in connection with the violence and further arrests are expected.
I don’t believe that there was any consultation whatsoever
-
February 28, 2006 at 8:31 pm #729963
adhoc
ParticipantAnyway, back to O’Connell street…..
Here’s how its going to look after the Metro arrives in 2012(??). The proposed lines are shown in this parochially-named RPA newsletter.
For the Love Ulster parade of 2012, all of us Northsiders will have much faster access to the action.
-
February 28, 2006 at 11:04 pm #729964
J. Seerski
ParticipantInteresting Montage….bears little semblence to reality! Would love to see that terrace on the right hand side – which does not exist!
Rest assured – the metro will never happen…. even if it does, 2012 is an optimistic estimate for delivery…
-
March 1, 2006 at 3:22 am #729965
GrahamH
ParticipantJust some pics of the riot damage. Luckily pretty much all of it was superficial – the public domain was ‘just’ made very very untidy rather than any lasting damage being done to furnishings or infrastructure. Not even pavements seem to be chipped which is a relief.
The shops that had their wondows smashed are Clarks, Foot Locker, Schuh, Eddie Rockets (minor), former Fingal HQ, and Findlater House. All of the street frontage of Fingal is now boarded up – don’t think it was like that before the riots.
A few scorch marks in places, and there’s a distinct burnt smell about the place. The only real damage in the public domain is a lamppost next to Sir John Grey, which a fire was lit against. It’s going to have to be stripped and repainted in matching paint please!
Some bins took a bit of a battering – unfortunately for the sake of a few nastly dents whole units are going to have to be replaced.
Most of the remaining rubble has been cleared to the median behind O’Connell Monument. None of the monuments have a scratch on them.The CC got in there impressively fast on Saturday to clean up, and all of the tree beds have already been re-gritted too.
-
March 1, 2006 at 3:27 am #729966
GrahamH
Participant.
-
March 1, 2006 at 12:32 pm #729967
GregF
ParticipantIt was a relief to see that there was somewhat minimal damage done , considering it was vitually a war zone. The council have to be commended for doing a great job cleaning up the street. With the works nearing completion O’Connell Street looks really wonderful. What a great makeover. To best view the revamp is to take a bus ride up the street, top deck, sitting up the front.
The scenes on Saturday should never ever be repeated again. St Patricks Day should be the test. It was only mere youths/juveniles, mainly from the locality (from an impoverished background, mentally and materially) that caused the havoc. I heard no northern accents among the crowd. The gardai were terrible at handling the situation. More law and order please, especially when ill reared thuggish children are involved. -
March 1, 2006 at 12:59 pm #729968
Anonymous
InactiveI think the Gaurds were in a tough situation here given the background or ‘robogaurd’ (a situation where another gaurd had a plastic bag of urine thrown upon them) and their perceived handling of street protests.
I however think that there has been a shift in attitudes on civil disturbance; whilst most have little problem with once off marches or even regular inconveniences such as ‘Critical Mass’ stopping traffic most would have little problem with a more pragmatic approach to ‘Civil Commotion’ which this was.
I personally like the French system where the local police will advise that the CRS are en route and that to still be present puts you outside the normal civil protections.
I too am glad that the damage was mostly cosmetic and or will be picked up bny insurance companies in respect of the private premises.
-
March 1, 2006 at 1:32 pm #729969
The Denouncer
ParticipantI think the Garda on the ground did a great job in many ways .. all in all it could have been a total disaster with orange marchers injured or worse, or people killed either by the rioters or the gardai. Its obviousl that they completely under-estimated the gouger factor in this city, especially the scum that poured out of the pubs on O’Connell St.
The Garda Helicopter was grounded..do we only have 1 garda helicopter? Or was this a joke.
No water cannons either..why were they so poorly supplied? Obviously a complete lack of intelligence gathering. Maybe they were afraid to antagonise the Orange Order.
I don’t think it will happen again on this scale to be honest they should have learned their lesson.. however if 500 gardai can wait around Air Force One in Shannon, then surely double that can be deployed on St. Patricks Day. -
March 1, 2006 at 7:27 pm #729970
Morlan
ParticipantSome great Photochops going around.
-
March 2, 2006 at 3:29 am #729971
Alek Smart
ParticipantReading the Riot Act……Thomond Park roared: I personally like the French system where the local police will advise that the CRS are en route and that to still be present puts you outside the normal civil protections.
Yes a somewhat untypically simple Gallic practice which I observed put to good use along the entrance to the Pont D`alma during the 2004 July 14th Defilè and later Fireworks..
Put simply the crowd had grown to such an extent that the local Police were having difficulty keeping the roadway clear for emergency vehicles et al..
After some 30 minutes of fruitless pleading and cajoling the Officer in Charge proceded to grab a Tannoy and make a very rapid-fire announcement in French..
First thing I noticed was a subtle change in the demeanour of many folks who slowly but very markedly began to move back leaving a smaller number still lying about the disputed kerbside..most non-french speaking I suspect and at least one strong Parisian Civil Liberterian minded Lady,who along with a worried looking gentleman stood her ground arguing with Le Flic on the merits or demerits of his earlier request.
Luckily I was in the company of a friend who works for Paris Bus (RATP) who translated the Tannoybabble loosely for me as ….!.C`mon,let`s get the fcuk outa here”.
Essentially the Flic had announced that his patience had expired and no further pleas would be forthcoming on the issue.
He was giving formal notice that he had handed over operational responsibility to the OC of the CRS unit on duty…
The subsequent arrival of the CRS unit was equally impressive as 3 Renault buses along with several support vehicles,including a mobile KITCHEN pulled up to disgorge about 60 of the surliest looking young men one could wish for.
We watched from a safe spot as the CRS deployed very efficiently and began to establish a clear line along the kerb,which by now had largely self-cleared anyway as the literal meaning of the initials CRS began to be translated to the few remaining sitters.
Nothing actually happened but the entire tableau was fascinating to observe ……There was not any pretence or attempt at portraying themselves as “Community Police”.
They were simply there to perform a specific function and this did not extend to posing with American Tourists or giving directions,something I discovered later that night when I asked one such fellow for directions to my hotel…”Sir,sez he,(In excellent English) My function here is Security,I suggest you consult a concierge or hail a taxi” Bon Nuit !!!!
I just love the sang froid with which this was all carried out….whereas we place this multifaceted burden on our Gardai to be Bertiemen..ie “All tings to all men” and as a result have become nuttin to nobody…(??)
One other interesting little observation re the Sat Game in Dublin was the role of the Garda Aerial wing…while it is true to say the Rotary Element was not on station,I personally saw the fixed wing (and equally effective) Pilatus defender aircraft circling the City Centre area quite early in the proceedings.
Perhaps the most thought provoking response to the entire thing came from Fr Peter McVerry (a walking Saint to many) who is of the firm belief that this trouble is largely the result of the City Gardai failing to show enough “Respect” to the youthful denizens of the Inner City proper…This in turn leads us off into the enchanted forest of when and where does respect become something which is earned or deserved rather than Expected…..
Me….? I`m still trying to perfect the Marlon Brando method of saying the word…Respect…..Respect…..Respect.
Vote George Galloway..!!!!! 😮 -
March 2, 2006 at 2:16 pm #729972
Anonymous
InactiveAlek,
I agree a time and a place should be the rule of thumb; the Gardai are often overstretched in the number of roles they are expected to perform.
Are there any timescales on delivery of the Kiosks?
-
March 3, 2006 at 1:11 pm #729973
Anonymous
InactiveTwo men to appear in court on riot charges
From:ireland.com
Friday, 3rd March, 2006Two men are to appear in court this morning on charges relating to the Dublin riots last Saturday.
The men, one in his 30s and the other inhis 20s, were arrested in Mullingar, Co Westmeath, yesterday.
The are scheduled to appear in Dublin’s Dictrict Court at 10.30 a.m. this morning
.
From Eircom
-
March 3, 2006 at 1:31 pm #729974
Maskhadov
ParticipantQuestion :
Has anyone noticed that the new level of the street for O Connoll street is quite a bit higher (on the GPO side) when you get near Parnell street ?
There is a big drop (with tarmac used to bridge the 1/2 metre drop) and I was just wondering was that kind of drop meant to be there ? I always though the street was more or less flat.
-
March 3, 2006 at 4:12 pm #729975
Paul Clerkin
Keymasterstrangely after reading about the crs, i got an email from the defence forces looking for the dimensions of o’connell street…
-
March 3, 2006 at 4:59 pm #729976
Anonymous
InactiveIt is obvious that the defence forces will be called into play at some stage in this area and looking at the rte story below that could be sooner rather than later…
Two charged over Dublin disturbances
03 March 2006 14:13
Two men have appeared at Dublin District Court charged with a public order offence following last Saturday’s riots in Dublin.25-year-old Thomas Morley and 38-year-old John Saunders, both with an address at Galway Road in Kinnegad in Co Westmeath, were arrested in Mullingar yesterday afternoon.
Detective Garda Fergal O’Flaherty told the court both men were taken to Mountjoy Garda Station for questioning, before appearing in court today.
Advertisement
Both are unemployed and were granted legal aid. They have been remanded in custody with consent to bail.
The latest arrests bring to 42 the number of people detained following the disturbances.
The violence erupted in several parts of the city centre on Saturday afternoon as a loyalist parade commemorating the victims of republican violence was about to get under way.
Meanwhile, the organisers of the Love Ulster Parade have said they hoped to return to the capital city.
They said they wanted a number of assurances from the Irish Government that there would not be a repeat of the violence which erupted in the city, and which they blamed on thugs from a republican element.
Willie Frazer, one of the organisers of the rally said, ‘We would like to go back as soon as possible. But there’s a lot of questions that are going to have to be answered by members of the D
-
March 3, 2006 at 5:44 pm #729977
Maskhadov
ParticipantIt would be some ugly sight if the Defence Forces had to rail road this parade down O Connell Street.
Why dont they change it from a Saturday to Sunday and save the shopkeeps millions ? WHY ? BECAUSE THEY ARE PROTESTANT FUNDAMENTALISTS WHO WONT MARCH ON A SUNDAY !!
-
March 3, 2006 at 5:48 pm #729978
Anonymous
InactiveThat is incorrect the most contentious marches in NI have always been in Portadown on a Sunday; whatever you think about them it is a lot worse for them to use last Saturdays riot by homegrown trailor trash as an excuse to stall things east of the Bann. I say let them march and witness the pure apathy towards them from the silent majority of Dubliners
-
March 3, 2006 at 8:12 pm #729979
Alek Smart
ParticipantYea…bring them on….I still think the St Patricks Day Parade is in dire need of an injection of……well…something….
The entire “Creative and Performing Arts” thing has run its course and then some.
For example if we take a look back at old photo coverage of Past Pats Day parades it reveals much about the Country at that time….Like the rings on a tree.
Nothing stirs my blood like the sight of bonneted Leyland Hippo`s or even an oul Spa Road built bus or two doing the honours in the parade..With the CIE Information Kiosk just visible in the background….(Hmmm…Badly needed thinks me)Since the inception of the “Arty” parade,I have lost any real interest in it as a spectacle but thats only a personal thing.
I always felt somewhat bemused at the strength of purpose some folks displayed in attempting to bring a flavour of Rio at carnival time to O Connell St in mid-March but I suppose if it floats one`s currach then its O Donnell Abù to U2.Although…….Kinnegad…Hmmmmm…..Bet its a while since they had a right good Main Streeter with a reviewing stand outside Harry`s..wonder if Willie Frazer could be persuaded to bring his show on Tour…
Think of the possibilities…..”Billys Boys do Borris-in-Ossory”……”Orange County Choppers come to Oulart”……”Lambeggin in Limerick”…..”Wrap yer sash round Salthill”
As Mel Brooks proved with Springtime for Hitler….The show must go On !!!! 🙂 -
March 6, 2006 at 4:02 pm #729980
urbanisto
ParticipantThe wraps are off the GPO and it looks magnificent. Some last minute touched are required such as reinstaing the two lanterns and (hopefully) giving the bollards out front a lick of paint. Otherwise the building has been well worth the wait and is ready in time for the Parade. One point: there doesnt seem to be any floodlighting in place and I wonder if this feature has been dropped.
Elsewhere work on the street is flying along. Large sections of the pavement are complete and lamposts and trees are being installed in Upper OCSt today. I imagine the median will be cleared and ready for the 17th as well as sections of the footpath and the rest will be completed in the month folloiwng. I think well see a fully finished street by April!
-
March 6, 2006 at 5:19 pm #729981
Maskhadov
Participantany pics of the GPO ?? I cant wait to see the entire street finished !
Can someone clarify what the authorities are going to do with the .5 meter height difference on the top of O Connoll street with the new paving and the old. Its on the GPO side.
-
March 7, 2006 at 3:13 am #729982
GrahamH
ParticipantAs far as I can make out Maskhadov it is to account for the rather undulating nature of this part of the street. One thing we tend not to consider with all this repaving is that all premises’ entrance floors must be flush and level with the exterior paving, which appears to be something of a problem here, on what is the oldest part of the street.
As Stephen mentioned, the most famous building in Ireland has finally been unveiled after months of being shrouded in scaffolding and mesh.
The General Post Office in all its bombastic glory looks simply spectacular 🙂A certain lightness of touch and finesse in the design has emerged post-cleaning in spite of the general heavy weight of the architecture. The crisp detailed frieze and column fluting lends the building a certain delicacy that helps lighten the load, generating that classic Regency contrast between bold lines and elegant decoration.
It took many painstaking hours to restore the frieze to its former glory, especially as the contractors were forced to dress in period costume in accordance with an ancient stipulation laid down by Johnston when he went a bit mad towards the end:
😀
-
March 7, 2006 at 3:15 am #729983
GrahamH
ParticipantThe bone white Portland stone with patches of gold in places has a luxurious quality…
…especially sited next to the glittering rough granite of the flanking walls and lower rustication which features the odd beautiful rusty brick which wasn’t evident previously, and most of which is the original 1818 stone. It is now very easy to spot the 1924-29 replacement blocks, especially on Henry Street.
The ceiling of the portico looks stunning in fresh cream paint – all of the key scrolling is still very evident in spite of the absence of the former contrasting colours:
Ranks and ranks of outdoor electrical sockets have been installed all of the way along up there – presumably for Christmas decorations. There’s also other boxes perhaps intended for floodlighting. As yet there are no floods anywhere on the building. The big bronze lanterns over the central windows have also to be reinstalled, as well as the central clock.
Pity they weren’t painted cream too. You can also see discreet new brackets there to be used for suspending banners between the columns.
The strange plaques that possibly used to be clocks (displaying times in different parts of the country?) look great now that they’ve been cleaned and painted a vivid blue:
Every little detail of the building has received attention – the doors in particular look wonderful re-stained a deep brown and all of their brass hardware highly polished, from the magnificent handles to the tiny little rosettes to the flanking signs – all carefully treated:
-
March 7, 2006 at 3:17 am #729984
GrahamH
ParticipantAlso the overdoor bronze plaques:
And not forgetting those perched 50 feet above the street, all of the statues have received treatment too.
Fidelity:
Mercury:
And of course the grand old lady herself:
The gilded features are a nice touch, perhaps a 1920s innovation…
Top marks to An Post and contractors, a job exceedingly well done – detailed, thorough and sensitive – and in a fairly short space of time too. Coupled with the comprehensive interior works, it’s a timely project coinciding with the completion of the public domain outside. The icing on the cake would be a commitment to maintenance – keeping the external brassware in good an order as the interior brass detailing on the counter screens (which always looks great), repainting every few years where necessary, regular replacing of floodlighting bulbs when they eventually come on stream, and upkeep of the bases of the columns and bollards which can get very dirty.
If there is one thing that is perhaps still left to be dealt with, it is the vacant space in the pediment who’s barefaced blocks do not sit well with the decorous nature of the portico below. Maybe a new piece could be commissioned for 2016 in place for the former Royal Coat of Arms?
To have the building looking so good really does the Plaza justice, and vice versa. The mellowed stone adds a real warmth and texture to the space in the evenings too:
Finally having the GPO back again is wonderful; O’Connell Street felt so empty without it. It is such a strong building, holding a reassuring, almost protective presence in the heart of the city that is impossible to imagine Dublin without it.
-
March 7, 2006 at 5:39 am #729985
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterLooks fabulous – some great photos.
-
March 7, 2006 at 10:13 am #729986
Anonymous
Inactive@Graham Hickey wrote:
As Stephen mentioned, the most famous building in Ireland has finally been unveiled after months of being shrouded in scaffolding and mesh.
The General Post Office in all its bombastic glory looks simply spectacular 🙂Excellent photos Graham. The building looks great.
-
March 7, 2006 at 12:14 pm #729987
Maskhadov
ParticipantThanks for the reply Graham Hickey. I hope they can sort it all out but there is quite a difference in height :S
I took another look at the GPO and I must say it looks fantastic !! They did an excellent job.
-
March 7, 2006 at 1:58 pm #729988
GregF
ParticipantGreat photos Graham of the GPO. Hibernia looks well with the tri-colour in the background.
-
March 7, 2006 at 2:01 pm #729989
a boyle
ParticipantBeing totally honest i have always found the GPO to be for want of a better word clunky. (i’m an engineer not an architect : so english me speak no good)
It could be that the portico has no carving placed in it, but i am not sure. I thinks its that the building is soo imposing that the inside doesn’t really live up to expectations. The public parts of the gpo don’t go very far into the building. I always get the impression that the facade is too strong for the size of and layout of the inside.
Don’t misunderstand me it is nice. But it’s a seven out ten rather than an 8/9.
-
March 7, 2006 at 2:34 pm #729990
GregF
ParticipantA carving of a harp and a shield with the crest s of the 4 provinces could be apt to fill the spot.
-
March 7, 2006 at 3:40 pm #729991
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterWhy bother? That’s revisionism – the crest is gone, leave it blank – the austerity works for me
-
March 7, 2006 at 5:38 pm #729992
DJM
ParticipantWow!! GPO looks absolutely stunning. 🙂 Great photos and a great job done.
Was the debate over the ‘marks’ on the columns ever concluded? Were they caused by bullets or corrosion?
I couldn’t help but notice that the two gentlemen chipping away at the frieze, dressed in period costume, both appear to be left handed! Up the ciotógs 😀
-
March 7, 2006 at 9:09 pm #729993
fergalr
ParticipantHibernia has rather a long neck, doesn’t she?!
Pictures are brilliant, thanks for putting the up. The building looks stunning, I was past it yesterday. The GPO has never been what you would call an elegant building, though. Compared to St. Georges up the road, it’s not exactly Johnston’s best work.
-
March 7, 2006 at 10:35 pm #729994
Maskhadov
ParticipantThe GPO looks stunning but I just cant come to terms with the side walk. Every day I walk along it I cant help but wonder at it. IT reminds me of the so called “side walk” in Saigon in Vietnam. Has anyone else ever been there ? Say no more. Well at least we dont have that stench.
Anyway,
The choice of stone for the pavement is highly questionable. I think it holds all the muck of the street. The other thing that fasinated me was the area close to the shops. They all have this glass type pavement over a metre in width. It must have been put in place back in the 60’s and looks completely MANKY in this day and age.
I just pray that the shops, hotels and the like replace this minging site with modern glass/pavement lighting.
-
March 8, 2006 at 8:18 am #729995
-
March 8, 2006 at 7:50 pm #729996
murphaph
ParticipantWhat crest used to live on the portico? The royal standard?
-
March 8, 2006 at 11:33 pm #729997
Anonymous
InactiveIts well gone whatever it was.
A fantastic job which has restored the GPO to its rightfull place as centre of attention on the street.
Well done to An Post for showing some pride in their flagship.
-
March 9, 2006 at 1:47 am #729998
GrahamH
ParticipantThat black and white frieze photo Bago is just one I happened upon on the internet; it depicts the building of a state capitol building in the US in 1907. Just thought it was humourously similar – well, at the time anyway…
It appears to be the Royal Standard alright in the tympanum – here it is in April 1916:
It seems to have been removed in the 1924-29 rebuilding.
It could be argued that it was revisionist even to remove it in the first place in the late 1920s. I wouldn’t suggest that something ‘reactionarily’ be put in its place just for the sake of replacing a sculpture that was there before, and yes the removal of the Standard is indeed part of the building’s history. But equally so would be the reinsertion of a sculpture commissioned by a more confident nation, a nation very different to that of the dour 1920s, that would take into account the prominent nature of the building and everything it has now come to represent – essentially the symbolism of the State is now completely wrapped up in the place. I think it would be a nice gesture to more manifestly represent that with a newly commissioned piece.
Also it is not a case of crassly supplanting British symbolism with that of the Republic: the GPO has always been a people’s building since the day it opened its doors nearly 200 years ago, not a powerful remnant of British imperialism as was traditionally the case with other state buildings.
There was a more a stately quality to the building with the crest in place – though that could just be the fluffy rose-tint of sepia 🙂Agreed about the building generally though – it’s not exactly the prettiest thing going, but then that heaviness was the style of the age. And the portico was built to be more of a feature of the street rather than of the building, so its sturdy character doesn’t fit that well with the rest of the rather austere wings. Perhaps that’s its biggest problem – there’s a number of elements that work very well on their own like the lovely incised clean cut upper windows, the texture of the lower rustication, the portico, the heavy cornice and balustrade – but all of which do not gel very well together, creating something of an awkward building.
Still, the almost hidden wall to the rear of the portico is still its finest feature I think. The marching arched windows and alternating pilasters look stunning at a raking angle, particularly evident on an overcast day when no shadows are being thrown about. There’s little else similar Regency-style architecture in the city 🙁
-
March 9, 2006 at 5:52 am #729999
Bago
Participant@Graham Hickey wrote:
That black and white frieze photo Bago is just one I happened upon on the internet]Ah, i see, the blockish pieces protruding (don’t know the technical name) above the frieze were so similar i assumed it was the GPO
@Graham Hickey wrote:
But equally so would be the reinsertion of a sculpture commissioned by a more confident nation, a nation very different to that of the dour 1920s, that would take into account the prominent nature of the building and everything it has now come to represent – essentially the symbolism of the State is now completely wrapped up in the place.
A breakfast roll and hardhat perhaps:D
While on the GPO a stone version of the Cuchulainn statue might have been nice outdoors though. !? -
March 9, 2006 at 12:47 pm #730000
murphaph
ParticipantWould there be anything wrong with just replacing the Royal Standard? It’s not like we don’t have other buildings with them on and it causes no problems. It seems to look ‘right’ in that old 1916 pic.
-
March 9, 2006 at 2:15 pm #730001
SeamusOG
Participant@Graham Hickey wrote:
The strange plaques that possibly used to be clocks (displaying times in different parts of the country?) look great now that they’ve been cleaned and painted a vivid blue:
I was passing by the GPO today and had a close look at it, prompted by Graham’s excellent photos above. The brick immediately beneath the middle window (between the pillars) on the first floor is perhaps a metre long (it may actually have been two bricks totalling one metre) has a curved bit cut out of it – as if to form a place for another circular object which would have been smaller in radius than the two blue plaques. There is then a metal bar running across the window which might have been used to hold this object in place. I dunno what the circular object might have been, but a clock would be an obvious thing. (Put in place after construction – otherwise it’s hard to see why they would have put a full size window there). Might they have had separate clocks for time in London, Dublin and (say) Galway. Something to watch 😮 out for, anyway.
There are also two metal rods which protrude from the building either side of the central window -for lamps perhaps.
-
March 9, 2006 at 6:13 pm #730002
ctesiphon
ParticipantIf yu look at the small, square, sepia picture in Graham’s post above (the third of the four pics) you can see something in the place you mention, but it’s not clear what it is, and it’s missing from the pictures of the burnt out shell. A clock is a distinct possibility, but it could also have been a crest of some sort.
Bago- I think ‘Dentil cornice’ is the phrase you’re looking for.:)
-
March 10, 2006 at 3:22 pm #730003
aj
ParticipantSpeaking of missing clocks check out the one on the building with the wind vane… the fact that it is missing it clock and the general condition of one of the most interesting buildings in dublin is a shame.. this building would look fantastic if it was given some TLC.. i know this discussion hasbeen had before but surely the owners shopuld be forced or incentivised to reburish there buildings.
-
March 11, 2006 at 5:31 am #730004
GrahamH
ParticipantIndeed, though at least it isn’t as bad as it was a few years ago – the entire red brick facade was smothered in blue paint until about 1990! Unfortunately while they gave with one hand by stripping the paint, they also took with the other in choosing to insert aluminum windows in the upper floors 🙁
Kept meaning to post about the vacant plinth here – there used to be a clock as aj says, that was restored after 1916 in spite of nearly being smashed to pieces. I suspect many people over the years have wondered what used to be there waiting at the lights on the bridge :). Was particularly interested to read recently that this building used to be the premises of the famous clock and watch makers Chancellor and Son, which explains a lot!
You can see their clock here c1900:
Looking worse for wear in 1916:
And still in place, fully restored in the 1950s:
It was probably removed in the 1970s when the blue paint went up and when the very top aluminium windows went in. White aluminum or early PVC was then installed around the time the paint was stripped off :rolleyes:
The metal plates or coloured render now there are probably covering clock support holes in the brickwork.This is an historically important building on a number of levels, and stands on one of the most prominent sites in the city; it deserves better than its current decrepit condition. As can be seen below, the facade is stapled with a crude rusting steel, the windows are in an appalling state including the comparitively rare surviving two-over-two upper sashes on the second floor, there’s general clutter tacked all over the place, inappropriate metal and plastic windows, and of course a vacant plinth.
The fact that it used to be a clock factory is fascinating enough in itself, but the fact that the facade is peppered with bullet holes makes it all the more interesting (pot-shots being at the clock from the river?), as is the possibility that some of the brickwork may be the only exposed brick of the Wide Streets Commission left on the entire street. The building also retains the character of the WSC development, as well as stands as one of very few Victorians to have survived 1916, 1922 and the 1970s and 1980s.
It is also an iconic building – who doesn’t know that distinctive gable, and weather vane and wind compass?
Not sure either of them work any more either 🙁
It’s time to get things rolling on that entire crucial Lower O’Connell Street-Bachelors Walk corner.
To get a new clock made would be an important part of that; you can never have enough accurate clocks in a city, especially on a site with such a vast captive audience. -
March 12, 2006 at 1:40 am #730005
MT
ParticipantA fantastic piece of restoration. The original architectural failings aside (although I think some are being a bit harsh) Dublin’s centrepiece has been given a sparkling makeover. This project by An Post really has been from the top drawer and ties in beautifully with the O’C street redevelopment. There can be no doubt Dublin has been truly transformed over the last decade.
@GregF wrote:
A carving of a harp and a shield with the crest s of the 4 provinces could be apt to fill the spot.
Not so sure. The irony of such a feature wouldn’t be lost on a large section of one of those provinces after the recent riots on the street. Though a fairly dodgy bunch, the common reaction of ‘if they love it so much can’t they stay up there’ to the Love Ulster (were they even the main organiser) march would suggest that most Dubliners would prefer a shield consisting of three segments not four. And the remarks from some would indicate that a removal of a certain orange stripe from the national flag mightn’t be the most unpopular move ever made either!
Disclaimer: before I start a riot (sorry, had to get that in) in response to that comment, I’ll just point out that although from the North, I’m not an Orange bastard, a protestant fundamentalist nut case, religious at all indeed, a nazi, a bigot, a British imperialist, a racist, an anti-Irish git, thick, moustachioed, a supremacist, a member of the Ku Klux Klan, an ‘if it wasn’t for that lot, everything would be rosy’ person, someone that ties up swings on a Sunday, a loyalist murderer, wearing union jack underpants, dour, difficult, humourless and just plain nasty or even someone who doesn’t consider themselves Irish. Or any other stereotypes I’ve missed. Just an architecture enthusiast who happens to live in the wrong province, or so it seems.
Still, the GPO looks wonderful. 🙂
-
March 12, 2006 at 2:46 am #730006
-
March 14, 2006 at 1:41 pm #730007
urbanisto
ParticipantThere are still so many things to be done on OConnell Street.. paving works aside. The JWT corner is also sorely in need of some proactive action by the Council. Its a disgrace, more so because it leads on to the premier shopping street of the city.
Its tsill hard to see what the street will be like on Friday. I had thought that lating the kerbing would have been completed so that at last most of the trenches could have been filled in. At the very least the median should be completed to allow the maximum amount of people on to the street.
As some sections near completion its worrying to see the amount of clutter and signage increasing. Why all those ugly signal boxes? Does every crossing really need that many lights? Has anyone even noticed the lump of (newly laid) pavement taken out outside Supermacs? (its a pool of water this morning… the Dark Pool) I imagine that the bus stops currently located on the Plaza will be relocated once the upper pavements are completed. And the kiosks, taxi shelter, bus shelters have all still to be put in. It we are not careful it will soon be impossible to see any of the fine new vistas on the street.
-
March 14, 2006 at 1:47 pm #730008
Maskhadov
ParticipantCan anyone clarify what the shops are going to do with that 1-2 metre strip in front of their shops ? Its covered in minging 50’s style glass and concrete and looks manky.
The amount of clutter around the street looks to have increased sharply indeed. I just hope they get everything sorted by Friday.
-
March 14, 2006 at 2:14 pm #730009
urbanisto
ParticipantJudging from past repaving (Henry St etc) they’ll probably stay there. It depends on whether or not there is a cellar underneath. I agree they look terrible. They could at least be replaced and the new ones lit from below. The gallery on Pearse Street does this quite well with purple lighting.
-
March 16, 2006 at 5:06 pm #730010
GregF
ParticipantI noticed today that the riot damaged signposts and in particular the scorched lampost, have been replaced. I hope the Saint Patrick’s Day Parade and festivities passes off well. Very cold, but dry is the weather outlook.
Beannachtai na Feile Padraig!
-
March 16, 2006 at 7:02 pm #730011
The Denouncer
ParticipantYes so do I. 600 gardai hopefully should keep an eye on the troublemakers. There will be some trouble but any rioters would have to be asked – what are you rioting about this time, fool?
-
March 17, 2006 at 12:32 pm #730012
Anonymous
InactiveGardai unveil major security operation for parade
From:ireland.com
Friday, 17th March, 2006More than 1,000 gardaà will be on duty in the Dublin today as part of a major St Patrick’s Day security operation.
People urged to drink sensibly and to be aware public is entitled to enjoy a peaceful weekend festival
Building material on O’Connell Street has been cleared away for the weekend in an effort to avoid the rioting surrounding the Love Ulster parade last month.
On that occasion paving slabs and other materials were broken up by rioters and thrown at gardaÃ. “We’ve spent a number of weeks planning the policing operation in conjunction with the festival committee, city council and various other agencies,” said Supt Kevin Donohoe of the Garda Press Office.
“We’ve probably never had the same level of demands as we’ll see this weekend. The full control of the day will rest with a senior officer who’ll be in our command centre in Pearse Street station.”
This chief superintendent would have access to footage from CCTV cameras all over the city and would, via radio, direct Garda resources into any areas where the need arose.
Good to see a little forward planning
-
March 17, 2006 at 8:41 pm #730013
GrahamH
ParticipantThe bare minimum of security personnel deployed for one of the most contentious events to happen in Dublin in recent times, and then 1,000 members of the force to contain the rampage of middle class parents and toddlers :rolleyes:. The reinforcements put in place for the parade are quite extraordinary: the Upper street has been completely cleared of materials and equipment – not a shred of building works left. All of the railings up there are also doubly reinforced for the day, with supporting ranks of rails linking the outer railings together in the middle every 5/6 metres:
Regarding the woeful JWT/Joe Walsh Tours corner hopefully some wheels are getting in motion as these men were surveying the corner just two weeks ago:
Have some more info on the corner buildings to post soon. But even above you can see the disgraceful state of the place, including the heritage shopfront just installed by Griffins who have taken over nearly every convenience store in the city centre. At least it’s marginally better than most of the rubbish we see nowadays.
Similarly the Come in and Visit sign is still alive and well (which surprising seems to date from the 1950s), as well as all the attendant crap of the JWT property. And of course the banned banner signs as popular as ever, and by no means confined to the Upper end.This is what Ulster Bank currently have to offer, concealing one of the thoroughfare’s finest and most prominent buildings just as international attention is brought to the street, and knowing full well it will have served its purpose by the time the authorities cop on to it and offer further time for its removal; receiving nothing but a slap on the wrist for their troubles.
-
March 17, 2006 at 9:54 pm #730014
publicrealm
ParticipantNo violence yet?
The reporters on the various evening channels were clearly disappointed. If things don’t hot up they will have to reset all the headlines and pompous articles about our inevitable doom from binging.;)
-
March 19, 2006 at 6:19 pm #730015
Maskhadov
Participantjust look at this boging picture I took the other day… I have more but cant upload because of the limit.
They have to do something about the pavement
-
March 20, 2006 at 12:52 pm #730016
GregF
ParticipantGood photos again Graham hilighting the sheer shoddiness.
It was great to see that the parade passed off well on Friday. It looked good on the telly despite the bad weather. The Brazillian samba girls who braved the cold were my hi-light. Their assets were frozen I’m sure. An anti-war demo passed off peacefully on Saturday as well. Hopefully the street will be nearly completed for the 1916 military parade in a months time. The works have lasted long enough.
By the way, isn’t the lord mayors coach is a superb piece of craftmanship, definitely a fairytale OTT baroque/roccoco wanderly wagon, but a feckin’ superb asset for the city and country. Good to see it maintained.
-
March 20, 2006 at 1:17 pm #730017
Anonymous
InactiveGiven the unpaid nature of the position and the sheer quantum of work involved the coach is a real perk of the job.
-
March 20, 2006 at 1:21 pm #730018
Anonymous
InactiveCan anyone clarify what the shops are going to do with that 1-2 metre strip in front of their shops ? Its covered in minging 50’s style glass and concrete and looks manky.
@Maskhadov wrote:
They have to do something about the pavement
As you say, the glass in those pavement coverings is in poor condition. Alot of them are from earlier than the 1950s though. There seems to be an interesting variety of Iron companies responsible for making them: Tonge and Taggart of Dublin, St Pancras Ironworks of London and Brooks Thomas & Co Ltd of Dublin to name a few. I for one would be very disapointed to see any of them removed. The glass however, does need to be repaired.
-
March 20, 2006 at 6:12 pm #730019
TLM
ParticipantIs there actually a plan on how to tackle undesiarable shopfronts and shop usages on the street? It seems no progress has been made on that front. Also does anyone know when the kiosks are going in?
Thanks
-
March 20, 2006 at 7:18 pm #730020
a boyle
Participant@TLM wrote:
Is there actually a plan on how to tackle undesiarable shopfronts and shop usages on the street? It seems no progress has been made on that front. Also does anyone know when the kiosks are going in?
Thanks
Yes there is a plan, i found it before on the council’s website, but i don’t think it’s quite that simple. One can’t simply order someone to take down something if it was put up with planning permission/or more probably in this case before planning permission existed! Thus with respect to the advertisements i would expect that the council would have to buy out the contract. I would imagine that a similar situation exists with the shop frontage and signage, where the council would have to recompense the owner of the business for the intrusion, etc etc.
My suspicion is that the council is taking a longer view of the situation and waiting for the full effect of the road improvements. What i mean is that the council thinks that the whole street is going to regenerate thanks to the immiment expansion of Arnotts , the renovation of clerys, the red line luas, roches , ilac ,etc etc. It expects much of the businesses to change or expand , AND crucially when this happens and new planning permission is sought it can then apply conditions (removal of ugly signage).
You will probably despair at at this , it suggests that it could take eons to happen. I am not so sure however. I think that O’Connell street today stands at exactly the same transition point as grafton street when it was pedestrianised.
While the papers talk of a shopping frenzy society , the reality is quite different.It’s not that the rich are shopping like crazy , it’s that everyone now has jobs and is shopping normally. So like the housing “crisis” there is also a shop “crisis”. How this relates to O’Connell street is this: the is a huge pent up demand for a large increase in retail in dublin. And the place that makes most sense for this development as o’connell street and environs. The carlton site will be redone in the next year or two . The Eircom building is vacant. The fingal offices too.The royal dublin hotel is also mooted to be redone. The irish times building will soon be vacant and possibly turned into retail. And as mentioned above a huge amount of money is pouring into henry street and parnell street.
Granted that it has taken a long time to redo o’connell street ( there is a good reason for this, firstly there was a lot of archealogical excavation to be done – sackville street was once very narrow . and secondly all the utilities have been redone) but mark my words you won’t recognise the street in a few years such will be the change in it’s fortunes.
As for the kiosks i don’t know , but the whole thing will be finished soon enough!
-
March 20, 2006 at 7:32 pm #730021
murphaph
Participant@a boyle wrote:
As for the kiosks i don’t know , but the whole thing will be finished soon enough!
Just in time for the RPA to dig it all up for Luas line BX and then Metro! 😀 Of course in the grand scheme of things it’s not a problem that we have the money to build mass transit systems, just seems an awful pity that all the work will be torn up so soon after completion.
I hope you’re right about the street being on the cusp of something great. It’s still an awful looking place with all those tatty cheap looking shops. They’re so bad that even the later architecture of BHS looks good in comparison to the older buildings which have been defiled with the tat.
-
March 20, 2006 at 7:36 pm #730022
Anonymous
Inactive@murphaph wrote:
They’re so bad that even the later architecture of BHS looks good in comparison to the older buildings which have been defiled with the tat.
The BHS on Princes Street Edinburgh is a far superior building; has nayone any images for comparison?
-
March 20, 2006 at 8:04 pm #730023
GrahamH
ParticipantThese routes cannot rip up O’Connell Street, they just can’t 🙁
*puts fingers in ears* lalalalalala….Yes, all of that sums up the state of affairs on O’Connell Street rather well a boyle. The Council are relying on the knock-on effect of the public domain works to stimulate commerical activity, force undesirable uses off the street and encourage aesthetic improvements to properties – which is acceptable up to a point. But the lack of even basic maintenance on some of the most prominent buildings on the thoroughfare eight years after the IAP was published simply is not – this basic area more than anything requires immediate attention.
Regarding signage and uses, the extent to which the CC can enforce retrospective planning I’m not quite sure – perhaps others can enlighten us. Certainly the highly comprehensive Special Planning Control Scheme legislation appears to give the CC a lot of clout: “Where non-desirable uses continue to operate in a manner and form that detract from the quality and character of the street, the planning authority may seek to enter into negotiations with the relevant owner/occupier. In this regard and depending on the specific circumstances of each case, the planning authority may require the owners/occupiers to either implement a programme of works to eliminate the problems associated with such a use – or to cease operating the use.”
“may”? “may seek”?
Regarding the potential on O’Connell Street for lots of new retail, there is a problem. The units on the street are for the most part miniscule in size, arguably even smaller than other areas of the city thanks to the almost system-built post-1916/1922 reconstruction. Even Clerys cannot expand on the site they have without considerable difficulty. Only Fingal and Findlater offer any real potential in this respect, with the possibility perhaps for a unit amalgamation within Hammam Buildings also. It’d be great of more properties would make use of their first and second floors for retail – most are just dingy offices, storage or small service providers.
Agreed about the basements of Upper west – they’re in a bad way but are certainly worthy of retention. The problem with them is the manky concrete surround that most of them have, left exposed alongside the crisp new paving. If this can be dealt with, and the glass and iron? frames restored, a valauble part of the history of the Upper street can be retained. All of these basement panels are fascinating remnants of Gardiner’s fashionable housing that lined the Mall along here – exposed Georgian townhouse basements long filled in as the street gradually became more and more commercial; basements that still sit beneath what are often merely superficially altered original houses. No other part of the street has these lightwells save the odd one on Upper east, notably the magnificent Gresham concrete set edged in luxurious marble.
As late as 1900 you can still see most of the basements and railings still intact at street level:
-
March 20, 2006 at 10:04 pm #730024
DJM
ParticipantHere’s a few images of BHS, Princess Street in Edinburgh…
Bloody awful building – like a lot of stuff on the street.
-
March 27, 2006 at 2:30 pm #730025
The Denouncer
ParticipantAh here lads, was in city centre the other day and can’t even cross the street, except for a gap at Abbey St. Its awful! All the people milling around, and every day hoping it’ll be cleared up. how long is this going on for? How can a single street take so long to be redeveloped? When is it due to be complete? I denounce this overlong farce.
-
March 27, 2006 at 3:15 pm #730026
Anonymous
InactiveThanks for that DJM,
I quite like it and think it represents a good example of its time; shame about the location however.
-
March 27, 2006 at 11:33 pm #730027
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterWhat’s really bugging me about the makeover is that they still havent figured a way of making the pavement at the lower western end non-sticky. It may not be as dirty as it once was, but it is still sticky..
-
March 28, 2006 at 2:29 am #730028
GrahamH
ParticipantYes stickiness is still a problem. A bit further up on the smooth stone of the Plaza it’s very apparent at times when something has been spilled, but on a broader level the pavements can be sticky at times – usually when it’s sunny and the heat seems to bake the mixture of dirt and dust together that’s been trampled down into the surface of the stone paving.
It’s not nearly as common as it used to be though – leaps and bounds have been made in the cleasing of the street recently; there’s a non-stop cleaning programme now which is most impressive. You can’t walk down the street without encountering some form of maintenance going on.Ann Summer’s restored windows have just been unveiled – a mixture of timber sash and steel frames. They all look great. Difficult to say if the steels have been restored or fully replaced:
-
March 28, 2006 at 10:44 am #730029
Devin
ParticipantThey look well.
-
March 30, 2006 at 3:53 pm #730030
Anonymous
Inactive@Paul Clerkin wrote:
What’s really bugging me about the makeover is that they still havent figured a way of making the pavement at the lower western end non-sticky. It may not be as dirty as it once was, but it is still sticky..
Keeping the pavements non-sticky would require a breakthrough in molecular physics deserving of a nobel prize or a serious change in user behaviour and attitutes amongst a particular demographic who frequent the Street.
On a related matter I note that despite everyones best efforts the O’Connell Monument has changed colour again this time back to white; particularly around the head.
-
March 30, 2006 at 4:31 pm #730031
markpb
ParticipantMaybe I’m being too picky here but I’m very disappointed that the numerous manhole covers on O’Connell street are left exposed and more than a little ugly. In DCU all the manhole covers in bricked areas are disguised using the same bricks inlaied into the manhole cover. It’s not perfect but it looks a lot better. Surely the same could have been done on OCS while they were doing the rest of the street?
-
March 30, 2006 at 7:42 pm #730032
GregF
ParticipantWhen is the completion date for this again?……..May is it?……I can’t see it being finished on time. Looks as if it will drag on into the Summer months. Too bad as with the Easter Parade coming up as well. Very bad that it was’nt completed alot sooner. The corralled street is very annoying now….and they still have to fix that corner at Middle Abbey Street out side Supermacs.
-
March 30, 2006 at 9:53 pm #730033
GrahamH
ParticipantYes, that corner’s been in a mess for months now – should have been sorted long ago.
Agreed about the amount of manhole covers, particularly around the Spire where it’s a complete mess to be honest. What’s the point in having a ‘feature’ bronze base for the Spire if it’s to be surrounded on all sides by crude access covers to traffic signal controls? Don’t know how that problem could have been resolved, but it’s most unfortunate to have so many concentrated in such a prominent area.
There are examples of inset paving slabs in covers on the Lower median, but these haven’t been universally applied on the rest of the street.An old photo now, but can’t you just feel the stickiness? 🙂
-
April 2, 2006 at 2:36 pm #730034
Anonymous
InactiveIt really should be sorted given the number of fast food outlets in its immediate vicinity i.e Burger King, McDonalds and Supermacs the mind can easliy picture drunks dropping sticky soft drinks which in dry hot conditions will be extremely sticky and cause discolouration to the paving. The only solution would be to have this area pressure washed on a regular basis with a number of extra drain openings inserted to take advantage of the existing camber which was incorporated in the design.
-
April 11, 2006 at 3:54 am #730035
GrahamH
ParticipantWell the giant of all construction frenzies is now underway on Upper O’Connell Street in order for it to be ready for the parade of sorts on Easter Sunday (extraordinary how quickly that came upon us). There’s now barely five days to get everything in order, however it would seem to be doable.
Upper West looks like it may be completed in its entirety, as there’s nothing other than long strips of paving to be laid on a largely ready surface – still a lot of work though. Upper East on the other hand is very touch and go – the whole McDowell terrace still even has sections of the original paving to be removed, though at least services have been laid. It would be a shame for this section to remain fenced off as the last part to be finished, right next to the Spire and the GPO.Here are the ‘boulevard’ trees going in the other day. They are Oriental Plane trees, 67 of which are to line the street’s side pavements; they’re about 25 years old.
They have all been planted since these pics were taken and look very grand. Unfortunately the amount of hoarding, not to mention buses on the street conceal the new vistas at the minute. Lampposts have yet to be installed on most of the pavements, and have to be headed on the median.
Not all progress is positive though – remember this lighting test strip on the GPO from last November?
Well it was obviously deemed acceptable as a full scheme is being installed – a rather unsympathetic one 🙁
It’s being clumsily attached above the string course of the ground floor, the units crude, chunky silver metal yokes with joins every few metres:
Nit-picky perhaps, but am just not a fan of these strip things that try to absorb themselves into buildings.
There’s no doubting the GPO is a very difficult building to light – there’s no external poles that can be erected, no exposed basement to be availed of, and no enclosed ground space for the lamps that is shielded from the public – similarly sunken pavement lighting isn’t an option with pedestrians casting shadows everywhere.
But tacking strip units above the string course, essentially trying to incorporate them into the architecture of the building, is as clunky as it is disrespectful. It makes the moulding look cumbersome and just wrong.
More modern versions of the previous uplighters would have been much more appropriate – lamps that are clearly attached to the building, clearly seperate from the architecture, but discreet in nature by their colouring.It’ll be interesting to see how the portico is dealt with – probably Government Buildings style. 2 or 3 cherrypickers have taken up home behind the columns.
-
April 11, 2006 at 7:10 pm #730036
GregF
ParticipantWith the mad rush to get more of the work done I hope they don’t make a bollick of it. Just a pity its is not all finished, It has gone on long enough.
-
April 11, 2006 at 8:11 pm #730037
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterEaster 1916 Commemoration
-
April 12, 2006 at 3:32 am #730038
GrahamH
ParticipantThere was a exciting atrmosphere on the street today, what with the building works at full speed, groups of people wandering about on the roof of the GPO…
…the Military Police in a van on the road (an 05 one for the public of course), the Army practicing hoisting a ginormous Tricolour…
…and more forces down on the street:
You can see the group of big wigs there in their overcoats, discussing various plans including “roigsht, will we drop the drummer or not then” amongst other topics.
The bronze and brasswork of the building was also being polished, and a cherry picker was up, hopefully to erect the great lanterns and clock which have yet to be reinstated.
-
April 12, 2006 at 12:26 pm #730039
GregF
ParticipantAye, in the last photo the motorbikes belong to the army entourage that escorts the Presidents limo. With ‘an Eiri Amach na Casca 1916’ commemoration it is a great way of imbuing civic pride in people as well as a national pride…..which was kinda lacking for decades. Kinda un-PC nowadays too, to say such things.
-
April 13, 2006 at 4:11 am #730040
GrahamH
ParticipantYep – there they are 🙂
They also swept by on College Green in December last year!
The GPO clock was being hoisted into position late this afternoon – it looks truly fabulous in its restored state. Images (especially those taken in the rain :o) just cannot do it justice: the texture and sheen off the copper is magnificent, and the face a vivid turquoise, contrasting beautifully with the deep tones of the surrounding metal. You really have to see it in real life!
Before
The lanterns still have to go up. In their case it’s interesting that the lantern arms are in fact just crude iron or steel arms that project from the building. It is these that hold the lanterns up structurally, while the quality brass arms (or maybe copper given the new appearance of the clock!) that we see are simply two moulded pieces of cladding that clip round the metal like a cast! Simple blocks of wood attached to the metal arms taper the cladding to make it look more substantial.
-
April 14, 2006 at 5:30 pm #730041
urbanisto
ParticipantThe clock looks incredible. Its one of those things that are little noticed and then suddenly you get a clear view. The builidng will look wonderful on Mon, although I share your views on the lighting scheme.
I was thinking about those large column lights: I wonder where they actually ever positioned? Or was it dimely a case of install them thinking the should look like that. What about using the same model on College Green. Any opinions?
-
April 14, 2006 at 10:29 pm #730042
Anonymous
Inactivelanterns went back up today … looks great.
-
April 19, 2006 at 12:01 pm #730043
Anonymous
InactiveThe restoration of the clock looks just spot on; any pictures of the lanterns?
-
April 19, 2006 at 3:15 pm #730044
TLM
ParticipantJust seen this in the Indo. Very few details of what is actually in the report yet but it will be interesting to see what is planned for O’Connell Street.
Latest capital city blueprint
A NEW blueprint to develop the capital’s retail core over a five to eight year period has been drafted by Dublin City Council.
The framework plan sets out the council’s strategy for the development and promotion of Dublin city centre as the primary shopping, leisure and cultural destination in the State.
A draft of the key document – entitled ‘Dublin City Centre – Developing the Retail Core” – has been seen by Property Independent.
It provides comprehensive planning and urban design guidance, as well as a series of radical interventions for the areas in, connecting and adjoining Henry St and Grafon St.
-
April 19, 2006 at 3:28 pm #730045
urbanisto
ParticipantThis has been in the pipeline for a while and was mentioned a couple of months ago when the City Manager announced stricter planning guidelines for Grafton Street. I think its enormously important that the CC have a clearer and more cohesive strategy for the city centre retail core. With all the new retail development outside of the city the CC must be more proactive in pushing quality retailing. My guess is this document will facilitate things like the new Arnotts, Carlton site development, new retail on Dawson St etc. It will be interesting to read the full doc….its a pity the Indo can
-
April 19, 2006 at 4:30 pm #730046
TLM
ParticipantYeah, it seems it will build on the earlier suggestions about providing more restaurants on the northside etc. The development at Arnotts might be an example of one of the “radical interventions” alright..
-
April 21, 2006 at 3:41 am #730047
GrahamH
ParticipantWell as Peter mentioned, the lanterns are back up 🙂
Quite who came up with the notion of turquoise panels I’m not quite sure… but they look so distinctive and quirky you can’t help but instantly like them.
Their restoration has been magnificent:Just look at the quality bronze and sumptuous 1920s construction, perfect for the decadent Empire style:
On close inspection you can see the fittings are assembled with tiny brass screws:
They make for impressive silhouettes too:
Can’t wait to see them illuminated!
…indeed I wonder if the clock face illuminates. It just may have done in the progressive late 1920s-1930s; it also seems to be made of perspex today. The turquoise with chrome highlights is an inspired combination – classic Art Deco 🙂
-
April 21, 2006 at 11:56 am #730048
GregF
ParticipantAye …was just thinking that meself …the clock and lamps are real Art-Deco…..the materials, the colours, the style etc…
-
April 21, 2006 at 3:33 pm #730049
urbanisto
ParticipantThe silhouette is particularly stricking with the sumptuously decorated JWT building in the background and the stuuning illuminations of Come Play!
I agree though the works to the building and its fixtures have been first rate. I also look forward to seeing it all lit up (has this not happened yet?)
Just one thing…. I hope those bus stops will be relocated elsewhere on the street. -
April 21, 2006 at 4:01 pm #730050
-Donnacha-
ParticipantThe clock face will indeed be illuminated. I saw the bulbs being put in when they were installing it. Funny the way 1920s art deco and early 19th century classicism can go so well together.
-
April 21, 2006 at 5:25 pm #730051
TLM
ParticipantThe building looks great, I agree that it is a shame about the state of some of its neightbours though! Does anyone know when the licences for the fast food units etc expire? Wasn’t the council planning on not renewing these? Also does anyone know when the units along the median are going in? They seem to have been kind of forgotten about….. Thanks.
-
April 21, 2006 at 8:38 pm #730052
Morlan
ParticipantWow, amzing lamps. Thanks for those Graham.
That’s very much like the hip of a violin or a harp. Lovely detailing.
-
April 22, 2006 at 5:11 pm #730053
fergalr
Participant@TLM wrote:
though! Does anyone know when the licences for the fast food units etc expire? Wasn’t the council planning on not renewing these?
That’s what I understood would happen. Sadly it seems that Irish politicians are doing what they do best: nothing.
I have never seen a restoration of an old building like this in Dublin. I suppose the Custom House is the only other example of such obvious reverential care. Kudos to all involved. It is reassuring to see that we can do some things competently. -
April 22, 2006 at 5:32 pm #730054
urbanisto
ParticipantNot at all! Most of the major buildings have been very well looked after over the years. Most recently the City Council completed a fantastic restoration of City Hall and of course its not so long ago that Government Buildings emerged from its black cocoon to literal gasps of astonishment that a building like that existed in the city.
Do the fast food shops on OC St have
-
April 22, 2006 at 5:40 pm #730055
fergalr
ParticipantYeah, you’re right. I’d completely forgotten about City Hall. Btw, does anyone else think that the poor Four Courts has been left out in the cold during the renovations of the last few years? That rotunda and the four central courts are in need of a bit of work-and if anyone defends the current appearance of the great space under the dome, let me be the first to point out that magnolia paint isn’t all that great to have spalshed all over it.
I think your point about the number of newsagents etc is well made, and I agree that there’s no harm in a few fast food restuarants. But do we need 2 MacDonalds and 2 Burger Kings?
-
April 22, 2006 at 5:47 pm #730056
Anonymous
Inactive@StephenC wrote:
Do the fast food shops on OC St have ´licences´, I wasnt aware. Surely they operate like all other business. They buy/rent a property, set up shop and trade as long as they wish to. . Whats important is that they don´t dominate the street, that they are encouraged to provide an attractive fgace to the street in keeping with its stature.
That is the correct interpretation the fast food operators needed initial planning consent for a change of use from the standard retail use to a food retail use. This in all cases has been secured by application or default; the other point on comparable main streets is also very valid and I think the way that Starbucks has treated the old Riada building on College Green is a lesson in how to accomodate a semi generic player into the public realm in a tasteful way and is an example of good town planning.
I further agree that convenience shops are amongst the worst offenders on how their signage attracts notice through sheer garishness and that regular enforcement surveys should be undertaken throughout this important ACA. I would further like to see the Department of the Environment set up a compensation fund for the CPO of the leasehold interests of some of the publicly declared ‘undesirable uses’ such as amusement arcades and call shops.
-
April 26, 2006 at 3:11 am #730057
GrahamH
ParticipantThe inconsistencies in the workings of Dublin City Council never fail to surprise. On the one hand O’Connell Street is generally maintained immaculately by the council’s street maintenance division, and full attention is paid to keeping the street furniture in tip-top condition (leaving aside the Supermacs corner).
It is most impressive to walk down the street on a daily basis and constantly see the trees being regritted, or the trees being watered, the bins being polished, the pavements being hosed in the evenings, street-hoover yokes humming about, statues being cleared of litter etc etc. The pride taken in this new space must be highly commended. The CC have lived up to their promises.On the other hand we move twenty metres away to the saga of The Missing O’Connell Bridge Baluster.
Last sighted on the bridge in September 2005, presumed to have plunged to a certain death in the river below, the resulting gaping gap in the balustrade, of significant safety concern at the spot where tourists and their children stop to take photographs of the city, remained completely vacant for over two months until it was eventually reported (by the public) to the Roads and Streets Department of the City Council in mid-November. A further two/three weeks past until a man was sent out with a slab of board to paste over the hole, which was then scribbled on, seemingly by the same person considering most graffiti ‘artists’ don’t even know what a rate is, with a sarcastic quip as if it was some sort of joke. Do the CC support the defacement of items of street furniture?
By all accounts it could have been deemed a joke if something was going to be done about it quickly. That would be too much to ask however as the board then sat there for three months before eventually falling off, again presumably falling to a soggy end in the murky waters below. It then remained vacant yet again for a number of weeks before the next replacement arrived, this time a delightful chunk of CC bright plastic fencing tacked onto the protected structure:
Over seven months have now passed since this baluster disappeared from the most prominent bridge in the city, sited at the busiest pedestrian intersection in Ireland.
How difficult is it to get a replacement piece of stone cut? How much would it cost in contrast to the hundreds of millions being pumped into the street a few feet away, indeed in the same architectural conservation area and in an area designated for special attention? Or even if a full conservation project for the bridge is proposed, how much effort would it be to cast a decent stucco or plaster replica?
The simple fact is that O’Connell Bridge, like every nearly other street in the city, is not part of a prestige bells and whistles regeneration scheme, so it suffers the same mediocre maintenance and attention as pretty much everywhere else.(incidently O’Connell Bridge is nothing at all compared to the woes of poor old Butt Bridge, nut that’s another rant altogether)
-
April 26, 2006 at 12:37 pm #730058
GregF
ParticipantI have noticed that too…but I reckon the bridge will be revamped when O’Connell Street is finished. The footpath will be widened and paved and the bridge will be repaired and cleaned. Well, at least I hope it is.
O’Connell Street is looking better and better by the day, the trees are beginning to blossom and the greenery is a welcome sight.
-
April 26, 2006 at 2:03 pm #730059
urbanisto
ParticipantA valid point about the poor maintenance regimes for areas not within flagship regeneration areas, Interestingly the whole Dockland area seems to remain well maintained….no lumps of tarcmac or broken street furniture. Is there something more to this.
Of course we have had a similar story to this with the lamps on OC Bridge. Hardly been reinstated after restoration when the lamps were replaced in a halfhazard manner with white and orange bulbs. Thanksfully someone noticed and we are back to all white again.
But its not as pretty a picture as you paint on OC St. Last time I was there the lump outside Supermacs was still unrepaired and I will wager a bet it will remain that way.Without doubt a proper upgrade and refurb of the bridge should follow directly on from the main street works. Perhaps in tandem with works to Parnell Sq due to start later this year.
-
April 27, 2006 at 2:36 am #730060
GrahamH
ParticipantIndeed it is needed. As well as the paving etc, substantial repairs to the stone structure of the bridge itself are in order, including whole parts of the balustrading, and some of the bridge facings below need to be replaced/repaired. And a new floodlighting scheme needless to say.
Yes I noticed the new all-white bulbs in the lanterns a few months ago too. (;))Well this has raised its ugly head again:
Irish Independent, Tuesday 25/4/2006
THE Proclamation was read there, but now, 90 years after the Rising, the GPO could itself be ‘history’.
The iconic post office could be ‘decommissioned’ and transformed into a museum and cultural centre commemorating the Rising.
Communications Minister Noel Dempsey is understood to have run the idea up the flag pole for the Taoiseach and senior ministers during a discussion on how best to mark the Centenary of the Rising in 2016.
Should the plan get the stamp of approval, sources say An Post headquarters would be moved out of the building to a new location and the GPO would no longer function as it has since it was built in 1818.
Last night Mr Dempsey told the Irish Independent he would envisage a centre were “all facets of Irish life, culture and history, could be accommodated. It would be a fitting way to celebrate the centenary of the 1916 Rising.”
Taoiseach Bertie Ahern had called for a National Conversation on how best to mark 2016 “and this would be part of my contribution to it”. While the idea is embryonic at present, it is understood the minister envisages full use of space available in the O’Connell Street building, where 1,000 An Post staff now work. It stand on four floors over a basement and contains two courtyards. At one stage the building was considered as a possible new home for the Abbey Theatre. The new GPO would be a home to artifacts and memorabilia relating to the Rising, including a historic archive. It could offer visitors audio-visual presentations on Irish culture.
Such a centre would be certain to become a major tourist attraction.Mr Dempsey outlined his thinking yesterday at the launch of ‘Cuimhneachan 1916’ – an Online RTE exhibition featuring unseen footage of the Golden Jubilee celebrations in 1966. Much of the footage is available in colour.
Among those at the function in the GPO who heard of the minister’s ambitious hopes for the battle-scarred building was Fr Joseph Mallin, son of executed 1916 hero Commandant Michael Mallin.
A spokesperson for An Post said GPO staff were “very proud to work in such historic surroundings. However, the fact is the headquarters could just as easily be in another location in the city.”
-
April 27, 2006 at 2:53 am #730061
Devin
ParticipantI would like to see this idea getting the mass thumbs-down like the NCAD idea did.
Re: State of O’Connell Bridge:
Let’s face it though – improvement works to the bridge probably won’t begin until Luas comes across it (and it seems most likely that it will) – there would be no point in starting until then.
The Luas link is going through its red tape at the moment. It could be another year or two years before work begins. In the meantime, fill in the missing baluster with a concrete replica maybe ….!
-
April 27, 2006 at 3:07 am #730062
GrahamH
ParticipantIndeed, that’s all that’s required as a temporary measure, and what I meant by the possibility of a conservation job being planned. Leave the proper replacement till later if needs be, and just pop in a plaster or decent concrete replica for the time being.
It’s a shame both the bridge and Westmoreland Street regenerations are waiting on the Luas. Though considering they’re both going to be compromised by it, perhaps it’s best things be held up for as long as possible. -
April 27, 2006 at 12:03 pm #730063
Anonymous
InactiveI would object to the GPO becoming a museum as it would create dead frontage on the street; the GPO as a post office adds to the vitality of the street through the sale of the financial services that it sells.
From a conservation point of view the building copes perfectly with its present use and change to a museum would serve only to add clutter to its original environment.
-
April 27, 2006 at 12:50 pm #730064
GregF
ParticipantIt would be awful if the GPO ceased operating as a post office. Maybe they could include a museum element within the GPO and display items from the 1916 Rising.
-
April 27, 2006 at 3:15 pm #730065
a boyle
Participant@GregF wrote:
It would be awful if the GPO ceased operating as a post office. Maybe they could include a museum element within the GPO and display items from the 1916 Rising.
Since the arrival of email , post as we know it is in a slow and perpetual decline. The is no way the GPO will still be open in thirty years time.
As it is , others are going to be given a chance deliver post soon enough , and given the recent figures on An Post reliability they are likely to go extinct a lot sooner, as they do a crap job, and cost a lot.
It would make a great future abbey theatre.
-
April 27, 2006 at 3:26 pm #730066
Anonymous
InactiveYou would destroy this building inserting a stage and cambering seating banks a theatre at this location is simply not an option at this building of national architectural, cultural and historical importance.
I further consider that you over estimate the importance of e-mail as many items such as utility invoices and legal notices simply cannot be sent to every recipient, An Post has a viable future should delivery charges be structured to reflect the actual cost of delivery on an address specific basis.
-
April 27, 2006 at 3:39 pm #730067
Anonymous
Inactive@a boyle wrote:
Since the arrival of email , post as we know it is in a slow and perpetual decline. The is no way the GPO will still be open in thirty years time.
As it is , others are going to be given a chance deliver post soon enough , and given the recent figures on An Post reliability they are likely to go extinct a lot sooner, as they do a crap job, and cost a lot.
It would make a great future abbey theatre.
I don’t think that the postal service is in decline. Seems to need a shake up in terms of delivery times etc, but surely the growth of amazon, e-bay etc has only increased the amount of post being sent.
Anyway, I am completely against the idea to turn it into a museum. One of its unique characteristics is the possibility of people to use it on a daily basis. As mentioned above it has a great atmosphere in and around it that defines this part of Dublin. Turning it into a museum is not going to enhance its historical importance. In fact I believe that it could have the opposite effect.
-
April 27, 2006 at 3:40 pm #730068
a boyle
Participant@Thomond Park wrote:
You would destroy this building inserting a stage and cambering seating banks a theatre at this location is simply not an option at this building of national architectural, cultural and historical importance.
I further consider that you over estimate the importance of e-mail as many items such as utility invoices and legal notices simply cannot be sent to every recipient, An Post has a viable future should delivery charges be structured to reflect the actual cost of delivery on an address specific basis.
Putting the abbey in the gpo is but an idea. The demise of an post has already happened! Re bills and that – i don’t think so ! Even my luddite parents pay all their bills online. There is no reason why bill can’t be delivered electronically in the future. Already more than half of people return tax forms electronically. We legislated for electronic signatures years ago.
If anything i underestimate the impact of email and the internet.
The only future is in the parcel delivery area. But an post had to close that division down because it was crap! We get a 3/4 days a week service. The published reliability figures don’t lie : an post do a crap job. in less than two years they have to face competition from others. There is no way they can justify keeping such a prime piece of property, no way. That assumes that they stay in business, why i very much doubt.
-
April 27, 2006 at 3:50 pm #730069
Anonymous
InactiveI don’t think that the postal service is in decline. Seems to need a shake up in terms of delivery times etc, but surely the growth of amazon, e-bay etc has only increased the amount of post being sent.
I go with Phils take on e-commerce it creates opportunities as well as threats.
@a boyle wrote:
There is no way they can justify keeping such a prime piece of property, no way. That assumes that they stay in business, why i very much doubt.
Aboyle,
The GPO is not a Prime piece of property; it is a heavily ‘heritage encumbered’ piece of property located at the edge of the prime retail zone; the number of uses it would be attrative to is quite limited and on conservation grounds wholescale alteration is just not runner. An Post already collect a healthy income stream from the GPO arcade so this property is already cash positive in a normal year.
-
April 27, 2006 at 4:05 pm #730070
a boyle
Participantcome back to me in thirty years !
An post will annihilated.
RTE will be annihilated.
Eircom will be annihilated.
Ntl will be annihilated.
Unless they change completely. The last century and a half was about the revolution in transport. with the canals and trains annihilated in turn.
This century is about media and information.
In college (for now the only places with sufficiently fast internet) You can listen to up to 100,000 radio stations and a thousand tv channels.
Having only graduated in the last few years , i can tell you than an entire generation of people are growing up downloading the tv shows they want to watch, and performing everything media related in an electronic way.
The likelyhood for an post is a once a week bulk service to arrays of post boxes at the edges of housing estates or at ‘points’ along main roads in the country side.
This entire discussion is not really for here as it is economic.
-
April 28, 2006 at 12:12 am #730071
GrahamH
ParticipantIt is fair to say that the nature of the postal system is changing, as is the way people do business and access entertainment. However for the forseeable future there is still going to be a critical mass of people availing of traditional services, and some current services are going to hang on regardless of technological advances such as parcel and basic letter post. That is not to say the GPO ought to remain in the dark ages – its continued use as a public building is more to do with its status as a communications hub than merely that of the headquarters of the postal service.
As we are already seeing in various shopping centres, the provision of public internet access is becoming increasingly common and something that is sorely lacking in the GPO at present, and no doubt many other digital media services into the future. As has been said, there is as much to be gained from technology as there is to be lost in the form of conventional services. Either way, the GPO ought to remain in public use for the provision of day-to-day services for as long as is practicable – hopefully indefinitely. This ought to be actively encouraged by Government, not pulled apart as suggested.
The proposal for a full-scale conversion of the building smacks of the ignorance of rural-based deputies who have never had reason in their lives to make use of the building, indeed may never even have been in there, and view it merely as a political plaything up in Dublin that’s a State asset rather than a public building provided as much for the people of Dublin as for the national postal headquarters.
And yet these are the very same people who would be up in arms at the ‘draining of the lifeblood’ from rural towns and villages at the very notion of the closure of local post offices (generally rightly so). More than a bit of balance is in order here. -
April 28, 2006 at 11:43 am #730072
a boyle
Participantok it is not quite so clear cut. But to have any hope the post needs to have the space to innovate and get it’s house in order !
The houses of parliament turned into a bank , so it is not unheard of !
-
April 28, 2006 at 11:23 pm #730073
lostexpectation
ParticipantSurely using the site to commemorate 1916 and turning it from the central post-office to museum is a complete paradox.
-
May 2, 2006 at 10:55 am #730074
Anonymous
InactiveWould the leaders of the rising have occupied a museum?
-
May 2, 2006 at 1:13 pm #730075
a boyle
Participant@Thomond Park wrote:
Would the leaders of the rising have occupied a museum?
Well they occupied the middle of stephen’s green with tall buildings all around! Militarily i don’t think they were the best. They should have tried to occupy the castle. What they lacked in competence they made up for in bravery .
But to be honest i think they would have occupied a spar had they been around.
-
May 7, 2006 at 3:12 pm #730076
urbanisto
ParticipantHows the works going…. are we nearly there yet?
I have just been wondering if McDowells (The Happy Ring House) had to take their mosaic paving up or is it (hopefully) being left in place and if so will they consider a Stags Head-type makeover.
-
May 7, 2006 at 3:26 pm #730077
Anonymous
Inactive@StephenC wrote:
Hows the works going…. are we nearly there yet?
I have just been wondering if McDowells (The Happy Ring House) had to take their mosaic paving up or is it (hopefully) being left in place and if so will they consider a Stags Head-type makeover.
And hopefully get it the right way around unlike the Stags Head Mosiac which was put back upside down 😮
-
May 10, 2006 at 12:33 pm #730078
GregF
ParticipantAye, alot of the immediate areas outside the shops, ie Easons, etc… are left in an unfinished way and are in a rather substandard condition compared to the new paving. Plonks of cement, etc. This should surely be addressed. Flanagans the restaurent used to have a mosaic of some sorts too.
Will there be a grand opening of the street when the works are all complete, I wonder? Bertie cutting the ribbon etc….It’s all nearly finished, however there is about another month or more of work left before its all fully complete (and considering the way its dragging on …ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz)
-
May 10, 2006 at 1:21 pm #730079
GrahamH
ParticipantWhat’s very irritating is the manner in which the median is lazily being used as a materials store in spite of being as good as finished for many many months, while pedestrians are forced to walk through mountains of muck and rough surfaces either side. At one stage on the western side it was like being in the countryside, with office workers in heels tottering about in farmyard conditions – and all the while the median finished but occupied by crates and reels of piping, and not even that much of it.
Even to open part of it would’ve been something, but the whole upper median up to Cathal Brugha St has been fenced off for months on end with materials randomly scattered the whole way along which could have been centralised.But at least it’s all finally coming to an end now. The McDowell corner is just nearing completion (with mosaic intact :)), while pretty much everywhere else is done. Just street furnishings to be put in, including those ubiquitous urban renewal median lampposts. The amount of clutter they generate around Parnell Monument is very disappointing – pics soon. The new trees marching along the side pavements look great, while the side lampposts are also going in.
-
May 10, 2006 at 2:03 pm #730080
urbanisto
ParticipantYes we have spoken about the visual clutter on the street on a number of occasions and I agree with your points about the excess of posts along the median. The lighting scheme is not really very impressive along the street and considering what a to-do there has been about this whole project the very least that could have been done was to get some striking architectural pieces of lighting in place. At least Patrick’s Street in Cork realised the need to be brave rather than go for some designs from a design guide. I dont the the DCC have fully realised the potential of lighting to change a space in say the way Docklands have. Still fancy lighting must be maintained and there are many examples of feature lighting around the city that haven’t been maintained…Ha’penny Bridge being a glaring example.
Its probably quiet difficult to undertake works such as these while leaving the street accessible to everyone so I suppose the use of the median as a storage area is somewhat justified. Can you really see another months work on the street GregF….how despressing. Still there are about 12 kiosks to be installed to complete the scheme so I suppose we should expect some remaining work. I would have hoped that everything would be completed to enjoy the street in the summer.
I think the idea of a ceremony or festival of sorts to celebrate the completion works is a great idea. Galvinise public opinion behind trhe makeover and perhaps stimulate the likes of JWT and Playland to do their bit.
-
May 10, 2006 at 2:09 pm #730081
Anonymous
InactiveThe Dublin City Carnival held during summer times in the mid 1980’s was an excellent spectacle maybe it should be reintroduced;
the idea of waiting until March 17th next for the next showcase opportunity is depressing
-
May 10, 2006 at 2:14 pm #730082
Anonymous
InactiveHasn’t the street been used for Blooms Day festivities over the last two years? Or was that only in 2004?
I am also suprised that there is no pedestrian crossing on the median at the intersection between O’Connnell Street and Abbey Street.
-
May 10, 2006 at 3:08 pm #730083
darkman
ParticipantReading through the posts, its obvious ppl are happy with what has been done. Personally I think its ok but im resigned to the fact its about to be dug up for the Luas and they wont put it back the way it was when thats complete. Also casual digging by the ESB and others will interfere, as usual with the pavement.:(
-
May 10, 2006 at 3:12 pm #730084
markpb
Participant@darkman wrote:
Also casual digging by the ESB and others will interfere, as usual with the pavement.:(
Am I being totally naieve by being surprised that they couldn’t lay tunnels of some kind to run the utilities through? Even at a slighly higher cost, it would save the street being ripped up over the years.
-
May 10, 2006 at 4:13 pm #730085
darkman
Participant@markpb wrote:
Am I being totally naieve by being surprised that they couldn’t lay tunnels of some kind to run the utilities through? Even at a slighly higher cost, it would save the street being ripped up over the years.
Hi markpb, I wish you were being naieve. I dont think theyve that much common sense unfortunatley. Its always the least they can get away with. Sure ive already seen digging done on the street where theyve put down tar a week later instead of putting the blocks back. It would be funny if it wasnt so stupid after millions being spent on the redevelopment.:mad: 🙁
-
May 10, 2006 at 4:58 pm #730086
Anonymous
InactiveAnd after all the effort the design team put in to create a real showpiece for the City
-
May 10, 2006 at 5:06 pm #730087
darkman
Participant@Thomond Park wrote:
And after all the effort the design team put in to create a real showpiece for the City
Hi TP, yes and as I said sure the southern part of the street will be dug up for a luas extension they should have built in the first place…..is there any hope:(
-
May 12, 2006 at 5:59 pm #730088
Anonymous
InactiveI’m not so sure Luas will go down O’Connell St; Dublin Bus remain entirely opposed to the routing and they do afterall carry a lot more passengers than the RPA
-
May 16, 2006 at 4:47 pm #730089
urbanisto
ParticipantJudging from the DCC traffic camera we are almost complete bar a bit of snagging….
-
May 16, 2006 at 6:35 pm #730090
TLM
ParticipantLooks good alright .. though still no sign of those kiosks..
-
May 17, 2006 at 2:34 pm #730091
Anonymous
InactiveHaving looked down O’Connell St today it really struck me just how much a storm in a teacup the furore over the ‘historical trees’ was. The street looks like it will turn out more or less as planned and the acres of space that have been created will improve or rather introduce a sense of amenity to this great thoroughfare for the first time since Victorian times.
Having said that how did it take 9 years to complete this project? Why didn’t central government make a special effort for this project in the way they did with Farmleigh which whilst a worthy project in itself will only ever be seen by say 1% of the population. What better place to bring dignataries into the City than a grand Boulevard that has eveolved over a 250 year plus timeframe?
-
May 17, 2006 at 2:46 pm #730092
a boyle
Participant1 extensive archeology . sackville stret was at one time the width of south william street .
2 diversion of utilities for the luas,
3 the spike.mostly it is number one
-
May 17, 2006 at 3:33 pm #730093
Anonymous
Inactive4. A long & slow drip feed of funds.
-
May 17, 2006 at 4:26 pm #730094
urbanisto
ParticipantExtensive archaeology? I wasnt aware of any extensive digs being underaken on the street. Certainly I cant imagine that any archaeological work has been undertaken on the upper street during this last phase of works. Rerouting utilities – yes to a certain extent although this would have been done regardless of the prospect of Luas on the street as they would surely have needed renewing.
The Spire – definately took way too long and I think it was a mistake to hold back the redvelopment until this was in place.
The long slow dip of funds! Think you have hit the button there Peter.I agree with many of your coments TP including the removal of trees. However, generally trees get such a poor luck in in this city that any attempt to remove them should attract some degree of protest. After all all the new planting on the street will really only look its best in about 15-20 years….providing they havent all been removed for Luas nxt year that it!
Im am dying to see some photos….and the GPO at night.
Also eagerly awaiting the arrival of the first kiosks. I understand they were being installed according to interest. Tenders to build and run the kiosks were in the paper earlier this year. Some though will surely be CC run, such as the toilets.
I am also wondering if bus and taxi shelters are planned. I would also like to see lots more signs….all those JCDecaux billboards for example that will pread across the city over the next few months… bike stands everywhere so that you dont have to walk more than five seconds to park your bike. Of course, the arrival of kiosks should not deprive the existing street traders of their pitches. Also millions of big wooden summer planters should add that final touch to our spacious new boulevard!
-
May 17, 2006 at 5:15 pm #730095
a boyle
Participantthe lower (southern) end was dug. the drip drip of money certainly slowed things down. but perhaps taking time was best. despite what has been written in some previous posts it looks like a really good job.
As regards the luas well we will see that when we see it. if there is any kind of a financial wobble the trams will be the first to go.
-
May 17, 2006 at 6:11 pm #730096
Anonymous
InactiveI am not worried about a financial wobble in the short term in Ireland; things look rosey for the five years at least twice the time required to finish which ever routing is chosen.
My worries in relation to routing Luas down the street are threefold;
- Destruction of the fine Boulevard that DCC have strived so hard to create.
- Replication of the Metro route which will arrive in 7 years time
- Severe Disruption to Dublin Bus at both Nassau Street and O’Connell Street; ; lets face it the Luas other than on Upper Abbey Street runs on a completely segregated routing either by traffic lights on the RedCow roundabout or by exclusive roadspace on stretches such as Beresford Place or Harcourt St. Put simply 10 11 11a 11b 14 14 15 15A 15B 15C 37X 40X 66X 25X 51X 92A plus Luas doesn’t go into one
Nassau Street has to be avoided for operational reasons whatever happens and this could be acheived by routing Luas down York Street onto Aungier and Georges Street via Dame Street to College Green thus creating service to areas of the City that don’t have any.
To avoid O’Connell Street the route could turn onto Fleet Street and Hawkins Street and cross onto Marlborough St which everyone would agree could benefit more from the Luas effect than most City Centre Streets. This would give a similar routing but one that hits all the destination points whilst having far fewer effects and far less replication it would also be far more acceptable to Dublin Bus.
-
May 17, 2006 at 8:26 pm #730097
Maskhadov
Participantwhat i still find hilarious is the notion of putting cafes in that narrow strip in the middle of o connel street with massive buses flying past just a couple of meters away. the street isnt wide enough to cater for such a circus
-
May 17, 2006 at 9:03 pm #730098
a boyle
Participanti think the dcc would like to move the buses to marlborough street.
My impression from all the different snippets over the years is that the dcc has a pretty clear idea of what it want to do . a pedestrian zone from parnell to the green. if the tram meant digging up the whole street again it would be an awfull shame. is it possible that while doing this work they were doing the diversion of utitlities at the same time ??? if so putting in the tram would not take very long and would only require the traffic lanes on one side to close . other wise it’s dig everything up !
with so many transport agencies jockeying for their prize project , a strong minister is needed. we haven’t got that yet . thomond your right about the combination of buses and trams. why not send the tram behind trinity. it will do it almost as fast as the college green route (much fewer pedestrian crossings) and tie pearse and the docklands into the city .
-
May 17, 2006 at 9:19 pm #730099
GrahamH
ParticipantLuas must avoid O’Connell Street at all costs. The only advantage would be to move the truckloads of buses sitting along the thoroughfare night and day.
Not that there’s that many though, there’s only some here:…and, okay some here:
…and yes, fair enough, a few more here too:
(and a couple more down there)
O’Connell Street borders on lunacy at peak times – it morphs into the giant 1980s bus terminus that never was, just disguised as a fancy boulevard.
At least things quieten down after dark – makes it marginally easier to get a clean view of the GPO and its new floodlighting:
(Apologies for the poor quality as I had no tripod nor time)
For all the light-fittings’ nasty impact during the day, their effect when operational is undoubtedly very impressive!The balustrading is also beautifully illuminated.
Clearly LEDs, they cast an intense white light up onto the cornice as well as the upper façade in a very even fashion:
Most impressive, though I’m still not convinced about it being worthwhile considering the fittings’ impact in daylight hours – surely more discreet lamps could have been devised? Also, only this single type of lighting was trialled on the building – no other form of uplighter was tested in situ that could have yielded similar results without such an intrusive impact on the string course.
The lanterns look great too – not at all blue as might be expected by their new glass:And as Andrew mentioned, the clock does indeed light up : )
Very nice.
-
May 17, 2006 at 10:15 pm #730100
Anonymous
InactiveWow, finally the gpo in all her glory,
Love that image of Chu Chullain under the clock, really looks excellent.
Thanks Graham. -
May 17, 2006 at 11:47 pm #730101
Maskhadov
Participantjust looking at those buses would make anyone panic…..its bad enough having to brave heavy oncoming traffic to stand beside the spire to meet someone for 5 minutes… relaxing at a cafe in the median with a latte is a helish prospect
-
May 18, 2006 at 1:09 pm #730102
urbanisto
ParticipantWow indeed! Looks smashing.
-
May 18, 2006 at 1:35 pm #730103
Anonymous
InactiveIt has scrubbed up very well indeed 😀
I have noticed the amount of illegal signage and temporary banners has showed no sign of abbating; the former arcade and now call shop on Lower O’Connell St and the Spar as part of Lynhams Hotel are particularly grotty not to mention the serial offender Funland.
The CC need to create some fun of their own with these punters 😡
-
May 19, 2006 at 10:37 am #730104
johnfp
ParticipantDont know if any of you have seen this ariel shot of O Connell Street from the FLICKR website, but it certainly looks the finished article, quite spectacular I think.
-
May 19, 2006 at 11:36 am #730105
markpb
ParticipantAnd only five DB buses in sight! ;o)
-
May 19, 2006 at 11:39 am #730106
fergalr
ParticipantThat is an amazing photo, one of the best of Dublin I’ve ever seen. I defy anyone not to be in favour of the Spike when it’s seen from that angle! The plaza, the entire street, it’s brilliant.
-
May 19, 2006 at 11:43 am #730107
urbanisto
ParticipantThe photo is from last year though…the OConnell Monument is still under wraps.
-
May 20, 2006 at 6:38 pm #730108
Anonymous
InactiveThat it is and I noticed today that the first major graffiti has defiled the monument and been semi-removed 😡
In other news the street is finished from bridge to cinema and looks great 😀
3 statues have arrived which I imagine are temporary a rather hit and miss tiger on elephant; a couple one supporting the other palm to palm and a very topical and artistic rabbit who looks like he is kicking a penalty.
On a more lasting subject Lambert Smith Hampton have offered a leasehold interest in Findlater House; are there any further details on this I had thought that this had been acquired by Shelbourne Developments for a new retail scheme.
To the Bizarre; http://www.oconnellbridge.net/phpBB2/posting.php?mode=reply&t=2
-
May 21, 2006 at 12:46 am #730109
Alek Smart
ParticipantHeuston…We have a problem…copy ?
The Dubberlin Taxi Drivers have moved back into possesion of their OCS Median rank.
Interestingly,all it took to entice them back was the removal of the Builders Railings.
The necessary Statutory Signage has as yet to be nailed to the stainless posts but I“m sure that will be attended to within the life of the current administration.
Now for the interestin bits…
The design of the median appears to present a considerable challenge to the Taxi Drivers in relation to swinging around from South to North in order to keep the queue moving.
Basically it looks as if the Taxi must now swing VERY wide and actually jut out into the moving Northbound Traffic Lane.
Secondly…The situation at the Rank itself allows intending pax to swing the NEARSIDE doors of the Taxi open as it sits on the median,invariably this means the passengers backside and more worryingly the Cab Door/s now also jut out into the traffic flow…which is quite a fast one.
The new right-turn arrangement into C Brugha St which has a small median interruptor to keep the Taxi`s seperate now means Taxi`s have to jockey for position depending on which direction they are headed.
It a Dogs Dinner of an arrangement,resembles a plan drawn up on a Woodbines Packet and is above all DANGEROUS.
Yet in this strange netherworld where Dublin City Council`s supreme planners range far and wide there is no Danger,not even a nod in that direction.
Just as those Sculptures resenble a Lewis Carroll storyboard so too does the OCS Taxi Rank ..
Still…I suppose it IS the only remaining example of what might have been had the Emperor Elect Ivor Callelly actually survived his spat with the Brothers of the Brush.
:p -
May 22, 2006 at 12:43 pm #730110
urbanisto
ParticipantThe statues are temporary and are part of a series that will eventually go all the way up Pernell Square to the museums/gallery.
-
May 22, 2006 at 11:22 pm #730111
Alek Smart
ParticipantGood news on the OCS Ranca Tacasai isssue..
The Gabby Cabbies being a sight more pro-active than DCC or An Garda Siochana will ever be have developed an Irish Solution to their little problem.
They have simply taken posession of the Coach Bay outside the Gresham during peak hours which is fine by me…well until some Passenger wants the Cab to head in the opposite direction anyway.
However with the NCTS now beginning the takeover of Taxi Licence Issuing responsibility in Dublin,It cannot be long before the Nordics see another method of squeezing more revenue from the Cab Drivers….
Mind U I`m slightly disappointed at the lack of Game Play from the Gardai.
One of the evenings highlights in the “Old” OCS was the arrival of the Traffic Bike and its surly rider who would do battle wit the double,treble and quadruple parked Cabbies who would usually give him a bit of verbal..Great Street Theatre all the same,and makes them oul skulptures look tame in comparison….:rolleyes:
-
May 23, 2006 at 1:42 am #730112
GrahamH
ParticipantHideous yokes, though it’s more their clunky bases that make them look so awful:
(the motorcyles have arrived already :rolleyes:)
This one is fun 😀
Well the taxi lobby got their way and now have a brand spanking new soulless rank commandering a third of the median of the Upper street, also creating a further needless crossing for the pedestrian further south:
The street lamppost line has also been disrupted, being reduced down from pairs to single file:
(though ironically does help in reducing the clutter)
And suffice to say all tree planting has been chucked out the window.As Alek was describing, the taxis have to pull out onto the carriageway upon reaching a jutting out island which seperates the rank from the right-turn queuing position a little further up which provides access to Cathal Brugha Street for all traffic.
The pulling out isn’t that tight, but certainly undesirable, along with the rank at large. It simply shouldn’t be here, and one suspects the O’Connell Street team in DCC are not too happy about it either. They have done their best to integrate it though – it is very well designed and the finish is superb, save the usual questionable manhole covers pockmarking the granite surfaces.
Needless to say the median has finally been opened over the past few days and all major works on the Upper street have been completed. All that is left is the ‘dressing’ as it were, furniture to be installed, signs to be attached to every conceivable pole in the place : ), streetlamp heads to be attached etc.
And seating! There still isn’t a single public seat on all of O’Connell Street – hopefully this will be addressed shortly. Hopefully what will not be addressed is more bicycle parking – they can feck off onto Cathal Brugha Street.
Once the final touches are added, I hope to have lots of before and after images, and more details of the rest of the Upper scheme. -
May 23, 2006 at 1:46 am #730113
GrahamH
ParticipantMeanwhile after dark, the GPO is looking magnificent 🙂
The statues have yet to be illuminated, and perhaps the rear of the columns could do with some light treatment too.
Also a wing of the building – note the intrusive impact the Plaza lighting poles have on the scheme.
This is not because of their proximity to the building, but as Stephan C mentioned recently, the lamps have never been directed to light their intended subject: the Plaza! Instead, nearly every single one on each of the four poles is ponting directly downwards, illuminating the footprint of the pole!
Here they are going up in April 2004, but it was only the bulbs that were attended to – the lamps were never moved!
Maybe because it was only realised afterwards that they’d flare into oncoming traffic…
-
May 23, 2006 at 8:10 am #730114
Devin
ParticipantYay! Was on O’Connell Street late last night and it’s finally totally and utterly complete!! – not a single piece of fencing I sight. And it really is something to behold! Just to linger on the upper end and watch these massive pavements run all the way to the very end.
I think it’s true to say the whole adds up to more than the sum of the parts. You can really get the total effect now, with no fenced off bits anywhere.
Cheers to all involved!!!
-
May 23, 2006 at 8:20 am #730115
markpb
Participant@Graham Hickey wrote:
The statues have yet to be illuminated, and perhaps the rear of the columns could do with some light treatment too.
This, in my opinion, is the biggest disapppoint of O’Connell St. Only one statue (Parnell Monument) on the entire street is lit at night which is a great pity after the fantastic job they did restoing them. I haven’t seen the street at night since the new lights were installed but I hope it doesn’t feel as dark and soulless as it did before – lighting the statues would have gone a long way to fixing that.
-
May 23, 2006 at 2:24 pm #730116
urbanisto
ParticipantI think Graham meant the statues on the top of the GPO rather than the memorials on the street. Its a fair enough point about illuminating them,although I wonder how/if this could be done without being intrusive.
I quite like these new installations (from the pics) although I agree the bases are awful. Couldnt they have made a little more effort. This is the same sculptor who installed the statue at the top of Grafton Street, set in a tractor tyre….hmmm.
Lovely collection of hideously cheap shopfronts to be seen through the trees on the second photo….call shops, budget travel, a newsagents or three…
-
May 23, 2006 at 2:36 pm #730117
markpb
Participant@StephenC wrote:
I think Graham meant the statues on the top of the GPO rather than the memorials on the street. Its a fair enough point about illuminating them,although I wonder how/if this could be done without being intrusive.
I stole Graham’s point to make my own personal gripe 😉
The Parnell monument is uplight from a pole about 5m south of it. It’s not ideal but it works. Personally I’d opt for spots on the roofs of nearby buildings; the statues in the middle could be lit from 2 or 4 points, the O’Connell monument at the end is a little harder. The Spike looked really well when it was lit with the array of spotlights that were installed a while back – it should definitely be lit every night.
-
May 23, 2006 at 3:54 pm #730118
urbanisto
ParticipantAt last a bit of rigour on the part of DCC Planning…take a look at the Reasons for Refusal for Anne Summers. An application for retention by O’Carrolls across the street was also thrown out.
Full Development Description
Planning permission is sought by Ann Summers Ltd for the removal of the existing shop front, signage, the installation of a new shop front, signage along with stripping out the ground floor retail unit and providing a new retail shop fit-out with minor works to the basement floor level consisting of the removal of partitions, the construction of new partitions, repair and redecoration works at 30/31, O’Connell Street Lower, Dublin 1 (Protected Structure).
DCC Refusal:
1. The proposed development materially contravenes Section 15.24.0 of the City Development Plan 2005-2011 and the Special Planning Control Scheme for the O’Connell Street Architectural Conservation Area (2003) in terms of both design and materials for the proposed shopfront and signage. The materials and design proposed are inappropriate and present a poor quality finish to both this Protected Structure and to the O’Connell Street Architectural Conservation Area. The proposal is therefore considered to be inconsistent with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area
2. The proposal fails to satisfy the requirements of the ‘Shopfront Design Guidelines- The O’Connell Street Area’ (2003) and is considered injurious to the overall building and its setting within an Architectural Conservation Area. The proposed development is considered to materially the zoning objective for the area, which seeks to ‘To consolidate and facilitate the development of the central area, and to identify, reinforce and strengthen and protect its civic design character and dignity’ and is inconsistent with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
3. The proposal, if permitted would set an undesirable precedent for similar poor quality developments in this Architectural Conservation Area and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
(Sorry..Im sure ther eis an easier way to link this but it didnt seem to pcik up the page.)
-
May 24, 2006 at 1:55 am #730119
GrahamH
ParticipantExcellent to hear – more of this please! Proposals were also lodged in the run up to Christmas for interventions to the facade of the former BoI a little further down; didn’t see what was proposed…
On this very terrace, was just thinking there – isn’t it a shame in a way the manner in which this part of the street was rebuilt after 1916. Of course it’s been mentioned a few times before how the four storey Ann Summers terrace punches an unfortunate hole in the parapet level of the five storey street, but also think how impressive the centre of the street could have been if this terrace of ruined buildings was compulsorily purchased, and Clerys shifted northwards to face the GPO head on, with the acquired buildings being moved further south to the current site of Clerys, essentially swopping places.
It could have created a distinguished centrepiece to the street, also allowing for a square to be built that would address the Pillar, the GPO, and the street and city at large. Instead, everything was predictably rebuilt as once was, even down to the bizarre height of the old BoI which replicates the height of former building on the site.
And so the centre of the street was also lost, to be taken over as a giant car park, stuffed with the usual clutter to boot.Not sure what impact Clerys would have had on the GPO – stealing its thunder or whatever you want to call it – but an idea…
Either way, the off-centre siting of Clerys on the current Plaza isn’t the most desirable of circumstances. -
May 24, 2006 at 1:02 pm #730120
Frank Taylor
ParticipantNow that O’Connell street has been repaved and replanted you can stand back and say ‘Well, it’s still full of downmarket retail: fast food outlets, Ann Summers and amusement arcades’. Would it really be better to replace all of this with upmarket retail: say Habitat, a few authentic Italian cafes and some bookshops?
A lot of poor people live within walking distance of O’Connell Street. If retail outlets that target them were removed, demand for these outlets would not be extinguished and they would shortly reopen elsewhere nearby. So is it a legitimate aim when cleaning up a street to seek to clean out the poor to the side-streets?
The way I see it, there are negatives and positives to poor and rich cultures. O’Connell street is one large public thoroughfare that celebrates working class Dublin and it would be a pity to go any further than we have already.
-
May 24, 2006 at 2:27 pm #730121
a boyle
Participant@Frank Taylor wrote:
The way I see it, there are negatives and positives to poor and rich cultures. O’Connell street is one large public thoroughfare that celebrates working class Dublin and it would be a pity to go any further than we have already.
Yes true. I don’t think O’connell street is particularly tatty anyway. The shop front are tatty but calling for all the riff raff to be closed down is just snobbery. There is more than enough space on the street to accomodate rich shops and poor shops . And that would be a huge step forward in integration in this economically sectarian city.
I think the future for the street completely rosy. grafton street was always a planning blip , and it is clear that commerce is moving northwards. There are some more projects starting in years to come. Arnotts is reputed to be buying abbey street (most of it), to open onto it. Then of course the carlton , that will be fixed up and the findlater house is crying out for GAP.
-
May 24, 2006 at 2:47 pm #730122
urbanisto
ParticipantI think the rationale in improving the types of shops on O’Connell Street was
a) the balance had perhaps tipped too far in the favour of the so-called “undesireables” like fast food and call shops.
b) this is the capitals principal thoroughfare and should reflect the best that the city has to offer in terms of shops, restaurants etc.
c) many of the uses on the street (and the office developments, I believe, all fall in to this catagory) just don’t do anything for the street..don’t contribute any life to the street.
d) many of the arguements against cheap shops concern the poor upkeep of their premises and the general poor design… JWT, Funland, the terrace I mention above.Most commentators are not calling for all these shops to be closed, but they shouldn’t be allowed to dominate. A perfect example is the Centra/Londis/Spar proliferation in the city…undoubtably there is a demand for these shops but is the city any richer for having so many? Would you be happy to visit a city centre that only offered you this? Isn’t 5 fast food outlets enough on the street. Wouldnt an internet call shop be better suited to less prominent street?
-
May 24, 2006 at 2:57 pm #730123
a boyle
Participant@StephenC wrote:
I think the rationale in improving the types of shops on O’Connell Street was
a) the balance had perhaps tipped too far in the favour of the so-called “undesireables” like fast food and call shops.
b) this is the capitals principal thoroughfare and should reflect the best that the city has to offer in terms of shops, restaurants etc.
c) many of the uses on the street (and the office developments, I believe, all fall in to this catagory) just don’t do anything for the street..don’t contribute any life to the street.
d) many of the arguements against cheap shops concern the poor upkeep of their premises and the general poor design… JWT, Funland, the terrace I mention above.Most commentators are not calling for all these shops to be closed, but they shouldn’t be allowed to dominate. A perfect example is the Centra/Londis/Spar proliferation in the city…undoubtably there is a demand for these shops but is the city any richer for having so many? Would you be happy to visit a city centre that only offered you this? Isn’t 5 fast food outlets enough on the street. Wouldnt an internet call shop be better suited to less prominent street?
That is fair. Can i take it that the implication is that the council should be trying to free up space on nearby streets for some of the shops to move to ? Curiously there is very little retail space east of oconnel.
-
May 24, 2006 at 3:04 pm #730124
urbanisto
ParticipantMost definately! There are numerous streets around OC St crying out for some development and life. Malborough Street and Cathal Brugha are the obvious ones. And Parnell Street (OC to Summerhill stretch) is in a criminally rundown consition, although it must be said atht these streets already provide the types of shops that Frank refers to…as does Talbot Street, Moore St, Dorset St, Gardiner St…
-
May 24, 2006 at 3:14 pm #730125
a boyle
Participant@StephenC wrote:
Most definately! There are numerous streets around OC St crying out for some development and life. Malborough Street and Cathal Brugha are the obvious ones. And Parnell Street (OC to Summerhill stretch) is in a criminally rundown consition, although it must be said atht these streets already provide the types of shops that Frank refers to…as does Talbot Street, Moore St, Dorset St, Gardiner St…
So is it the case going forward that o’connel street itself it not in need of the most attention but north and east of it ? And if these areas got that attention, oconnell street would only thrive ?
Impressively west and south western of oconnell are thriving ( herny street , bloom’s and liffey street) -
May 24, 2006 at 3:22 pm #730126
SeamusOG
Participant90 or so pages into this great discussion of what needs to be done with O’Connell Street, how that is to be done, how work is progressing and how that work has turned out, could the NEW O’Connell Street now….finally….be deserving of a thread of its own?:p
-
May 24, 2006 at 3:28 pm #730127
urbanisto
ParticipantI think the objective of the IAP was to tackle the whole area and hence plans were drawn up (but soon forgotten) for side streets. The makeover for OC St is just one part of this and had certain aims, but it now seems to have become the project with hardly a mention of the side streets here from DCC. I suppose many are in limbo with Luas or Metro works proposed.
Parnell Sq is of course next on the hit list for a makeover., to start this immediately if the City Manager is to be believed. The other streets you refer to are part of the HARP plan… Henry Street its true is thriving but I’m not sure you could say that at all about Liffey Street or upper Mary Street, they’re in bits. The jury is also out on Blooms Quarter as its only a new development and as the relevant thread mentions is still a bit sterile. And while Arnotts will hoepfully do wonders for Abbey Street, the Luas was a compeltely missed opportunity for this street in my opinion. it is now so dead and unattractive.
-
May 24, 2006 at 3:42 pm #730128
urbanisto
Participant90 or so pages into this great discussion of what needs to be done with O’Connell Street, how that is to be done, how work is progressing and how that work has turned out, could the NEW O’Connell Street now….finally….be deserving of a thread of its own?
Funny you should mention this as I was just thinking the same thing. It would be a shame to lose all the debate gone. However there are lots of new issues coming up to discuss. Perhaps Graham Hickeys promised before and after shots would be a good starting point…. and after all Graham did start this thread.
-
May 24, 2006 at 4:54 pm #730129
a boyle
Participant@StephenC wrote:
….. And while Arnotts will hoepfully do wonders for Abbey Street, the Luas was a compeltely missed opportunity for this street in my opinion. it is now so dead and unattractive.
It is dead east of o’connell. And this will not be changing anytime soon , The abbey theatre is what would turn the street around . I have to say that i can uderstand the minister refusing to shell out the money to buy the adjacent properties. I would have proposed the unthinkable in these circumstances : a smaller theatre ! or a taller theatre. There are lots of clever ways to organise seating, without forcing people into the gods.
East of oconnell , i would disagree it is in a state of change which is only beginning , but arnotts will give it huge momentum. I don’t think it is hyperbole to say that the level of retail on henry street will be duplicated on abbey street between liffey street and the abbey theatre in the future.
When i talk of liffey street i meant ONLY the part between abbey street and the haypenny bridge. It is not particularly pretty with the cars but it is really quite a nice place to sit out a have coffee at the weekend.
The other bit of liffey street is trully awfull . it is so non descript. marks and spencer to blame there.
-
May 24, 2006 at 11:22 pm #730130
Alek Smart
ParticipantYep….the longer I spend drivin past it up and down,up and down several times each day and night,the more it becomes solidfied in my mind…..:cool:
The Taxi Rank has compromised the ENTIRE IAP concept for O Connell St.
What we now have is 3/4 of an IAP which splutters to a halt at poor oul Fr Matthews Sandaled Feet.
The rag tag ecletic millieu of char-a-banc`s and their drivers which now line up along the street seem to be part of a bizzarre real-time Look Back in Anger representation of how we were.It`s almost as if some giant unseen hand had scooped up a collection of Taxi`s from the Old Rank one winter night in 2002 and stored them in a Sandmans Cupboard until this week.
Now they just look Horribly out of place sitting there exposed to the glare of exotic granite paving and totally bare of the shade from the old London Planes,whose true benefit is only now apparent vis a vis concealing the Taxi Folk and their customers.Even the only STATUE which ever stood on the street,the depiction of Christ in the Glass Case is now banished,no doubt in deference to our new found freedom as a multi denominational and all-embracing Capital City.etc etc…
It is difficult to fathom just what DCC can do in order to reclaim the IAP`s ethos on the Northern Fringe of the Street.
The linear Boulavard concept is a dodo for sure,as is the “Strollers Paradise” .
It really is a great shame as the Street now presents a huge blank canvas for enterprising and innovative use.
Just as with our Bus Routings so too have the Taxi industry managed to get away with the Status Quo principle as the only show in town.Meanwhile the off-streets now sit in a kind of stasis with no real idea of their purpose save to allow a kind of rat-run for Motorists hell-bent on reclaiming the Capitals Main Street for their own……
A terrible beauty is born……? :rolleyes:
-
May 25, 2006 at 3:11 am #730131
GrahamH
ParticipantIt is a terrible shame the taxis got their way on this one – the rank upsets the whole rhythm of the Upper street, the very part of the thoroughfare that would have had a straight run, given the broken up nature of the Lower street with the Plaza and Abbey/Luas junction. It is infuriating that this median space has been commandeered for use as a glorified car park – I particularly hate having to walk down between two rows of cars with 20 sets of eyes suspiciously scanning you, also having to watch for opening car doors. This is a pedestrian space full stop, and should have been kept as such. One could say what is being ignored in any criticism is that a convenient, easily accessed service is now offered to these very pedestrians in the heart of O’Cll St – well it would have been just as handy in Cathal Brugha Street or Sackville Place, only not destructive of a major urban set-piece.
Regarding uses on the street, agreed that O’Connell Street also serves the surrounding community as it does the city and country at large. This is part of its charm, as well as its downfall though; I’m not sure you can buy multipacks of toilet roll on the Champs
-
May 26, 2006 at 3:29 am #730132
GrahamH
ParticipantBut the biggest problem with the fast food outlets is really their concentration on Lower west, rather than any individual presence, as they present the most appalling vista at the entrance to the street, especially combined with the horrible plastic Footlocker sign. I don’t know why that was permitted recently. All the very worst first impression of a street you could give.
Both McDonald’s and Burger King here require substantial work to their facades and shopfronts.
McDonald’s need to rip off the nasty granite-clad ground floor and start afresh – and no plastic signage this time.Needless to say the early 90s PVCs most go: horrifying to think a couple of these may even have replaced Wide Streets Commission sashes (though at least some were Victorian two-over-twos).
It’s highly likely the upper brickwork here is Georgian – you can see the stucco surrounds have merely been applied over the decorative over-window detail – which if the case would make it the sole surviving WSC facade on all of O’Connell Street, the last fragment of a scheme that made it one of the finest streets of its age anywhere in the world. Note the modern replacement brickwork in the parapet too – there used to be an elaborate Victorian frieze and cornice up there, evident in a picture below. Probably became structurally unsound balanced up there on Georgian brickwork.
It would be nice for this facade to be restored to its original WSC state down to the first floor, though I imagine they’d be exceptionally reluctant to give up that picture window somehow! But this would restore the elegant vertical profile of each building, allowing them to sit comfortably on top of a new unified shopfront spanning the two properties, instead of the current messy arrangement.
The lower facade of the left-hand building is equally unpleasant, with nasty replacement brick pasting over what used to be a rusticated arch, again evident in a picture further below.
If a better brick base for the upper pilasters could be inserted, and the rather garish white bay windows toned down a bit, this could be a very pleasant property. Some decorative glazing in the upper panes could also work wonders.
Burger King have a potentially attractive fa
-
May 26, 2006 at 3:37 am #730133
GrahamH
ParticipantEddie Rocket’s next door is housed in a fine, sturdy Victorian that badly needs cleaning:
All but one of the original windows are intact.
And as shown before, here you can see it being built c1895! 🙂
The chain’s standard shopfront insert is an affront to the fine and seemingly original limestone frame of the ground floor, which come to think of it would make it the oldest shopfront on O’Connell Street!
The acres of flat polished granite are such a cop out – the shopfront should come right up to the top of the corbles, where a limestone panel should then be inserted across the top, with lettering attached. What a fine property this could be once again.
-
May 26, 2006 at 11:05 am #730134
GregF
ParticipantSome good news….I noticed this morning that the lads were finally repairing that hole at the corner of the footpath outside Supermacs!
-
May 26, 2006 at 1:39 pm #730135
urbanisto
ParticipantThats good to hear though its amazing it was left like that for so long. Its a small point maybe but the whole in the street was repaired but minus the line if gray cobbles that line the pavements. Its attention to detail but it would be interesting to hear of this was rectified.
On the above photos it would be nice to see a bit of effort put in by the fastfooders (whidh after all are multinational companies!) to spruce up their premises. Perhaps a direct approach to them Graham? Or is there a way of sending a link to Archiseek to the head honcho…see if it stirs his conscience.
-
May 26, 2006 at 2:18 pm #730136
urbanisto
ParticipantFrom the City Council’s Press Office:
PRESS RELEASE 21st May 2006
GIANT HARES TO TAKE OVER DUBLIN’S O’CONNELL STREET
The first steps to install Dublin City Gallery The Hugh’s Lane’s first-ever outdoor exhibition were taken over the weekend of 20th May 2006
. Six giant bronze Hare sculptures, by one of the world’s most renowned sculptors, Barry Flanagan, were installed on O’Connell Street for one of the most exciting, eye-catching exhibitions ever seen in the Capital. Barry Flanagan on Dublin’s O’Connell Street will be a world-class exhibition featuring ten pieces – eight Hares, a playful elephant and a pair of cougars.
The complete exhibition, which is being installed as part of the celebration surrounding the reopening of the Gallery and the refurbishment of O’Connell Street, will be in situ by 27th June, when the last piece will be unveiled by the artist himself. The exhibition is being organised in collaboration with IMMA.
“This is a major coup not only for the Gallery but also for the city of Dublin,†said Barbara Dawson, Director of Dublin City Gallery The Hugh Lane. “This is Flanagan’s first exhibition in Ireland and it’s incredibly exciting to be able to bring art onto the street where it can be viewed in people’s very own environmentâ€.
Beginning on O’Connell Bridge, the Hares will progress up the central median of O’Connell Street and along Parnell square to the Gallery’s forecourt. “Barry Flanagan’s monumental bronzes have been exhibited in other prestigious streetscapes such as Park Avenue in New York and the Champs Elysées in Paris and this unique and quite exceptional exhibition demonstrates Ireland’s ability to host world-class exhibitions in the heart of the capital city. Exhibitions of this quality and reputation ensure that Ireland remains a key player on the international stage and will attract, not only local and national interest, but world-wide visitors too,†said Ms Dawson.
NOTES RE ARTIST:
Barry Flanagan is one of the world’s foremost figurative sculptors and the ten chosen pieces will allow the general public the opportunity to engage with the exhibition as it threads down the central median of O’Connell Street and along Parnell Square to the Hugh Lane Gallery Forecourt.
The giant hares range in height from 3m to 9m (9ft – 23ft approx) and weigh several tons apiece.
Born in Prestatyn, North Wales, Barry Flanagan has lived in Dublin since 2000 and has become an Irish citizen. The six works installed over the weekend of 20th May 2006 are:
* An Unlikely alliance (Cougar and Elephant) Outside McDonalds
* The Thinker on Rock Opposite Easons
* Acrobats Site of Anna Livia Central median
* Hare and Bell Site of Anna Livia Central median
* Nijinsky South of Father Matthew Statue Central Median
* Drummer Nearly opposite old Aer Lingus offices, between trees on final median -
May 26, 2006 at 2:20 pm #730137
Anonymous
InactiveSupermacs and Eddie Rockets are Irish-owned.
Mr. Pat MacDonagh owns the former, based in Ballybrit Business Park, Galway.Rockets is Dublin based, info@eddierockets.ie
MacD is info@supermacs.ie -
May 28, 2006 at 6:26 pm #730138
lostexpectation
Participant@Graham Hickey wrote:
Eddie Rocket’s next door is housed in a fine, sturdy Victorian that badly needs cleaning:
The acres of flat polished granite are such a cop out – the shopfront should come right up to the top of the corbles, where a limestone panel should then be inserted across the top, with lettering attached. What a fine property this could be once again.
After all that you have to agree that those two Mcdonalds aren’t that bad at all front and signage wise are they?
compare to something like a centra, the worst thing about the Burger King is the window is so big up there you can see all the **** eating their crap.
-
May 29, 2006 at 12:08 pm #730139
jimg
ParticipantI spent some time on the street this morning – my first time on it since the work was completed. I hate to say it but I’m somewhat underwhelmed by the overall effect of the work given the years of disruption and the amount of money lavished on the street. I don’t want to be too negative because the state of the street prior to the work was simply a disgrace and what we have now is a huge improvement. Still I can’t help feeling that a opportunity has been missed.
The lack of attention to the side streets has already been pointed out and I assume at some stage they will be tackled but the state of the Abbey Streets and the other lanes really detract from the high quality finishing on the street itself. Parts of O’Connell St always felt a little “fascadish” to me but I think the current state of the side streets has really reinforced this. Obviously the scales and objectives differ but I think it is interesting to contrast the results with what was achieved with Grafton St decades ago which created an identifiable district by including all the side streets in a uniform plan.
Admittedly it’s subjective, but I find the street unbelievably “busy”. There is a range of different street lamps, bollards, litter bins, traffic signs, traffic lights, bike racks and trees all competing visually with the monuments and buildings. I would have preferred a more minimalist approach which would allow the buildings and median monuments to dominate the street as they did in the 19th century. It’s a pity because obviously all the elements are high quality and obviously cost a bit but the quantity is just too much for me. For me the upgrade doesn’t feel like it was guided by a grand vision; it feels almost as if the elements were designed separately – it represents a combination of a paving plan, a lighting plan, a tree planting plan, a traffic plan, etc.
There are a few little random things that annoy me. I find the concrete box (is it part of the Luas’ electrics?) at the Abbey Street junction horribly intrusive. And even as a cyclist, I think it was a mistake to use the median as a cycle park even though instinctively I’m loath to sacrifice function for form; somewhere like Prince’s Street should have been dedicated for this purpose.
I hate to be critical because it’s too easy to denigrate the work of the council and a lot of effort went into this but the result of the work simply doesn’t excite me.
-
May 29, 2006 at 1:30 pm #730140
J. Seerski
ParticipantI am in total agreement with you Jimg.
While it is undeniable that many imporvements have taken place on the street, I beleive that there in nothing noteworthy in these improvements. Such improvements are replicated in streets in towns across the country. The street feels clinical, almost sterile, with no genuine feeling of awe which O’Connell Street would appeared to have had prior to its descent into chaos from the 1960s onwards.
What I think is really tacky is the inclusion of banner advertising on the new lamp standards. It bears out my belief that what is intented is an improvement in the commercial possibilities of the street moreso than any central desire for civic improvement. If they were non-commercial banners then, very well. But the sponsorships listed on these banners do not hide their essential function: advertisements.
Moreso than before, the street feels like a motorway. If this was the intention, then the redevelopment was a success. But somehow I understand the initial idea was more noble….
I am impressed with the floodlighting of the GPO and the sensitive restoration of the statues on the street. However, what really bugs me is the removal of the Jesus Statue. What politically correct moron decided on this? Is it not part of the streets history aswell???
The statue has historical, as well as folklore, merit for retention. It was said that after the destruction of the Gresham during the Civil War, this statue was found virtually intact in the rubble, was salvaged, and up until very recently was maintained by the taximen/jarveys rank opposite the Gresham. If the council want to start picking and choosing memorials to remove than why not continue on this pc crusdae and remove the O’Connell Monument, the Father Matthew monument, the Gardens of Remembrence….
Lord Nelson may be joined by other fine monuments that fall out of favour…
-
May 29, 2006 at 10:35 pm #730141
GrahamH
ParticipantThis statue isn’t the only thing to have conveniently been removed under the guise of the IAP works – the four protected Victorian bollards have also disappeared, with no sign of them going back in, having been replaced with a raft of traffic signal poles.
As for the Jesus statue… (here it is in 1978, since encased in PVC)
…I can see the CC’s point in removing it. While I agree with opinions expressed here before that it shouldn’t be removed for movement’s sake, there’s no doubting how completely incongruous, not to mention ugly, it would have been left standing exposed in the middle of the taxi rank, by that, also referring to the horrendous concrete base. It’d almost be akin to reerecting it on the median of O’Connell Bridge. The context has changed completely.
It could be moved a little further up the street, but that defeats the purpose of retaining it – it was something of little significance in a physical sense, that just developed organically on site; it was equally eh, ‘organically’ removed with the road works – which is largely true.The story about being salvaged from the Gresham has always sounded a bit odd – what would a large religious statue be doing in a hotel? Surely the Catholic Commerical Club across the road would be more likely?
Agreed with much you say jimg – though while it is right to criticise the lack of action on side streets, to be fair this should not cloud over what has happened on O’Connell Street itself. What do you mean the side streets reinforce its ‘facadish’ nature?
But yes, the amount of clutter is quite extraordinary in places, nearly all of it generated by the median. Indeed this is crux of the matter for me with the new look O’Connell Street: it has two conflicting parts. The new side pavements and their trees are magnificent, as is the Plaza, really lovely spaces, but what pulls the whole scheme down is the median. It’s become an unresolved space, forced into being by the monuments, but not wide enough to comfortably accommodate café seating, while arguably too wide in its attracting of motorcycles and bicycle parking, not to mention the host of urban clutter the IAP has foisted on it.
It is also trapped between two busy traffic lanes, making its use as an alternative pedestrian space decidedly unpleasant at certain times of the day, even more so without the lovely mature tree cover that was there before which combined with a wider median at the time ironically made it ideal for café-style seating!Also I feel the new median trees dilute the effect of the side pavement ones; they’re not ordered enough in their own right to form anything distinctive, while negating the impact of the highly ordered side pavements in the process. You get the feeling it should have been all or nothing with trees on the median. Perhaps this will resolve itself as the trees mature, the side ones especially. And as mentioned before, the bland expanses of paving either side of the Plaza, mainly the Larkin side, do nothing to consolidate the linear nature of the street.
Although it looks nice from air, at the end of the day the 1970s promises of travelling to work via spacepod never quite materialised, so it’s the on-street impression that still matters. As such the roadway should run right up to the Plaza – the Larkin area confusingly feels like a plaza in its own right.
But most definitely J. Seerski, if there’s one thing I’d change, and as you’ve mentioned a few times now ;), is those feckin side lampposts – hate them with a passion! Their design is so utilitarian and crude, with their dull matt grey surfaces giving the impression they were never finished off. They simply lack the distinction, finesse and plain quality O’Connell St has been accustomed to over the decades, and of what one would expect of the lampposts of a country’s main street. They ought to be flagship designs, to the extent that a national competition should have been held to this end. They are that important.
And yes yes yes, those stupid, finicky, parochial, Super Valuesque, ‘lets all join in the fun’ permanent banners on the lampposts – how tacky, how lacking in distinction and grace, how small town Ireland, how patronising to citizens, how expensive if nothing else to maintain all year round – these yokes must cost a fortune to produce, pasted the whole way down the street, not to mention the quays and elsewhere.
The whole design concept of these lampposts is flawed – the impact these crucial structures can have in generating identity for an urban space just wasn’t realised here; it’s such a shame. The same can be said of the median posts – they ought to have been custom-designed, not plucked from page 13 of the urban regen handbook on every city architect’s desk in western Europe.Some pictures definitely need to be posted to try and sum up what has mostly been a very good job done though – in particular it cannot be emphasised enough the attention that’s been paid to all of the new paving, really the finest masonry skills have been employed on this project and it shines. Very attractive paving design too.
As an aside, this picture shows the Eddie Rocket’s building in all its original (though watercoloured) glory, with expansive glazing inserted between the stone piers:
-
May 30, 2006 at 12:51 am #730142
kefu
ParticipantAgree with most everything that has been said. But I think one thing in need of particular attention is the Luas electricity sub-station at the Liffey end of the street. It really is incredibly incongruous and yet, it would have been so simple to even just clad it in timber.
I think the best thing for it now would be an open artist’s competition to transform it into a large open-air installation of some sorts. I’m absolutely convinced this is feasible even if the ESB require entry to it. -
May 30, 2006 at 1:00 am #730143
GrahamH
ParticipantIt is to be incorporated into a kiosk kefu as far as we know, clad in timber just as you suggest.
Just waiting for that part of the IAP to happen – hopefully in the next month or two. -
May 30, 2006 at 10:57 am #730144
GregF
Participant@kefu wrote:
Agree with most everything that has been said. But I think one thing in need of particular attention is the Luas electricity sub-station at the Liffey end of the street. It really is incredibly incongruous and yet, it would have been so simple to even just clad it in timber.
I think the best thing for it now would be an open artist’s competition to transform it into a large open-air installation of some sorts. I’m absolutely convinced this is feasible even if the ESB require entry to it.Actually it could pass as one of English artists Rachel Whiteread’s concrete moulded installations.
The hare sculptors on the street are mad…kinda ‘fun’ pieces. See we brought home from Argentina a statue of Irishman Admiral William Brown the founder of the Argentina navy. Wonder where will they put it. -
May 30, 2006 at 3:35 pm #730145
Anonymous
InactiveIn front of the Department of the Marine in Virginia to commerate the creation of another great maritime force.
I like the hares there is a good variation in the emsemble which appeared very popular with tourists and have acheived a lot more than a single piece could ever have.
On a more depressing note I observed the removal of tarmac on the nelwy paved path outside Funland on Upper O’Connell St on Sunday morning; when I returned on Monday it had been replaced by more tarmac all of the work was undertaken by a private contracting firm with no supervision by the CC. Is this an omen of the future or will DCC take a stand to protect their investment in their transformation of this street?
-
May 30, 2006 at 5:30 pm #730146
urbanisto
ParticipantThe CC have given the green light to plans to change the former BOI banking hall beside Clerys into a shop. Significantly they included the condition that the two glass display cases meant for either side of the entrance be excluded. This is good news as I think these glass cases didn’t look so hot. There has been previous discussion about the challenges posed by this odd building with its grand but contraining entrance and lack of large windows. Still a retail use is much more appropriate than the sports bar and betting shop oiriginal planned. For those interested a pic of the proposed glasses boxes can be accessed from the planning file online.
-
May 30, 2006 at 6:36 pm #730147
damnedarchitect
ParticipantI have to say I’m glad the statue of is gone. I was terrified it would be put back.
I don’t like religious iconography getting such a prominent place. Now I know this might be a bit secular humanist/pig headed but I don’t religion ‘shoved down my throat’.
Disclaimer: I couldn’t come up with a better phrase – Christains are of course entitled to their statues etc etc – but it’s such a public place.
-
May 30, 2006 at 7:55 pm #730148
Anonymous
InactiveI would still disagree about the paving either side of the plaza Graham, i think it appropriately marks the entrance to the key space on the street, while the lime trees clearly define the extent of the plaza itself … although i know a lot of this stuff is only picked up from an aerial perspective.
The limes look a smal bit raggy this year, they’ll need to fill out for a year or two before being clipped again.
The oriental planes on the side pavements will indeed grow to be considerably larger than the median Ash, strange i suppose that the Ash were put in semi mature compared to the planes, we’ll be waiting a good few years for the intended effect to be realised … the new planes will be great though.
I also find the lighting pretty dissappointing, the median lighting is straight out of some standard catalogue & the side lighting is even worse (also chosen for the refurb of inchicore (nothing against inchicore ! just not good enough for o’connell street). A design competition really was required, maybe the cc will re-think in a year or two.
The clutter is madness, looking forward to seeing the kiosks, but scared at this stage that they’ll just add to the mess …
-
May 30, 2006 at 9:06 pm #730149
J. Seerski
ParticipantQuote – GregF
And yes yes yes, those stupid, finicky, parochial, Super Valuesque, ‘lets all join in the fun’ permanent banners on the lampposts – how tacky, how lacking in distinction and grace, how small town Ireland, how patronising to citizens, how expensive if nothing else to maintain all year round – these yokes must cost a fortune to produce, pasted the whole way down the street, not to mention the quays and elsewhere.
This has to be the funniest, most colourful and sadly, truest statement about the redevelopment! GregF – I salute you!
-
May 30, 2006 at 9:15 pm #730150
J. Seerski
ParticipantCan I take it then GregF that ‘Supervaluesque’ = cheap? It may claim to be, but fo my liking that store is most certainly not! 🙂
Related to the O’Connell Street development, before the plans were announced in 1997, Mountjoy and Parnell Square had several sites used as surface car-parks. It is great that the last of these is almost completely re-instated: Parnell Square West is the site of the final replacement of ill-concieved demolitions. It will be completed in several weeks by my reckoning – the facade has been completed. Lets hope these squares will never be allowed to fall into such a state of disrepair.
-
May 31, 2006 at 12:45 am #730151
GrahamH
ParticipantThe new ‘Moss Hall’ at 49-51 Parnell Square:
…to be finished in a few weeks. Here’s hoping the misspelling isn’t an indication of the level of design standards with this project – it does seem to be a very faithful reconstruction though.
The Sacred Heart statue in more recent times:
You gotta love it – modern Ireland encapsulated. We even smother religious icons in PVC.
The concrete base was painted day-glo green in its final incarnation before the chop.
-
May 31, 2006 at 2:23 am #730152
Frank Taylor
ParticipantWell the Jesus statue has finally been refurbished to the standard of the other monuments on the street. He has been made more positive and accessible to people and the addition of LED uplighters really helps. This photo shows beautiful detailing previously not visible through the perspex casing. The whole character of the work has been transformed from a rather dreary Jesus to an optimistic 21st Century JC. Great work DCC.
-
June 1, 2006 at 12:27 pm #730153
GregF
Participantha ha …good one Frank.
On the topic of statues ……see that the hoardings have finally been removed from the Thomas Davis and the 4 provinces ensemble around the corner on Dame St …Looks great too.
However placing the statue of Admiral William Brown and the new Department of the Marine inland, in a landlock county is surely rediculous. He’d be better placed overlooking the seas in Galway, Cork, Waterford or Dublin which have fine maritime histories. This is truely Irish and rather stupid ….could only have been devised by suits and bureaucratic geeks.
-
June 1, 2006 at 12:33 pm #730154
urbanisto
ParticipantIm sure this was a sarcastic aside on the part of mr Thomond Park in reference to the insanity of placing the new D of Marine in Cavan, a landlocked county. I would imagine Admiral Brown will be installed in Wexford (where I think he hailed from).
Im delighted Thomas Davis has finally come out of his closet. Will the fountain work is the next thing….we know the history of fountains in Dublin
-
June 1, 2006 at 12:38 pm #730155
Anonymous
Inactive@StephenC wrote:
Im sure this was a sarcastic aside on the part of mr Thomond Park in reference to the insanity of placing the new D of Marine in Cavan, a landlocked county. I would imagine Admiral Brown will be installed in Wexford (where I think he hailed from).
Hehehehe 😀
He was in fact from Foxford County Mayo
http://local.mobhaile.ie/Default.aspx?alias=local.mobhaile.ie/admiralbrownp
I think decentralisation of his statue and tourist potential should be given to the County Mayo Town
-
June 1, 2006 at 12:51 pm #730156
GregF
ParticipantJust to add we have another ‘Father of a Navy’ as such, that being Commodore John Barry , Father of the American Navy. Another unsung Irish hero, he hailed from Wexford.
-
June 1, 2006 at 1:16 pm #730157
urbanisto
ParticipantAh yes…Im mixing the two up.
-
June 2, 2006 at 10:24 am #730158
Anonymous
InactiveAnd Mr. Submarineman, John Holland, from Liscannor.
-
June 7, 2006 at 11:28 am #730159
GregF
Participant@kefu wrote:
Agree with most everything that has been said. But I think one thing in need of particular attention is the Luas electricity sub-station at the Liffey end of the street. It really is incredibly incongruous and yet, it would have been so simple to even just clad it in timber.
I think the best thing for it now would be an open artist’s competition to transform it into a large open-air installation of some sorts. I’m absolutely convinced this is feasible even if the ESB require entry to it.Saw the lads giving this concrete lump a lick of magnolia/grey paint this morning as well as the cast iron bollards in front of the GPO’s pillars.
-
June 7, 2006 at 1:20 pm #730160
Alek Smart
ParticipantWell,I dunno,but I`m gettin to view this particular flagship IAP with increasing despair.
A brief stroll along the Street last evening at 1900 revealed little more than wat appears to be a form of steel pole nursery.
Hot on the heels of this observation comes the news this morning that yet MORE poles are being driven deepinto the heart of the street as Bus Atha Cliath set about replanting the original Bus Stops which had been displaced by the IAP works.The Bus Atha Cliath PR Person did allude some months ago to the existance of something called a “Bus Stop Action Plan” which she marketed as some form of integrated co-operative venture between the Bus Company and the Civic Authorities which would see potential Bus Travellers provided with State-Of-The-Art features such as Shelters,Seats and Accurate Information etc.
Now,at the time of this revelation I remember smiling inwardly at the very notion of this “Action Plan” actually existing and todays Pole Setting display confirms my belief that the Action Plan existed only in the secluded regions of a PR persons brain.
The other interesting little tableau I bore witness to last evening is the daily arrival of the Pennys Articulated Truck
This little display is now beginning to rival London`s Changing-Of-The-Guard as a Must-See for visitors to Dublin.Briefly,it consistes of a fullsize Articulated HGV arriving into O Connell St Northbound at c.1845/1915 each evening.
The vehicle is delivering/collecting from the Pennys store which has its goods inwards in Princes St,a street with only a single vehicular access point.
I would STRONGLY recommed members and friends of Archiseek to get a ringside seat to the events which follow the Arrival of the Siad Vehicle onto the GPO Plaza.Firstly the Truck Driver must attempt to position his/her vehicle along the front of the GPO in order to allow a reverse around corner manouvere.
This can be compounded by a reluctance of following general traffic to allow the HGV sufficient if ANY room to do this.
Cyclists are particularly adverse to giving the Truck any room at all and on last evenings observations appear to be fully prepared to cycle directly under the wheels of the container-trailer to prove whatever point they have in their head regarding trucks.The unfortnate driver DOES have an assistant,a young fellow who is despatched out from Pennys Warehouse to assist in the manouvere.
This lad`s prime concern HAS to be the amount of pedestrians who stream across Princes St on the recently widened footpath blissfully ignorant of a 38 tonne articulated vehicle reversing down upon them.Last evening for example I witnessed imbicilic women shoo`ing their little children across behind the MOVING truck in direct opposition to the poor lad who was doing his best flapping his arms to prevent the little dotes being squashed.
People reading newspapers,listening to MP3`s or merely looking for somewhere to have a slip,trip or fall were merrily playing Chicken with the reversing truck.
Whilst the unfortunate Truck Driver is carrying out his tricky and DANGEROUS manouvere,motorists and cyclists continue to drive directly up to the Cab Portion of the truck,preventing any further movement,until the dopey git`s stop their texting long enough to become aware of 38 tonnes of hardware blocking their path.
Even better is the City Councils strategic placing of its Poles,one of which is positioned on the central median just at the point where the Tractor Unit requires the maximum space to complete the manouvere.
Oh and I almost forgot the steady stream of cars exiting Princes St each of which makes great efforts to tuck itself into the Trucks Blind-Spot in order to give the driver a little more to worry about.
There is of course a Garda on permanent post outside the GPO,however depending on the member he/she can often be remarkable reluctant to stir away from the GPO`s facade as there are issues surrounding the active involvement of a Garda facilitating a 38Tonne HGV in mounting footpaths and reversing along one-way-streets etc…
THIS DAILY DISPLAY UNDERLINES THE COMPLETE AND TOTAL SHAMBLES WHICH DCC HAS PRESIDED OVER IN RELATION TO THE ONGOING OPERATION OF O CONNELL ST.
Presently the renovated street is little more than a collection of potential danger points which as both vehicular and pedestrian traffic resumes its former levels leaves little time left before a MAJOR accident.
As I read of the imminent retirement of the present City Manager and the eulogies being directed in his direction I am left wondering if there exists no disciplinary procedure within the City Council whereby Senior Administrators can be forced to account for crazy,half thought out schemes which at completion have SERIOUS safety shortfalls inherent in them.
Well,I dont REALLY wonder at all because I know that WHEN that serious accident occurs it`s the lowest in the food chain who will bear the brunt…yes folks the Truck Driver.
Mark my words,should some cyclist or pedestrian get entangled with that truck this evening the GPO Garda will launch forth like a rocket,pen in hand to take the Truckers details.Perhaps nobody in DCC`s Planning Dept ever bothered to ask how a major large scale department store would recieve it`s deliveries…perhaps they,like CJH,have somebody to do their shopping for them ?
Either way its merely reinforcing my belief that the O Connell St IAP is rapidly dissolving in a Vat of Acid ……Available in Tablet form from Civic Offices,Wood Quay …..:o
-
June 7, 2006 at 1:46 pm #730161
a boyle
Participantnice. but seriously , i think it is overall a good job. it could be better, but it is a good job. what is needed now is some time for the trees to take. The main decision to move tress from the central median to the footpaths is sound.
In the immediate term , trying to keep the place clean, hoping that the retail finally picks up on the street , and setting about working on the side street is what is needed. The GPO and the plaza really do look good.
Looking ahead i think serious consideration needs to be given to moving the taxis around the corner to cathal brugha street, where there is ample room for a proper sized rank. When the bus stops are moved it should improve the buses all over the place situation.
-
June 7, 2006 at 7:13 pm #730162
ctesiphon
ParticipantIt is with some regret that I must agree with the negative comments made here recently.
Coming in from the airport on the Aircoach last evening around 9pm I got a fine view of the new works, and it really is quite a depressing sight. A pity too that the problems are so much more apparent when the street is relatively quiet- at precisely the times when it should be possible to sit back and take a long, admiring look at the place. Not just the poles, not just the taxi rank, though both are seriously wrong as has been mentioned often enough. What hit me most forcefully was the grubbiness of the whole place, both litter and general grime. Maybe it was to do with the Women’s mini-marathon (did it go down OCS?), maybe it was the bank holiday effect, or maybe it’s just that most Dubliners couldn’t give a tuppeny curse about our supposed flagship street.
🙁
-
June 8, 2006 at 11:11 am #730163
The Denouncer
ParticipantI would love to see litter wardens 24/7 armed with tazers..seriously the last time i was on O’Connel St. a lady with babe in arms just dropped ice-cream wrappers on the ground, not a bother..nobody to report to, nobody caring..the usual.
-
June 8, 2006 at 6:28 pm #730164
GrahamH
ParticipantIndeed. That ever-astute man who sells literature and paintings etc on Lower Grafton St had one of his notorious signs up observing: ‘Dublin is covered in Mars wrappers’ – a reference to the Mars Ice Cream freebies being handed out all last week (managed to scoff seven of them over 3 days 😮 :D).
It’s unbelievable people just take something like that, peel the wrapper and just ditch it as they walk along. They were scattered all over Lower Grafton St, as well as on College Green and O’Connell Street and Bridge where they were also handed out.
There’s a heck of a lot of ignorant beggars in our midst – and Grafton St not exactly being the regular haunt of those that Dublin’s litter problem usually gets dumped on. -
June 9, 2006 at 2:52 am #730165
Alek Smart
ParticipantSome of the more observant O Connell Streeters or should that be Boulavardiers may have noticed how Bus Atha Cliath have in the past 24 hrs erected a veritable Blue Forest of poles along BOTH sides of the “New” streetscape.
This presages the return to the status quo in Bus Stop terms.It now appears that the much vaunted Bus Stop Action Plan in reality was merely erecting all the new Bus Stops in EXACTLY the same location as the old ones were in 3 years ago.
It is a matter of some disappointment to me that Bus Atha Cliath have failed to subscribe to the ethos behind the IAP by doing something meaningful to reduce the stupendous amount of extended dwell time which buses have to spend at O Connell St stops.
What we now have from Friday 9th June is a Street which is largely nose to tail with immobile Buses for most of the day.
Buses on Most if not all of the major trunk routes are simply spending far too much time at the O Connell St stops which causes frustration for both passengers and for other users of the street too.
No opportunity has been taken to address this issue NOW rather than at some point in the future when the city eventually grounds to a halt because of a “Situation” at the Bus Stops opposite the Taxi Rank island.
The other and perhaps more fundemental issue is why DCC and The Depts of Transport and the Environment have failed to install Disabled Friendly Kassel Kerbing along this most heavily Bussed of streets.
What we now have is a situation whereby the FULL compliment of disabled access measures has deliberately been curtailed in order to maintain architectural symmetry.
This failure could well rebound upon DCC quite badly.
We have in the very recent past seen the Minister for Transport intervene in Bus Eireann`s new vehicle Tendering process following on from a complaint made to him by the Chairperson of the Disablity Authority,Ms Angela Kerins.
The gist of Ms Kerins complaint was that Bus Eireann were breaking the law (Sections 26 and 27 of the Disability Act 2005) by specifying new touring coaches which were not FULLY accessible for Disabled Persons.
We now have a situation in which the O Connell St Bus Stops are not FULLY accessible to disabled intending bus passengers due to the lack of Kassel Kerbing which is an integral component of the Disabled Acess package for Public Bus Transport.
I should imagine that Chairperson Kerins of the Disability Authority is presently dipping her quill in vitriol as she prepares a suitable missive for poor ol Mr Fitzgerald and him bein about to retire an all that…..You read about it first here but mark my words some quick witted legal brain will spot a nice little earner here and the Courts will be loath to accept a defence of “Nobody told me” from the highest and mightiest in DCC`s IAP office 😮
-
June 12, 2006 at 9:36 am #730166
Anonymous
InactiveO’Connell Street face-lift completed
11 June 2006 23:05
A special ceremony was held today to mark the completion of the refurbishment of O’Connell Street in Dublin.Work on modernising the capital’s main street has been ongoing since the Spire was erected four years ago.
The project, which has seen thousands of cars taken off O’Connell Street, involved the cleaning of monuments and the widening of footpaths.
Advertisement
At least 142 new trees were planted to replace those that were removed to facilitate the works.
I noted from RTE that cycling facilities are an issue; if they are poor now what would the Luas effect be?
-
June 12, 2006 at 10:29 am #730167
urbanisto
ParticipantHavent seen the completed street in person yet but from the DCC traffic cameras I seems that the upper end has no cycle lanes, while of course the lower end has no cycle lanes between the bridge and Abbey Street and the odd inside lane (never used except by the utterly insane) between Abbey St and the Plaza. Plenty of places to part your bike though….preferably permanently (It always amazes me how many people seem to leave their bikes attached to stands/poles for weeks on end….don’t they use them?)
-
June 12, 2006 at 11:52 am #730168
Anonymous
InactiveThomond Park wrote:I noted from RTE that cycling facilities are an issue]Was the event you are referring to well advertised and attended?
-
June 12, 2006 at 11:55 am #730169
Anonymous
InactiveSaw it on the news but heard nothing about it before hand and given the number of tourists in that part of the City at this time of the year it is hard to tell if the people there were there by accident or design. Still never one to knock a street party particularly family orientated ones as that type of event is what seperates a good from a boring city.
-
June 12, 2006 at 11:56 am #730170
urbanisto
ParticipantNo mention of it on the DCC website. There is a pic on the front of the Times today
-
June 12, 2006 at 1:09 pm #730171
Anonymous
InactiveThanks Stephen.
I would like to have gone, but didn’t hear anything about it.
-
June 13, 2006 at 2:56 pm #730172
GregF
ParticipantIf people think that the street is woeful now after it ‘s got its multi-million euro makeover….imagine how it was before the revamp. It was really really bad.
Don’t blame all the Dubs either for the litter problem…..Dublin is a melting pot of all peoples; rich and poor, young and old, good and bad, etc…from outside Dublin and abroad. In highly congested areas of people litter and general grubbiness is always a probem.
Note: aspects of London, New York etc… -
June 13, 2006 at 6:50 pm #730173
Anonymous
InactiveBut given the amount of cash spent it is not possible to consider to the no scheme world;
My main gripe is the length of time it took to deliver
-
June 15, 2006 at 2:36 am #730174
GrahamH
ParticipantThis family day out was barely advertised at all; not even anyone here with an interest in the street knew anything of it! Hardly befitting the completion of such a major project in the city – the only possible indication being the much needed painting of the GPO’s bollards taking place last week in time for the occasion. They look great.
Not that the GPO is finished just yet – as predictable as clockwork, cherrypickers have been reerected for the installation of LED lighting strips inside the pediment 😉
Luckily it is incredibly deeply modelled, so there ought to be no problems relating to visibility of lighting units this time round – they should be completely hidden in all views of the building. -
June 15, 2006 at 2:27 pm #730175
urbanisto
ParticipantSpotted this in today’s paper
Call for improved footpath safety
Ali BrackenA number of safety measures to protect pedestrians at a dangerous junction on O’Connell Street, Dublin, near the Spire, have been recommended by a jury at an inquest.
Maree Buckland (60), Warwickshire, England, originally from Ireland, was killed in 2005 when she was hit by a double-decker bus while crossing the road over to the Spire on O’Connell Street just off North Earl Street.
The inquest heard that the stretch of road where Ms Buckland and her friend Jagdish Mangat had crossed was paved similarly to the footpath and could lead to confusion that this part of the street was pedestrianised.
Ms Buckland sustained fatal head injuries following the collision on September 15th, 2005, and was taken to St James’s Hospital in Dublin. She died eight days later.
The jury returned a verdict of accidental death and recommended the crossing be re-evaluated by Dublin City Council with improved sign-posting and clearer road-markings.
© The Irish Times
Its is a tragedy this woman dies but I still stand by the point that it is up to people to pay more attention when crossing the street here. It is not the fault of the paving…or lack of signage (there is a forest of signal lights here)…or lack of barriers/bollards.
-
June 15, 2006 at 2:31 pm #730176
urbanisto
ParticipantThis family day out was barely advertised at all; not even anyone here with an interest in the street knew anything of it! Hardly befitting the completion of such a major project in the city – the only possible indication being the much needed painting of the GPO’s bollards taking place last week in time for the occasion.
Its a shame that the DCC didnt make more of this, especially given the length of time the street has been a building site. The website also remains to be updated…still taking about Phase II works beginning in April…. a revamp of the page and some photos of the new street would be welcome! Perhaps you could pass on some of yours Graham!
-
June 15, 2006 at 5:15 pm #730177
GregF
ParticipantWith the street repaved now and looking good it somehow emphasizes the tawdry and grotty shop fronts all the more. The Council should act on this immediately That holiday shop on the corner of Henry Street across from the GPO has to be number 1 on the hitlist with the proprieter/landlord/owner of the premises fully accountable for having no taste and low standards. Anyone ever notice too the tawdry conditions of some soliciters premises, especially allong the quays. With all the money that these cunts make ye’d think they have something more to show for it instaed of their premises resembling Bargaintown. The fine old Georgian block on Ormond quay that houses an early bar and those who work at the bar come to mind.
-
June 17, 2006 at 11:05 am #730178
Fennetec
ParticipantFirst of, I am not involved in Architecture and have no such qualifications. I need your help please.
The refurbishment of O’Connell Street included the clean sweep of all street furniture along the footpaths and these included the phone boxes. Dublin City Council provided for these to be relocated along the central median with sites being allocated to Eircom, Smart Telecom and my little company.My suggestion was that we should all sit down together and agree a standard design which most people would consider logical as opposed to one company erecting something akin to old petrol pums with a light on top or a big box like what is on the corner of Abbey Street, College Green with adds for McDonalds.
Eircom, (Babcock & Brown) ! and Smart being full of their own importance want to erect their own design. Dublin City Council are going to insist (correctly) on a standard but they will not be in place for a year. They have given my company permission to proceed with my own pedestal and this will be installed on Tuesday North of the Spire. Before there is an avelanche of protest from all you professionals let me explain:
Payphones in the city are a requirement.
The fixing method I use is that the pedestal is bolted into a plate that is inserted at the time of paving. This is existing but unseen about fifteen meters north of the spire. The pedestal can be removed and a different one erected in less than half an hour with one single spanner. Eircom did a big hole and throw in a few barrows of cement.
The design I am trying to create – or want you to create – must include the following:
No sharp edges if someone walks into it.
Preferably stainless steel.
Small, it only needs to house a phone and not a shower.
Must compliment existing street furniture.
Base and central pillar (I propose) must be round so as debris and paper will not collect around it.I will install the unit I have made (with permission from Mr. Killian Skay) this Tuesday north of the spire. If any of you guys wander by I would really appreciate your criticism and assistance. Working together we can get it right or near enough, imposing some of the existing monstrocities on this new street with their Bronx style advertising is not the way forward.
If anyone thinks they can produce the Real McCoy for a fee I am prepared to discuss.
(My phones are Smart Phones (not Smart Telecom) and the digital display and operation are line powered so no electricity is required)
Thanks very much.
Tom
-
June 17, 2006 at 1:01 pm #730179
Frank Taylor
ParticipantPayphones sometimes fail to provide the service they should in return for the space they take up.
As soon as they break, they stop providing the service and become street junk or street thieves, swallowing coins into some device to be collected later by some urchin.
There should be service level agreements on payphones to allow for removal of payphones that are too frequently out of order.Many payphones do not display the price of calls, just a ‘cost per unit’ like a hotel phone. None provide freephone directory inquiries as they used to. No phones return change, despite other vending machines having this capability.
They could be more useful and still comercially viable.
-
June 17, 2006 at 3:23 pm #730180
urbanisto
ParticipantI’ll be interested to see your new design but I sincerely hope that DCC do not allow telecom companies to overdose with their kiosk. True some are needed….though I think they are becoming redundant due to mobile phone usage. I would prefere to see the phones, just like bike stands relegated to side streets. Or why not integrate the phones with the kiosks taht are planned!
-
June 17, 2006 at 6:36 pm #730181
GrahamH
ParticipantThat’s an excellent idea – the northern-most one could also be handily incorporated into the taxi shelter that seems to be going in up there. With a number of kiosks being installed along the street, there ought not be any need for further telephone facilities.
It most also not be forgotton that O’Connell Street features what is probably the largest public phone facility in the country in the form of the purpose-built 1920s telephone room in the GPO, housing 10-15 units.Tom, to clarify, are you looking for help in future designs for your phone pedestals? And has the standard DCC design to be installed next year been decided on yet?
-
June 17, 2006 at 7:43 pm #730182
Fennetec
Participant
“”Payphones sometimes fail to provide the service they should in return for the space they take up.As soon as they break, they stop providing the service and become street junk or street thieves, swallowing coins into some device to be collected later by some urchin.
There should be service level agreements on payphones to allow for removal of payphones that are too frequently out of order.Many payphones do not display the price of calls, just a ‘cost per unit’ like a hotel phone. None provide freephone directory inquiries as they used to. No phones return change, despite other vending machines having this capability.
They could be more useful and still comercially viable.””
That is exactly the type of response I would expect to get elswhere. I was trying to solicit ideas on the type of pedestal that would be most suitable, not a running commentary on the commercial aspects of running a payphone company.
To the other replies, thanks for your input. The long term idea is indeed to incorporate the phone pedestals into the kiosks and this will be done at the O’Brien Monument. I am talking about small neat pedestals as opposed to “kiosks”. For the last six years DCC have instructed Eircom not to advertise on their kiosks but they continue to do so. That is why they want to erect their own kiosks because they are more interested in the advertising space. My contention is that in the event of a bomb threat (and that is an everyday possibility) a quick scan of O’Connell street, and other streets should allow the gardai to determine what areas are safe without looking in the type of Kiosks at the corner of Abbey Styreet, or opposite Trinity.
As far as phones being out of order – they are linked to a central computer and an out of order phone flags the system. I am a small operator and I do not have Babcock & Browns millions of other peoples money to waste. On my phones the cost of the call per minute is displayed when you dial the first four digits. If you are blind you are told by a voice prompt but this has nothing to do with the design of the pedestal.
All I am trying to do is do the thing right. Sure it won’t satisfy each individual from two million people but open consultation is surely better than the Gung Ho attitude of other companies.
Thanks for your replies.
Tom -
June 17, 2006 at 7:54 pm #730183
a boyle
ParticipantWell i will praise you for seeking opinions.
My opinion is the same as that already expressed. A good place for public phones is attached to the back/side of the proposed kiosks.
A better place is on the side streets off o’connell street.
Surely your company is not so small that it cannot wait till the kiosks are in place ?
Regarding aesthetics. something neat like the kiosks on grafton street would be a apropriate. But in a style that matched the materials used in oconnel street.
Small neat and attached to something else so that is is not sticking out by itself.
Having examined your website , it would appear that you already have a design for oconnell street. Why not let us have a look and we could give you some feedback.
-
June 17, 2006 at 7:59 pm #730184
Fennetec
ParticipantTom, to clarify, are you looking for help in future designs for your phone pedestals? And has the standard DCC design to be installed next year been decided on yet?
Graham,
I am sorry I did not answer your question. Yes, I am looking for help in the future and I base that request on the fact that architects are better at desiging a pedestal than Eircom or myself. I feel that Smart, Eircom and myself should install the exact same approved pedestal throughout the City and I am not talking just about O’Connell Street.
There are a number of features I would like to incorporate and if you “Google” Digital Frames I think that these could provide all the information required to make a phone call without building a big monstrocity to hold a small payphone that thugs will congregate around.
I would also contemplate giving something back to the city and I am sure you are aware of the problems that existed with drug dealing on O’Connell Street and the never ending problem of chewing gum. Each location could be fitted with a web cam saving thousands of pounds that could be taken off the existing line and this could me monitored by a dedicated litter watch or whatever but at least act as a deterent.
If you can help my mail address is tom@fennetec.com.
Killian Skay is the architect for the street and he is a gentleman. Sure there will have to be improvements to what I have prepared and thats why I’m here. I can not do drawings or AutoCad but I am sure the right person could look at my idea, go back to his drawing board and provide the right design.
Thanks again,
Tom
-
June 17, 2006 at 8:15 pm #730185
Fennetec
ParticipantA Boyle.
DCC took the decision to clean sweep all the footpaths on either side of the street and relocate the furniture on the central median.Regarding aesthetics. something neat like the kiosks on grafton street would be a apropriate. But in a style that matched the materials used in oconnel street.
“Having examined your website , it would appear that you already have a design for oconnell street. Why not let us have a look and we could give you some feedback.”
Jeez, you weren’t long sussing that out !!
I can’t give you a look at what I have because I would have to assemble it. I am not sure which phones in Grafton Street you are talking about, is it the Eircom ones?
And yes, my company is that small because Esat BT and ITG played monopoly with DCC property by acquiring sites and doing paper transactions and selling them on while I obeyed the rules and waited eight years to get my few sites. I could not afford to wait another week let alone a year or else I would become one of the beggars that people complain about !!
Finally, I really appreciate any help I am getting here and I did realize before I posted that I was letting myself in for a pasting. I welcome criticism if it results in a facility that O’Connell Street deserves.
Thanks again.
Tom“
-
June 18, 2006 at 12:41 am #730186
a boyle
Participantyes the eircom ones on grafton street . There is one in front of mac donalds if i am not mistaken . I think they date from around 88. Something simple like that (in a metal that matches what is in oconnel street.)
An anti grafiti coating would be a good idea.
Second please don’t paint the phone themselves in garish colours as eircom did with their blue and orange look.
Putting them in three in a row in two places is much more preferable to putting 6 in seperate slots.
But they should not go in. You should be putting them on the side of buildings , in rows on cathal brugha street.
A row of telephones beside at the taxi rank would be ok.
-
June 18, 2006 at 7:48 pm #730187
Fennetec
ParticipantA Boyle
I agree wth you about some of what you say. The debate is not about where they should go whether a tourist is to be up around Cathal Brugha Street looking for a phone on the side of a building or trying to get into the GPO at 3am in the morning to ring somebody after getting off an Aircoach is another matter. There is no point in telling me they should not go there because they are going there and that decision has already been taken. Most phone calls from public phones are made with call cards and these last for up to thirty minutes sometimes. A suggestion that they could be incorporated into bus stops would not endear me to standing trying to talk on a phone trying to compete with the clattering of a 97D engine and inhaling its spew while trying to talk is not the issue I raised. All I wanted to know, assuming there are qualified people on this board to tell me, is what would be more acceptable, not where they should go.You make the point (correctly in my opinion) that something small like the Eircom phones in Grafton Street. Incidently, these were not installed in ’88, they were erected in 1996 one overnight in circumstances that I won’t go into. The “proto-type” I have made myself is designed around the same size. The complete unit is made of stainless steel to match the bins-spire-street furniture. There is no “paint”. Graffiti can not be written as I have designed each panel that a word will not fit, even the base is tubular as is the outside frame.
All I am asking, once more, is that if there is someone qualified on this board who would look at the phone when it is erected. If they have a better plan, and I am sure someone will, I will gladly avail of their services. There seems to me to be an awful assumption by three or four people who constantly write letters to the Evening Herald that O’Connell Street belongs to them alone (and a few more) and everything is wrong unless they agree while at the same time they agree to nothing even if it was paved with gold bars.
After (again) this mornings incident at 3am there is more concern for what is happening on O’Connell Street than phones. In the next week or so Smart Telecom and Eircom will erect what they like without any consultation wheras I am trying to consult, install, remove, replace and upgrade until the most appropriate design is provided. Therefore I am not interested in comments about where the phones should be located, but how they are located. The phone I install this week will be simply bolted to the ground to an existing plate. I would expect there will be changes at which time a new dessign is manufactured and the units changed in half an hour. On the other hand, if Eircom are prepared to go to the same trouble as I am, and, they produce a better design I would have no problem whatsoever conforming to that as I feel that all the phones throughout the city should be exacly the same.
-
June 19, 2006 at 11:53 am #730188
urbanisto
ParticipantI have to say Fennetec that you seem a little intolerant to debate on this subject. This is not how the boards work. So many people see these boards as a free source of professional advice. However the purpose is to debate and discuss issues of architectural or planning interest and if you put it about that you are introducting an element onto O’C St, we will all legitimately offer our two cents worth. This can mean discussing the merits of even having phone kiosks on the street, where they should be placed, etc
There is the 2362rd post on this OConnell Street board and the pages are full of interesting comments from amny people (not just the 3 or 4 who write to the Herald 🙁 – are there any of those). If you dont want to enter into the spirit of the boards then go somewhere else. Hire a bloody architect and pay the going rate for your advice! I am sure you are a busy man and dont want to get bogged down posting put you have to understand that people arent just hear to help you out.
Personally from the little you offer by way of description, I think the phone booths you propose sound okay. I’ll certainly look out for them, though I have a mobile. I still stand by my point that the public phone booth is an increasinly redundnat piece of street furniture and is therefore better suited to being an element of the other pieces of street furniture proposed, ie the kiosks. These are not bus shelters as you suggest but are meant to be shops, cafes and public facilities…the perfect spots for phones I would have thought.
-
June 19, 2006 at 12:47 pm #730189
Frank Taylor
Participant@Fennetec wrote:
That is exactly the type of response I would expect to get elswhere. I was trying to solicit ideas on the type of pedestal that would be most suitable, not a running commentary on the commercial aspects of running a payphone company.
This was not a comment on the commercial aspects of running a payphone company but a question about the usefulness to the public of payphones given their tendency to be broken and the space they take up. I would favour fixing payphones to one of the myriad of street furniture already existing on the street, rather than constructing yet more vertical poles, reducing the space and visual amenity of the street further.
O’Connell street has a number of internet/call shops so if someone is caught short without a mobile they can sit in shelter, quiet and comfort and make a call with the rates shown in advance. They even have phone books.
-
June 19, 2006 at 7:18 pm #730190
GrahamH
Participant@Fennetec wrote:
DCC took the decision to clean sweep all the footpaths on either side of the street and relocate the furniture on the central median.
Yeah, we’d noticed :rolleyes:
The city’s newest municipal landfill cunningly disguised as a pedestrian walkway.In the next week or so Smart Telecom and Eircom will erect what they like without any consultation
I don’t see how this is so given that DCC now have complete control over every coat of paint and brick laid on O’Connell Street from here on in – and these units are even going in on public property!
You give the impression Fennetec that you have had consultations with the street’s architect which is good to hear, in which case surely he has the final say over what phones are to be installed?
No reflection on you, quite the opposite by all accounts, but the fact that a private operator is resorting to an architecture website for design advice in relation to a public telephone in an SPCS, which in turn is going to be mismatched to other temporary phones by other operators, who have consulted with no one, speaks volumes about how this Area of Special Planning Control is being operated. -
June 20, 2006 at 10:46 am #730191
urbanisto
ParticipantMy impression of meeting Killian Skay one time, when he lectured our group in college, was that he was particularly uninterested in hearing any differing opinions on the O’Connell Street project.
Interesting to hear Eircoms disregard for planning regulations… I would have imagined that the installation of new kiosks required planning permission.
-
June 20, 2006 at 11:44 am #730192
Fennetec
ParticipantStephen, and all who replied.
First of all I want to thank everyone who replied. It is impossible for me to address all the various comments. I will try and get time to post a comprehensive outline of what has happened since Telecom Eireann lost their monopoly on payphones on a web page and create a link to that page later. That is as fair as I can be and my intention when I made my fisrt post was not to instigate a slanging match between us. Having said that, I can’t blame any of you for making some of the comments made since you are not familiar with the High Court cases that have taken place over the last ten years on this issue. The law is not alone an ass but the very people who run this country are donkeys and I am not referring to the officials of Dublin City Council but to the statutes and planning laws.
One quick point I will make about Planning Permission in reply to Stephens last post. In 1996 I applied for permission to erect ten payphones in Dublin because I thought it was the correct thing to do. At that time there was no payphone from Christchurch to Westmoreland Street, Temple Bar or Grafton Street. I wanted to agree a design. I had to nominate my locations to Eircom to assure line availability. Eircom went out at 4am on a Sunday morning and placed phones on each site without any permission. They sprung up like mushrooms all over the City overnight one weekend. Their claim ” a payphone is a Public Utility under an old Posts & Telegraphs Act and is exempt from Planning Permission.”
This resulted in Dublin City Council engaging Moore McDowell and Peter Bacon to conduct (at very large expense) a report on payphone requirements for Dublin City. (I would say at that time McDowell and Bacon knew as much about payphones as I do about architecture) While the study was being undertaken Eircom continued to erect payphones when they liked, where they liked and how they liked. The gas part of it was that the study concluded that there was a requirement for 42 payphones in Dublin 1 & 2. Not 30 or 40 now lads, but precisely 42. DCC took a High Court Injunction and placed a Moratorium on payphones in Dublin City.
It might be worth remembering that areas like Rathmines are as important as Dublin City Centre and when the Moratorium was placed Esat, ITG, Eircom, Smart all headed up to Rathmines and look at the state of the place now.
They (DCC) also banned advertising on the Kiosks which as you will see is also ignored. An English company, with an English titled Lord on their board of directors got permission for fifteen sites while I still awaited mine. They then sold the sites to another English company, Esat BT who in turn sold them to Smart. All the time the millions involved in the transactions was IMO effectively a game of monopoly with sites that were on Dublin City Councils property. So, when someone tells me, an Irishman from Laois that I can’t put a payphone in Dublin and a British company can put them outside the GPO with advertising for an English owned Radio Sation I get a bit tetchy, notwithstanding the fact that I obey the rules about not advertising McDonalds and do not create kiosks that look like showers to advertise shampoo or punk radio stations.
For each post I make there are about twenty different arguments one could make in reply and I understand that. I did not, as suggested come on this board to solicit free services from anyone and perhaps whoever made that suggestion would like to withdraw it. I would be quite happy to locate my phones anywhere else in the City providing nobody else was being allowed to put theirs on O’Connell Street either. I am determined, and if any of you had to go through what I have been through in the last ten years, you would be determined, that if phones are going on O’Connell Street, and they are, that I will get my share. Outside of that I am only trying to set a standard that should have been set for me by the bigger hitters.
I will be unable to reply to any posts at least for a few days but I will take a peek in here again.
Thanks to you all, no hard feelings, relax I won’t destroy your street.
Thanks again.
Tom
-
June 20, 2006 at 12:14 pm #730193
Fennetec
ParticipantNews: (Copyright Sky News)
Payphone Installed on Liffey due to increasing demands from immigrants.
Architects attack payphone in O’Connell Street.
-
June 20, 2006 at 10:42 pm #730194
urbanisto
ParticipantI certainly dont want to come across as hostile to you Fennetec, I appreciate you raising this intriguingly, murky matter in the first place, but you are seeking advice (my words ) if not solicting a service (your words). My comment was just simply that you should expect thinsg to go a little off your agenda when you turn to an internet forum (no matter how respected or authoritative :p )
First of, I am not involved in Architecture and have no such qualifications. I need your help please.
The design I am trying to create – or want you to create – must include the following:
No sharp edges if someone walks into it.
Preferably stainless steel.
Small, it only needs to house a phone and not a shower.
Must compliment existing street furniture.
Base and central pillar (I propose) must be round so as debris and paper will not collect around it.I will install the unit I have made (with permission from Mr. Killian Skay) this Tuesday north of the spire. If any of you guys wander by would really appreciate your criticism and assistance. Working together we can get it right or near enough, imposing some of the existing monstrocities on this new street with their Bronx style advertising is not the way forward.
These are both from your post, with my emphasis. I dont usually like to get pedantic put you seem to be suggesting that I have somehow misrerpresented you.
No hard feelings. 😉 I can imagine just what a nightmare you have been dealing with. A similar situation was mentioned in relation to Bus Eireanns attitude to prospective competitors in another post. And we are all aware of the attitude of utilities with regard to undertaking roadworks which only resolved itself (or did it) when legislation was passed in the Dail. But such is the semistate world we live in…albeit privatised.
I applaud your civic sense in trying to do things by the book and your efforts to agree a standard design are also worthwhile. My comments regarding the placing of phone booths on the street still stand.
Stephen
-
June 21, 2006 at 12:11 am #730195
GrahamH
ParticipantYou put your case forward very well Fennetec – one can only imagine the hoops and hurdles of the industry.
So if as you say, there is a now a moratorium on the placing of phones in the city, how is it that you’re installing one, or has this since been revoked? And now that private operators are installing phones as profit-making ventures, surely these cannot be classed as utilities? In any case, even Eircom cannot just dump a phone anywhere, such as in the middle of a pavement, so surely there is an element of local authority control over where they are sited, and if permitted at all?Other development on the street taking place at a slightly higher altitude is proving to be a lot more intrusive. If like the phone, this lighting unit is temporary, fair enough, but there is no way in hell this yoke is staying up there on a permanent basis:
It had better be just a test strip!
Poor old Fidelity is looking very distraught up there – what are they doing to me?!
The same with your man across the way – there’s new floodlighting being installed in place of the single black floods that used to light each statue (though Hibernia had two).
😮
This floodlighting is certainly one drawn out project!
-
June 21, 2006 at 10:54 am #730196
urbanisto
ParticipantDoesn’t Mercury have an extraordinarily long neck! Bit like the OPW putting that strip up! God(s) it looks terrible, :p surely something less obtrusive can be designed.
-
June 21, 2006 at 11:27 am #730197
Fennetec
Participant -
June 21, 2006 at 7:26 pm #730198
GrahamH
ParticipantAt least you’ve given her a suitably period receiver 🙂
They all have strangely long necks – especially Hibernia:
Mercury as mentioned:
And for 1993 recasts, they are all in a disappointing condition. Perhaps they weren’t the most chiseled of replicas to begin with…
From An Post:
“Mercury is [aptly] the Messenger of the Gods; Hibernia represents Ireland and Fidelity, with her faithful hound, represents the trust placed by a nation in their postal service.” (snigger)Of course Fidelity and her hound perform a double act on O’Connell Street:
-
June 22, 2006 at 2:45 am #730199
Alek Smart
ParticipantLong necks indeed although its the hardness of them I would be concerned about……:p
I`m guessing that this little lighting array would have had to pass muster with the aforementioned Mr K. Skay BEFORE it was nailed into position on O Connell St`s most influential facade……But of course … 😮 -
June 23, 2006 at 11:59 am #730200
markpb
ParticipantI only noticed this morning on my wander that a small-ish part of the footpath on middle O’Connel st outside Budget Travel was never re-paved and still has a mixture of concrete and glass. The jewellers still have their tiling on the footpath which I assumed would have disappeared as well.
-
June 23, 2006 at 12:08 pm #730201
Anonymous
InactiveIt is possibly related to ownership issues. Often parts of the pavement are actually owned by the people who own the premises on which it is on front of. Could possibly have been surrounded by railings at one stage too. Not sure though in this case.
-
June 23, 2006 at 2:50 pm #730202
urbanisto
ParticipantYes you see a lot of this around. Its happened on Henry Street and Abbey Street as well. Some areas have been repaved but others remain as they were. I think it could also be related to basements under the street. Its unfortunate though, as it leave the area looking messy and unfinished. Perhaps they will be done at a later stage (as was the case with a numbe rof spots on Abbey Street). Unlikely though.
There were also comments realier on the thread about the glasstiled basement lights along the street which were left in situ and not replaced. You might have a scoot back if your interested.
-
June 23, 2006 at 6:50 pm #730203
GrahamH
ParticipantIt is indeed due to basements – many of the 1910s and 1920s buildings were rebuilt with basements as per their predecessors, with some lightwells only being blocked up in recent times, hence the blobs of concrete spread over some of them. These concreted areas provide the only means of natural light entering these basements and so in practice are owned by the individual properties, even if not being used at present. Whether they do in theory is another matter…
In any event it’s nice that the granite stones surrounding them have been kept in place, though the concreted areas should of course be treated. In a way, this regeneration from an historical perspective has acted a bit like 70s hardboard in covering over the interesting quirks of the paving of the Upper Street, so it’s good that some elements remain.However this matter does pose an interesting question. Whatever about the lightwells of the 1920s buildings, the pavements outside the doors of all of Upper west were originally owned by the various townhouses in the form of railed basement access points, and of course one still remains with repro railings outside the RDH house and to a degree with Ned Kellys next door. So if say Lynam’s Hotel or Flanagan’s wanted to put seating outside their premises, do they still own the pavement and hence do not have to pay DCC the recently introduced pavement rental charges?
-
June 26, 2006 at 11:42 pm #730204
Devin
ParticipantPeople sit on the bases of these sculptures that have been installed along the street. What does that say? – not enough places to sit down in Dublin.
. -
June 27, 2006 at 1:07 pm #730205
urbanisto
ParticipantAgreed, and of course the Anna Livia fountain (remember her?) had the same effect. Thats a nice view of the side pavements, the rows of trees really liven up the street.
I also note that all the old light fittings remain attached to buildings. A job for the cherry picker that got so much use on GPO. And….what news about the planned cleanup of the Spire.
-
June 27, 2006 at 1:10 pm #730206
jdivision
ParticipantI think they took away the seating because that’s where the junkies used to sit and pick out tourists/students etc to mug back in the mid-90s.
-
June 27, 2006 at 1:58 pm #730207
lostexpectation
Participantnow the junkies stand and do the same! fantastic and theres no where to sit!
plaza my arse
-
June 27, 2006 at 7:31 pm #730208
hutton
Participant@Alek Smart wrote:
A brief stroll along the Street last evening revealed little more than what appears to be a form of steel pole nursery.
ROFL 😀
But seriously, I agree with most of the sentiments already expressed by Jimg, G Hickey et al… After 4 years in the making it is most underwhelming.:(
What I really cannot understyand is the way OC Bridge has been left out of the scheme entirely:confused:
Surely the bridge should have been critical to the brief. Instead there is the retrospectively painted ghost lines on the road north-bound, almost as if it is intentional to create the impression that it is a check-point between North and South sides :rolleyes:
Where was the planning?
H
-
June 28, 2006 at 1:08 am #730209
GrahamH
ParticipantSaw a woman in her car (who else :D) the other day trying to turn directly round the corner from Bachelors Walk onto this northbound part of the bridge 😮
Perhaps it was intended to refurbish the bridge in the latter stages of the O’Connell St project, but as uncertainty over the Luas link loomed it was left as is for the time being – a good decision all considering. An RPA spokesperson said the other day that a decision on the link route is due in September.
Fully agreed about seating on the street and the city centre in general. It is a scandal that there isn’t a single place to sit on any of the principal thoroughfares between the Garden of Remembrance and St. Stephen’s Green, a distance of over a mile of prime city space – a shame of the highest order. Indeed the only decent breathing place is the base of Moore’s statue on College Street!
I’ve been observing all these people sitting on the rabbits too, even outside McDonald’s on the busy Lower west corner, and they’re often packed on the Upper median as can be seen.
Yet where provision was made in the IAP for seating on the Lower median, we now effectively have a bicycle park; the taxi rank has also consumed valuable pedestrian seating space. So when are we going to get seats on the street? – whatever about the new northern part, the southern end has been finished for well over a year now and still nothing. -
June 28, 2006 at 1:28 pm #730210
urbanisto
ParticipantThe Hares get a writeup in todays Times (I wont post it as it has already been detailed from the DCC press release). The pic on the front page also shows pedestrians sitting on the statue base. Surely with the coming of the kiosks, we shall see more seating, or will this public seating on the street be effectively privatised as the kiosk will be under private control as cafes etc.
The fact that there is no seating perhaps shows just how little the street has actually changed. Sure, it looks all the better for its wider footpaths but it is still not thought of as a place to linger or relax. Just a means to access shops.
Any progress on your before and after shots Graham!
Also wondering how the new lighting is working out at GPO. Anyone seen the top section lit yet?
-
June 28, 2006 at 4:48 pm #730211
Rory W
ParticipantWherever the there are seats (or indeed steps) in this town there is junkies or winos congregated around.
Until such time as the Devil’s Bit Cider brigade are put off the streets I don’t think we should provide venues for their alfresco refreshment – at least those in “Privatised” pavement areas don’t intimidate
-
June 28, 2006 at 4:53 pm #730212
markpb
ParticipantI can’t understand this at all. If that were the case, we should never have built the boardwalk because homeless sleep there, bus shelters should still be made of horrible pastic because people break them and there should be no upstairs backseat on the 13A because of people smoking and drinking there.
The amount of people sitting on the statues shows the demand for seating on O’Connell Street. It might not be the nicest place to sit, in between all those buses and cars, but its still the city centre and it should be provided.
-
June 28, 2006 at 5:06 pm #730213
Rory W
ParticipantBecause it’s such a pleasant experience walking along the boadwalk along Eden Quay (Irony alert). By all means built nice stuff for decent folk but don’t let the winos/junkies take it over. Until such time as there is better policing (when was the last time you saw a garda moving people along????) no more places for them should be built.
Better policing is the answer and it’s about time the decent people in this city (i.e. 99%) stood up and were counted – why should we be intimidated in our own city?
-
June 28, 2006 at 5:10 pm #730214
markpb
ParticipantAbsolutely there should be better policing but I don’t think we should stop building social spaces until we’re happy there are no anti-social types ready and waiting to abuse them.
-
June 28, 2006 at 6:41 pm #730215
GrahamH
ParticipantIndeed. Come on – this is O’Connell Street, one of the busiest streets in the country in daylight hours. It also has a substantial Garda presence. If anybody thinks that winos hold an intimidating presence over O’Connell Street in this day and age they clearly don’t use the street or still live in 1986.
It’s a vibrant, bright and busy thoroughfare, something that diverts drunks and muggers like insect repellant. Yes there is still a problem of phone and handbag theft in this general area, but I imagine it has gone down a lot of late – otherwise there simply is not a widespread culture of intimidation on the street, and a pathetic excuse for a lack of seating.
Considering that the street has been fully furnished at this stage, it would simply appear the CC have no intention of installing public seating for whatever reason, relying instead on the private seating of the kiosks which will no doubt be surrounded with ugly fabric cordons to keep non-patrons away.
I hope this proves to be incorrect.After an Evening Herald blitz on the matter, it would appear that the Boardwalks, notably Eden Quay, are being addressed. These signs went up a month ago, and I saw the first ever Garda on a Boardwalk shortly afterwards too:
They are attached to every second planter, with little ones on the entrance lampposts too.
-
June 28, 2006 at 8:57 pm #730216
hutton
ParticipantOdd thing is, I reckon theyll have to change or add to these signs with diagramatic type such as that of the diagonal red line thru a black bottle. A stat that I have come across suggests 1 in 5 illiteracy in the adult pop 😮
Also, while I agree with the sentiments behind the creation of the bye-law, that it has all the authority of a local authority is a bit of a damp biscuit. For example, if not why then why the guards apply the DCC bye-law as to access to wcs in pubs; many places now openly advertise that their facilities are “for patrons use only”…All very arbitery, methinks;)
BTW Graham,
@Graham Hickey wrote:
Indeed. Come on – this is O’Connell Street, one of the busiest streets in the country in daylight hours….If anybody thinks that winos hold an intimidating presence over O’Connell Street in this day and age they clearly don’t use the street or still live in 1986.
The last (and only) time that an attempt was made to mug me on that st was indeed 1986! I was 11. 😮 😮
-
June 29, 2006 at 2:57 pm #730217
GregF
ParticipantLooking at the street now that its finished I think it is a little sterile as it misses the seating and most of all some flower containers which it always had in summer. I think some contempory public seating should be installed as well as some transient comtemporary seasonal plant cobntainers. It would certainly add a litlte more colour and softening. Also detract from some of the shitty shop fronts.
-
June 30, 2006 at 2:19 pm #730218
urbanisto
ParticipantThe Hares have finally reached the pages of the Irish Times…..
Madam, – I visited Dublin the other day to view those much hyped monumental hare sculptures in O’Connell Street. They are certainly eye-catching and I suspect they make a lot more sense to most people than the spire. But I hope the sculptures could serve another purpose. Perhaps they might remind us that the animal so eloquently and ingeniously depicted by Barry Flanagan is one of the most wronged and persecuted creatures on this island.
It’s a pity one of the sculptures wasn’t installed right in front of the Dáil to remind the politicians that they have rejected every attempt to seek protection for Irish hares. The vote-conscious baby kissers voted for coursing every time. – Yours, etc,
JOHN FITZGERALD, Callan, Co Kilkenny.
Madam, – It was with some relief that I read in The Irish Times that the highly unattractive sculptures of hares in O’Connell Street are a temporary aberration. A question of hare today, gone tomorrow. – Yours, etc,
ROSEMARY GRAHAM, Muldowney Court, Malahide, Co Dublin.
Madam, – It’s a pity Dublin City Gallery did not install the hare sculptures facing the sun. It would make for better viewing and more interesting holiday photographs. – Yours, etc,
TOM LAWLOR, (Photographer), Vernon Avenue, Clontarf, Dublin 3.
Madam, – The hares on O’Connell Street are great (if only temporary) – but when are we getting back the statue of the Sacred Heart? – Yours, etc,
CHRISTOPHER McCAMLEY, Newtown, Drogheda, Co Louth.
-
July 5, 2006 at 11:45 pm #730219
-
July 6, 2006 at 12:28 am #730220
Frank Taylor
ParticipantIt’s really awful: a giant, badly designed ad for icecreams that covers the entire upper floors of the building. Is there any penalty for doing this?
-
July 7, 2006 at 1:09 am #730221
GrahamH
ParticipantThis is unbelievable! Barely even a year from their last reprimand by Planning in April 2005 for their baguette advertisement!
Well this time round they’re certainly not getting the benefit of a free picture ad on the internet.Really contemptuous behaviour – again knowing full well they’ll have 14 days or something to take it down, on top of the planning processing delay, and on top of the time before anyone even notices!
Anyway, Enforcement have been notified. As for penalties Frank, good question – can fines only be issued via the courts?Indeed on the general theme of enforcement, all the IAP and ACA etc documention went on about strict monitoring of planning and development in this area; presumably other ACAs have/will have similar objectives too. Not that I’m referring to the Burger King case, but does this translate into a physical walkabout by a planning official every few months, or is it a more office-based form of monitoring by means of applications coming in, or even a vaguer aspiration than that?
-
July 7, 2006 at 9:13 am #730222
markpb
ParticipantFor an area under IAP like O’Connell street, there really should be stringent penalties for obvious breaches like that. A Planning Enforcement officer should walk around the area once a day, every day and note anything like that. The company should be notified and be fined, something like €1,000 per day starting from the day it was noticed. Companies will only stop abusing OCS if DCC start getting tough with them.
I’ve also submitted a complaint to DCC PE, as of yesterday afternoon.
-
July 11, 2006 at 2:07 am #730223
Alek Smart
ParticipantPlanning Enforcement Officer my ass……
If such a beast actually did manage to get from Civic Offices to O Connell Bridge he/she would first have to notice yet MORE stupid aluminum poles….Yes in our communal desire to be more Polish than the Poles,Dublin City Council have erected two MORE poles on the west side of O Connell Bridge this time.Do we have any Physchotherapists posting here who could broaden our understanding of this Councils communal NEED to erect a pole for each and every sign.
Not content with making a rats ass of what initially was an attractive idea for more public open space on O Connell St this so-called “Authority” now seems hell bent on turning the street and environs into an aluminum forest.
More evidence of this unhealthy fetish could be faound last week at the Pembroke St/Leeson St junction where the Traffic Signal maintenance company were busy (Yet Again) attempting to seperate the Traffic Signal pole from the pavement after yet another total flattening of the poorly located pole.
The only way the pole can sustain being in this particular location (S/E corner of Pembroke St) is if the council are prepared to protect it with embedded RSJ or to use a lamp-post diameter pole to mount the signal array.
Instead the contractors.just like lemmings,re-erect yet another pole which stands a more than good chance of being flattened within 24 hrs.
The cause is simple…ever longer and wider Commercial Vehicles and Coaches with NO extra manouvering spaces..the remedy is equally simple……:p
-
July 11, 2006 at 9:50 am #730224
Lotts
Participant@markpb wrote:
I see Burger King have their huge adverts draped over the front of the building 😡 I could have sworn they did the same last year and were told to remove it, I can’t believe they did it again.
Edit: Crappy camera-phone photo
Graham is right on the dates 12th April 2005 is when the enforcement notice was issued.
Here’s what it was like for those who’ve forgotten
https://archiseek.com/content/showpost.php?p=32656&postcount=1147I contacted the planning department about this yesterday, but havn’t heard anything back yet.
Meanwhile I was wondering if anyone knows if the icecream sign be treated as a breach of the April ’05 notice. It is the same location, same owner and fundamentally the same breach. Are the penalties the same either way? -
July 11, 2006 at 11:19 am #730225
Rory W
ParticipantThe fines for this sort of thing should be increased to a week in the clink for the MD of the company – that would put a stop to this sort of bollocks.
Alternatively – they should be made hang a banner of some overweight lard-ass with bad skin with the caption “eat here and look like this” on it
-
July 11, 2006 at 11:37 am #730226
Anonymous
InactiveOr made to walk up and down in front of their premises with a placard apologising for their breach like that idiot who was caught urinating on an ATM on O’Connell St a number of years ago.
-
July 12, 2006 at 1:22 am #730227
GrahamH
ParticipantThere certainly ought to be a daily fine system – no question. Something like this only needs to be up for a day for a couple of thousand tourists to see it, let alone citizens on a daily basis.
And this sign in particular is even more awful thanks to the very reason they erected it – it has massive impact at that location, visible from the bridge, quays and southern streets, let alone O’Cll St itself.The cheek of them in erecting it is truly astounding – it covers the entire building, making the baguette one look postively muted:
Lotts Enforcement must be scratching their heads wondering what the heck is going on with 38 complaints pouring in about the same case in one go 😀
-
July 12, 2006 at 3:01 am #730228
Ciaran
ParticipantThat’s an absolute disgrace and of course the longer they get way with the more other companies might think they can too!
-
July 12, 2006 at 11:04 am #730229
Morlan
ParticipantWhatever about BK, I’d like to know why DCC aren’t on top of this already. Can you imagine if BK tried this on Barcelona’s La Ramblas? It would be taken back down in minutes!
-
July 12, 2006 at 12:04 pm #730230
urbanisto
ParticipantInterestingly there have been a number of planning applications in the ACA area which have been modified by the planners as incompatible with an ACA , shopfronts and the like. However this just goes to show how toothless the Planning Enforcement Dept is. Even when it is taken down Burger King will have recieved maximum publicity with no pain.
-
July 12, 2006 at 6:54 pm #730231
ShaneP
ParticipantThey re at it in Limerick too, it would seem.
http://www.limerickpost.ie/dailynews.elive?id=7492&category=Daily-Tue
-
July 13, 2006 at 2:26 am #730232
GrahamH
ParticipantWell spotted Shane – thanks. It’s about time this crowd was reigned in.
To add to Mark’s picture above, here is the Dublin banner in its partial glory – the product and brand remarkably disappearing from the captured image. Spooky.
Unbelievable!
And just as I was standing there, two men walked by on the median tut tutting to each other about how terrible it was and “especially as it’s covering a lovely semi-circular window up there – look, you can just about see it through the material”.
The slogan depicted on the product ironically sums up the company’s attitude to a tee. But not this time Burger King, you will not ‘have it your way’ :rolleyes:
A good news story from the street is the most impressive new LED statue floodlighting installed on the GPO – previously these rather clunky (though better than most) black floodlights illuminated the figures:
They have been replaced by these incredibly small LED units!
Remarkably small – you’d wonder how they emit anything at all! The other added benifit of course is that they should last much much longer than the former sodium or tungsten bulbs that used to blow regularly, upsetting the composition as well as casting statues into darkness.
A fitting finishing touch to what has broadly been a magnificent restoration project by An Post.Just a pity that such a sensitive job couldn’t have been carried out on the rest of the building’s lighting, not least that pediment strip which is still in place. If this doesn’t come down soon, a complaint is being lodged – there is no way that is staying there! In any event, one suspects permission was not applied for: no notices to this effect went up on site, and there’s no record on DCC planning searches either.
What is very interesting however, is an application made by An Post in 2003 to reinstate the original cast iron railings the whole way around the building from Princes Street to Henry Street! What ever came of that proposal I wonder?! It appears to have been withdrawn or declared invalid. It would seem to have been timed to coincide with the beginning of the Plaza works.
-
July 24, 2006 at 2:37 pm #730233
urbanisto
ParticipantI see the Burger King sign came down.
-
July 24, 2006 at 3:38 pm #730234
Lotts
ParticipantThanks for the update StephenC – that’s made my day!
-
July 25, 2006 at 3:09 am #730235
GrahamH
ParticipantYep – it came down last week in fact, so Enforcement were on the ball. One would hope that the speed of its removal is an indication of the ‘threat’ level, so to speak.
Though they still have giant posters pasted to the windows, forbidden by the SAPC. Indeed these are still on virtually every premises on the street.
However not all is well on the street once more, and yet again it is convenience stores and the depths to which they will plummet in question.
Spar on Upper O’Connell St west, housed in the gracious and well maintained Lynam’s Hotel building, have seen fit to erect this banner across their facade.Another notorious ‘temporary sign’ one may think, but oh no – as anyone who knows the street well can tell that this particular Spar premises had a relatively decent, unobtrusive, chromed sign foisted on them by DCC, to respect both this protected building and the broader environment of O’Connell Street. And here it is, still lurking underneath!
The brazen cheek of them – you really have to admire their gall. If this out of all the cases we’ve come across doesn’t spell out in black and white convenience stores’ single aim of increasing visibility at all costs, well nothing does.
But yet again, this premises clearly deems the authorities to be a soft touch – why else would they possibly do this? And O’Connell Street of all places! This banner has been up for a good while now – haven’t had a chance to get on to Enforcemnt about it as yet.
Though the same cannot be said of Londis on Lower east, as personally I’ve been leaving it as long as possible to see when the authorites will get the finger out. Here is their hideous ‘temporary sign’, up for over a year now, having been erected c.May/June 2005.
Look at the contrast with the elegant granite cornice above, and the rubbishy decaying floodlights tacked on. Again, as long as DCC do nothing, they’ll do nothing.
Lovely stuff. This premises also played a proud role in forming a prominent backdrop to the 1916 Commemoration in April – it’d bring a tear to your eye.
Horace O’Rourke must be rolling in his grave.By contrast, just a little further up is the newly converted Bank of Ireland premises, into a (cough) ‘Dental Spa’.
I kid you not, complete with very smart roll-out green carpet. How long will that stay I wonder…Not quite the tenant one suspects DCC had in mind for the premises, but an interesting service nonetheless. They don’t quite appear to be the snooty upmarket establishment that one might suspect from the outside – from The Sunday Business Post, June 18, 2006:
Smiles Dental Spa to open on O’Connell St
By Tina-Marie O’NeillThe €1 million venture follows the opening of Smiles clinics on South Anne Street in Dublin and on Oliver Plunkett Street in Cork over the past two years. Business partners Emmet O’Neill and orthodontist Hugh Bradley are the principals behind the dental practice, which will open in the former Bank of Ireland building at 58 Lower O’Connell Street. ‘‘Cosmetic dentistry is popular in the clinics and all clients have a dental exam prior to any treatments,” said O’Neill. ‘‘We found ourselves sending people away to get fillings or have crowns repaired and were often asked to recommend dentists. ‘‘So we decided to focus on general dental treatments at affordable prices for adults and children at the spa. ‘‘That will include fillings, checkups, crowns, veneers, straightening and tooth implants. Where getting a crown usually requires two visits to a dentist, we have the equipment to make a crown in one hour.”
The spa will be open seven days a week from 7am to 9pm. ‘‘If someone cracks a tooth on a Saturday night, they usually have to wait until Monday to phone their dentist and until maybe Tuesday or Wednesday to see a dentist. At Smiles, they can drop in on Sunday morning and have the problem treated,” he said.
The practice has eight dental chairs, five dentists, a supervised children’s area, specialist dentists and fluent Spanish, Chinese and Polish speakers.Ends.
Rather appropriate interior all considering, with faience lined walls similar to The Grand Central 🙂
They’ve also been very responsible in erecting elegant sensitive signage on the columns and over the door, and even applied for permission to erect those temporary flag banner yokes. The cleaning of the lower facade has been a half-hearted job however, and some decent floodlighting wouldn’t go amiss either. -
July 25, 2006 at 3:47 am #730236
notjim
ParticipantI hope the dental spa signs are only temporary; i didn’t know it was possible to make such cheap metal signs
-
July 25, 2006 at 10:52 am #730237
a boyle
Participanti have come round to the view that the council have all but wasted the effort in o’connell street. it is now festooned with signs and metal all over the place.
as of yet no thought has been given to moving the cycle parking, or providing a decent amount on side streets ,where there is plenty of room.
The taxi rank is a joke , it could have been moved to cathal brugha street where there is a lot more room.
The bus stops signs, all over the place.
Frankly the idea was good and it still is , but there is just shit all over the place.
-
July 25, 2006 at 1:08 pm #730238
Anonymous
Inactiveno sign of the kiosks ? any info anyone ?
-
July 25, 2006 at 5:50 pm #730239
ConK
Participantwhere has the cycle lane gone?
It was along side the central median, but it seems to have been erased. Neither I (the cyclist) nor the bus driver knew who was right and who was wrong in our last tandem manouver up O’Connell street.
-
July 25, 2006 at 6:13 pm #730240
GregF
ParticipantThe O’Conneli Street makeover has come to a standstill. It desperately needs some soft planting like containers of folwers etc… to add some colour to the grey street. it needs some furniture like seating and the kiosks as mentioned. And most of all it need the grubby and tawdry shpfront issue tackled immediately. The tacky cheap look of that travel shop beside the GPO is a daily eyesore,
-
July 26, 2006 at 1:59 pm #730241
anto
Participant@GregF wrote:
The O’Conneli Street makeover has come to a standstill. It desperately needs some soft planting like containers of folwers etc… to add some colour to the grey street. it needs some furniture like seating and the kiosks as mentioned. And most of all it need the grubby and tawdry shpfront issue tackled immediately. The tacky cheap look of that travel shop beside the GPO is a daily eyesore,
Containers of Flowers? give us a break please!!!!!!
-
July 26, 2006 at 3:16 pm #730242
GregF
ParticipantFlower containers add great colour and warmth and are a great transient visual addition to a streetscape.
I take it you are not a keen gardener. -
July 26, 2006 at 10:44 pm #730243
Morlan
ParticipantLots of colour, lots of clutter, lots of everything.
-
July 27, 2006 at 12:13 pm #730244
urbanisto
Participantwhere has the cycle lane gone?
It was along side the central median, but it seems to have been erased. Neither I (the cyclist) nor the bus driver knew who was right and who was wrong in our last tandem manouver up O’Connell street.
Pedestrians and cyclists ‘unsafe’ on O’Connell Street
By Ãine KerrThe €40 million redevelopment of O’Connell Street in Dublin has failed to protect the safety of cyclists and pedestrians in the absence of continuous cycle tracks and effective pedestrian crossing points, according to the Green Party.
The party’s transport spokesman, Eamon Ryan, accused Dublin City Council yesterday of failing to prioritise the safety of “vulnerable road users”. He described conditions on O’Connell Street as “positively dangerous”.
In response to Mr Ryan’s comments, a spokeswoman for Dublin City Council said the council was conducting a safety audit through its traffic department. The results will be available over the next few weeks.
Original plans to incorporate cycle paths and a 30kph (19mph) speed limit were previously abandoned as this would have necessitated redesignating O’Connell Street as a non-national road and making substantial changes to the road’s €10 million new signage by the National Roads Authority (NRA), according to Mr Ryan.
“The new design of O’Connell Street may be attractive to the eye but in road safety terms it is a disaster,” he said.
“In creating a new civic space, the safety of vulnerable road users such as cyclists and pedestrians should have been the top priority.”
Mr Ryan noted that in the past three years six cyclists had been killed and hundreds injured on city centre streets.
The difficulties faced by cyclists in the city was exemplified by Mr Ryan in the cycle route from Parnell Street to O’Connell Bridge, where cyclists start off in a shared bus corridor before having to weave out to a central median cycle lane used by every other form of traffic.
He described the pedestrian crossing points at O’Connell Bridge as a “disgrace”, as hundreds of pedestrians are forced to crowd on to a narrow pavement within inches of heavy goods vehicles.
Mr Ryan concluded: “If we cannot make our prime national street safe for vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists having spent €40 million upgrading it, is there any wonder why we have such carnage on our roads?”
© The Irish Times
Exactly…what happened to that cyclelane?
-
July 27, 2006 at 12:22 pm #730245
a boyle
Participantit looks to me like the money has run out .
-
July 27, 2006 at 12:24 pm #730246
urbanisto
ParticipantI think Eamonn also makes a good point about the pedestrian crossing to OConnell Bridge. Its madness that the footpath should be so inadequate at the opposite side given the level of traffic that this crossing takes.
Original plans to incorporate cycle paths and a 30kph (19mph) speed limit were previously abandoned as this would have necessitated redesignating O’Connell Street as a non-national road and making substantial changes to the road’s €10 million new signage by the National Roads Authority (NRA), according to Mr Ryan.
🙁
Now we at least know how much all that new clutter has cost. No parking sign anyone…a snatch at €250,000!!! :p
-
July 27, 2006 at 1:47 pm #730247
lostexpectation
Participantis the main problem on the bridge side at the corner next to the boardwalk where the path down the quays is quite narrow? would it make any sense to direct more people on the central medium of the bridge to cross? 😮
-
July 27, 2006 at 2:13 pm #730248
a boyle
Participantthat might work lostexpectation but i think there is a simpler more effective solution..
on the bridge side (west junction) there is now a an unused traffic lane which could be filled in and given over to pedestrians.
on the street side (west junction) there is a bit of a jumble that has built up over time. There is a loading bay , a left turn lane which is out of sync with the other lanes.
By synscronising the left turn (onto oconnell street from bachelors walk) with the go straight and turn right options , you remove the need for a left turn lane at all. It might be possible to fill this in too .
Certainly the loading bay could be removed on bachelors walk and placed on o’connell street (with much shorter delivery times — akin to grafton street). Then move the white line some fifteen feet back .
-
July 27, 2006 at 2:26 pm #730249
urbanisto
ParticipantAnd the same could be done to the eastern side of the street where again a wider pavement could be provided and much of the clutter (such as the ridiculously placed telephone kiosk) could be removed. I fancy the DCC have as much in mind for the future redevelopment of the Bridge, they’re just waiting for the final decision on the Luas rerouting.
Personally, sending Luas down O’Connell Street will just add to all these problems and destroy much of the good work already done there. Marlborogh Street is a much better option.
-
July 27, 2006 at 2:32 pm #730250
a boyle
Participant@StephenC wrote:
And the same could be done to the eastern side of the street where again a wider pavement could be provided and much of the clutter (such as the ridiculously placed telephone kiosk) could be removed. I fancy the DCC have as much in mind for the future redevelopment of the Bridge, they’re just waiting for the final decision on the Luas rerouting.
Personally, sending Luas down O’Connell Street will just add to all these problems and destroy much of the good work already done there. Marlborogh Street is a much better option.
definitely . but do you fancy a new bridge acrross the liffey ?? o’connell bridge seems completely underused to me. if it is to go around the back of trinity , it could simply head straigh up d’olier street . (a good idea to my mind — it will only be fractionally slower , due to the large number of pedestrian crossings on dawson , grafton, and westmoreland street)
-
July 27, 2006 at 2:58 pm #730251
urbanisto
ParticipantO’Connell Bridge under-used! Are you mad. Its the busiest through route in the city surely, I would agree that a new bridge across the river would not be ideal but a light structure soley for use by Luas would be a small price to pay for greater public space on O’Connell Street. There was an article a few weeks back where the city traders assoc was also pushing for the new transport routes to be sent down Marlborough Street. They pointed to the possibility of creating a new stop at the current Dof Education with a public space in front of the Pro Cathedral (previosuly mooted in a plan for Cathedral Street). I think its ideal. It would remove the bus park from M St and return the street to some semblence opf normal usuage . The real estate potential along this street wont go unrealised for long.
Im not sure I get what you are saying about D’Olier Street. The M St route still allowed for the Luas to go in front of Trinty along College Green. We all know that the Pearse Street -Westland Row route is a non-runner.
-
July 27, 2006 at 3:12 pm #730252
a boyle
Participanto’connell bridge is hugely underused, half the lanes on it serve no purpose whatsoever. and only duplicate access provided on butt bridge.
sending the luas behind trinity might be a political non runner and so i fear we could get bogged down in a pointless argument here…
behind trinity is the superior routing for various reasons; namely the likely routing in front of trinity:
1 it gets in the way of buses which carry more poeple (several times more people).
2 it doesnt add any extra benefit to what is in place . those seeking acces to the area south of the liffey won’t get there any fast by using this extension . because of all the stopping and starting enevitable with the depestrian crossings the tram will go at walking speed between the green and oconnel street. (possibly slower)
3. With a serious lack of shopping , the routing behind trinity opens up the long term possibility of the whole of pearse street being rejuvenated . — . we have all seen the effect of the red line on arnotts , who are preparing an enormous expansion. the same would happen on pearse street. thus the green line could service two areas instead of one — surely that is a good thing. Trinity have already showns signs that they are of a mind to return their holdings to retail.
4. running behind trinity means not duplicating the metro routing. -
July 27, 2006 at 3:25 pm #730253
urbanisto
ParticipantUndoubtably you have a point about the Pearse-Westland Row routing; I just think its a non-runner for the simple fact that it would take too long to travel what could more easily be walked and it would be too expensive to build. Im not really sure that the rejuventaion of Pearse would be helped by Luas. There are plenty of more attractive sites for intensive uses in the city centre. Pearse Street is a more complex kettle of fish I think because of the size and nature of its principal resident.
Duplication of the Luas and Metro lines is of course a valid point although many city transit systems have duplication. Its by no means a bad thing. I think people will be taking Metro and Luas from St Stephens Green for differing reasons.
-
July 27, 2006 at 3:33 pm #730254
a boyle
Participant@StephenC wrote:
Duplication of the Luas and Metro lines is of course a valid point although many city transit systems have duplication. Its by no means a bad thing. I think people will be taking Metro and Luas from St Stephens Green for differing reasons.
that may well be but with whole chunks of the city with no services i would think the last thing we need is duplicating things!!!
yes you are right to be concerned about the fact that trinity own half the street , but your concern is misplaced. They current want to redevelop the street , and they need the money . a luas on pearse street would provide irresistable impetus for change. consider the value of redevelopping the street to trinity , hundreds of millions that could go to new facilities!
-
July 27, 2006 at 3:38 pm #730255
urbanisto
Participantyes you are right to be concerned about the fact that trinity own half the street , but your concern is misplaced. They current want to redevelop the street , and they need the money . a luas on pearse street would provide irresistable impetus for change. consider the value of redevelopping the street to trinity , hundreds of millions that could go to new facilities!
True but to what end. Its not really suitable for largescale retail use. The competition it faces from other areas for this is considerable…think of Smithfield, Markets and Abbey, Marlborough, Talbot Streets. Residential would be problematic due to the large number of social housing estates off the street and the nature of the buildinsg along the street. There is lots of scope to the north of Pearse Street and this seems to be developing fast but its no help to Trinity.
-
July 27, 2006 at 3:41 pm #730256
urbanisto
ParticipantTrinity have already showns signs that they are of a mind to return their holdings to retail.
I think Trinty are more interested in developing the street for campus needs rather than retail. You only have to consider the three major scheme recently put forward to see that.
-
July 27, 2006 at 3:41 pm #730257
dave123
ParticipantI’m honing on a complete new topic on this street. 😀
The tacky post modern whachmocalleit buildings along the GPO till the Carlton
I’m aware, that the buildings that once stood here, were victorian and were pre twentieth century and probably replicate the opposite side of the street, where their is fine standing buildings. Sadly they are gone since they were destroyed in the 1916 rsing. Correct me if I’m wrong.Now my point is… will these buildings get a makeover or something, They are even beginning to look dirty, Afterall the street is looking a million dollars, with the new paving etc. the building’s especially on Henry street corner, are revolting.
Is there a plan to do something about them:rolleyes: . It’s a depressing heap of sh!te that seems to spread around most provincial towns etc… 🙁The building on Henry street corner, is detestful.
Rant over.
-
July 27, 2006 at 3:47 pm #730258
dave123
Participant@StephenC wrote:
True but to what end. Its not really suitable for largescale retail use. The competition it faces from other areas for this is considerable…think of Smithfield, Markets and Abbey, Marlborough, Talbot Streets. Residential would be problematic due to the large number of social housing estates off the street and the nature of the buildinsg along the street. There is lots of scope to the north of Pearse Street and this seems to be developing fast but its no help to Trinity.
Maybe so, but land values will increase as a result of the new Dev north of Pearse street etc, I think since the new development adjacent to Pearse station will be a fine example to further dev. on this street.
Worth mentioning the new Macken street bridge, which will also give Pearse street a more attractive location. I can’t see why Trinity wouldn’t make a risk in doing more with it’s piece of the Street.
-
July 27, 2006 at 3:53 pm #730259
urbanisto
ParticipantThey have! They currently have plans under consideration by DCC to demolish a number of the listed buildings and create a new complex with a gateway opposite Moss Street.
A point about this whole area is that it is seen as attractive regardless of whether Luas uses it or not. There is already a huge amount of activity around here.
However the point still remaijns that Luas down from the Green to O’Connell St via Pearse would be too long a journey. Then conside that from Abbey Street the Luas continues to Broadstone and Grangegorman under Transport 21. This means the whole length of the street given over to Luas, as well as Parnell Square East I imagine.
-
July 27, 2006 at 3:59 pm #730260
a boyle
Participant@StephenC wrote:
However the point still remaijns that Luas down from the Green to O’Connell St via Pearse would be too long a journey.
yes but i don’t think it will be significantly longer than the shorter route. there are so many pedestrian routes along the way that the trams are likely to have to go no faster than 10km/h between starting and stopping , whereas using the other direction could see them going at 30/40km/h on average.
This effect will really kick in if the trams start running every three minutes or two. the shorter route is a case of the shortest route being the longest way round !!!
-
August 10, 2006 at 3:47 pm #730261
urbanisto
ParticipantKiosks? Even one….
That poor man selling newspapers outside Permanent TSB is dying for a spanking new kiosk. As is the flowerseller at the Spire… And Helga, just arrived from Sweden, would really, really like a map and some tourist info, not to mention a quick wee. And personally I am dying to taste the coffee mixed with traffic fumes from the street cafes….
DCCs website is not really much help…can anyone else enlighten us.
-
August 11, 2006 at 11:16 am #730262
GregF
ParticipantThe Street is kinda sterile, and look it too. It really needs something to make it welcoming. The superb paving acts as a good basis but it needs more in the way as whats already been said …..kiosks, information stands, seating, soft planting; something that will interact will the public. Barry Flanangan’s giant hare sculptors kinda do that now……people sit around the bases of the sculptures chatting etc….taking a breather. And will they ever enforce a law against grotty looking premises.
-
August 16, 2006 at 1:10 pm #730263
Anonymous
InactiveFires in two Dublin hotels overnight
16 August 2006 08:25
The second blaze broke out just before 3am at the Gresham Hotel on O’Connell Street.
Another 400 people were evacuated after the fire started in a disused store at the back of the hotel.
Around four fire units attended the blaze. There were no injuries, but some damage was caused to the building.
All guests were able to return to their rooms.
Any word on the scale of the damage?
-
August 16, 2006 at 2:34 pm #730264
TLM
ParticipantSpeaking of the Gresham wasn’t it supposed to be upgraded to a 5 star, and wasn’t there a plan to revamp the Royal Dublin Hotel?
-
August 16, 2006 at 2:45 pm #730265
urbanisto
ParticipantYes and yes… Gresham have done a good bit of work over the past 2 years. Not a dickybird from the awful RDH though.
-
August 16, 2006 at 5:06 pm #730266
TLM
ParticipantCheers for that, hopefully the RDH will eventually get moving also.
-
August 16, 2006 at 6:23 pm #730267
GrahamH
ParticipantSome fancy pictures of the new look Royal Dublin Hotel by Ashlin Coleman Architects, which received planning permission two years ago:
-
August 16, 2006 at 6:42 pm #730268
TLM
ParticipantI can’t say I’m mad on the redesign, though maybe the finished product would be more mipressive than the drawing. Any improvement on the current monstrosity would be welcome…
-
August 17, 2006 at 1:05 pm #730269
urbanisto
ParticipantI thin k it will be quite an exciting addition to the street actually, especially at night. 2 years is quite a significant delay though….I wonder whats up. Were they waiting for DCC to get its bit over with before they invested.
-
August 17, 2006 at 2:18 pm #730270
Alek Smart
ParticipantWell perhaps Ashlin Coleman will have managed to put a bit of professional thought into the pathetic dangerous mess which now exists at the Ivor Callelly Memorial (Taxi Rank) directly opposite the RDH.
This piece of farcical nonsense really does need to be observed for a while to grasp just how devoid of professionalism and a grasp of the real-world DCC`s Planning Dept really is.
The present Taxi Rank arrangement is on every count far worse than the “Old” one.
Intending passengers have virtually nothing to inform them that the place is in fact a piece of Public Transport infrastructure (DCC Style)
I watched yesterday as several intending passengers each tugging a pull along and shoulder baggage traipsed along the line of Taxi`s unaware that there was actually a Top to the Queue.
On a Street which now has a sign for almost every concievable event there is Sod-All to inform the intending public-transported minded person as to the conventions or rules of Taxi Travel.
The Shelter which was there pre IAP is long gone as are the information panels.By far the most dangerous element and the one which points a very accusatory finger at DCC Planners is the Designed-In element of DANGER which Taxi Drivers AND other Road Users now have at the New-Improved Rank.
It is Impossible for Vehicles to make the U Turn around the central reservation in order to maintain the queue without either projecting out into the Northbound general traffic lane,already compromised by the Cathal Brugha St right turn,or having to REVERSE back out onto the Southbound lane in order to conform to the requirements of the law.
Even when positioned correctly at the Rank the exposure to Danger continues with passengers entering the Taxi by the Nearside front and Rear Doors,which of course are now positioned on the OFFside of the general traffic lane travelling along OCS proper.
This is Lunacy and if it`s the Best DCC can come up with then it`s a living disgrace that former high-ranking City Officials can be wafted off into the stratosphere to the sound of Harps and rustle of rose-petals being thrown at them rather than having them dragged back to the OCS Taxi Rank and questioned as to what they were thinking of when they signed off on this piece of Krapp.
I am fairly certain that if,for example the Road Safety Agency were to commission a Safety Audit by REAL professionals on the design,construction and critically,THE OPERATION of this Rank then it would be closed down forthwith.
Perhaps if the RSA can not be bothered then the Motor Insurance companies which service the Taxi industry might be prepared to cast a critical eye over the situation.My essential point is that DCC have managed to take an imperfect situation vis a vis the OLD OCS Taxi Rank and make it immeasurably worse on every count ESPECIALLY from a Road Safety perspective with NO agency prepared to cry foul,even an Garda Siochana whose premises have a grandstand view of the crazed situation.
If ever there was a case for having our City Administrators chosen by the City Electorate this is IT.
Now……how much would UPS charge to deliver a crate of P45`s to Wood Quay ?? 😮 -
August 26, 2006 at 4:13 am #730271
GrahamH
ParticipantWhile I haven’t exactly sat down to watch the rank in operation, I certainly agree regarding patrons accessing the front seat by the only exceedingly dangerous means possible, i.e. to walk out onto the busy road. It’s a major design flaw which is much more pronounced on this very busy dual carriageway laden with buses and fast moving cars bolting up from the Spire to beat the lights at the taxi junction, than other roadside ranks in the city. Another reason why this rank simply shouldn’t be here.
A little further down on Upper west, National Irish Bank have erected a new sign on their imposing 1860s Bryce-designed branch, in line with their recent rebranding, This is probably their only branch in the country where they had to depart with brand colouring and go for brass 😉
And how elegant it looks too, if perhaps a bit too bright? Maybe a brushed finish would have been better.
It appears to be backlit. A nice job.Only the downside is, given they’ve just completed these works, it would suggest they’ve no intention of tackling that lower facade for a long time to come 🙁
What a shame, as it’s a fairly decent shopfront (if not original), but requires the stripping away of that hideous not-mentionable coloured paint, as well as the rather crude double glazed sash windows and other additions. The upper elevation could look spectacular if cleaned too, though if that unique colouring has developed over the years via the sandstone ‘rusting’ upon exposure, then it’s best to leave it alone.
A spectacular concealed floodlighting job could be done up there too.Was there no way DCC could enforce other improvements along with the sign development, given it’s a protected structure and the related nature of shopfront works?
-
August 26, 2006 at 5:41 am #730272
Paul Clerkin
Keymasterthe main thing that the NIB branch needs is a symetrical street level – it needs a mirroring entrance on the northern end for a start…
-
August 26, 2006 at 1:31 pm #730273
Anonymous
InactiveTheir branch on College Green has recently had similar lettering added
-
August 30, 2006 at 2:25 pm #730274
urbanisto
ParticipantA hideous colour! Who on earth chose it….
Well I got my first look at the competed street this week and I have to say I am quite pleased at how its turned out. I actually dont find it as bare and sterile as I expected, at least not with summer leaf cover. And lets not forget that the trees will grow and will become a much moire prominent feature. In fact the plaza trees are already look like they are thriving. There are a number of trees missing though…anyone notice this. About 10 in all I would think. I wonder are tehy related to the installation of kiosks? In fact the one thing that struck me about the street is the need for a thorough snagging. Lots of small bits and bobs needing attention to complete the finish.
I must also say that the visual clutter is also not as bad as I expected…in fact I think tehre has been some effort made to reduce the poles which seemed to be springing up everywhere. For example the plaza area is now cleared of poles and bus stops. I see Fenetec’s new telephone kiosk on the median where the fountain used to be. Sorry Fenetec but its a non-event I still stand by my suggestion of incorporating telephones into kiosks. Eircom are installing kiosk on the side pavements (the opposite of what was intended) although they are in line with things like lighting, post boxes and bins. But they have opted for their own design and I really dont see the DCC enforcing a standard model.
On the planning front I notice Clerys have a permission in to renovate their Sackville Place frontage. Also saw a couple of refusals for internet cafes in the ACA area. What really needed is for the DCC to target certain units along the street for big name retailers to stimulate development. Findlater House is an obvious target and is Dr Quirkeys. I would also like to see some progress by the RDH, Savoy and Gresham on their already approved application. And encouraging street cafes and some quality restaurants would also be a positive move.
And finally, I think the sculptures are cool., a great idea. Just need a few seats to admire them.
-
August 30, 2006 at 7:54 pm #730275
adhoc
ParticipantSince National Irish was bought by Danske Bank, the Danes have imposed the parent bank’s style/image on NIB. Everything has changed except the names.
Here’s a shot of Danske Bank’s external signage.
-
September 9, 2006 at 6:23 pm #730276
fergalr
ParticipantI don’t know if I’m the first to post this, but Ann Summers have stuck up a plannign permission notice, setting out their intention to re-do their shopfront.
Maybe it won’t be turquoise with lingerie adverts and mannequins directly opposite the GPO..
Myself and the other half disagree on this, I think it looks pretty bad where it is. A classy facade could make all the difference in the world. -
September 11, 2006 at 1:43 pm #730277
Anonymous
InactiveStumbled upon a great image of O’Connell Street in 1965 here the other day. The street lamps look particularly impressive I think.
-
September 11, 2006 at 10:19 pm #730278
Blisterman
ParticipantLink doesn’t seem to be working.
-
September 12, 2006 at 1:29 pm #730279
Anonymous
InactiveI just tried it there and it worked, but try copying and pasting this into your browser.
http://www.ribapix.com/image.php?i=15498&r=2&t=4&x=1
Hope it works.
Phil
-
September 14, 2006 at 1:25 pm #730280
urbanisto
ParticipantWhat has happened to (at least) 15 trees on O’Connell Street?! Removed, in some cases sawed off at the base. Its very strange…were they diseased, dead on arrival? Can anyone shed some light.
And speaking of light…. there are a number of lamp standards not working, including the whole section in the median at before the Larkin statue. Is it a tripped switch?
-
September 14, 2006 at 1:49 pm #730281
Anonymous
InactiveI was walking along the other night and also noticed the fact that many of the lights aren’t working. However, I didn’t notice a pattern to it. It seemed that at random at least half the lights were out along the upper end of the street. One might be working, then the next two out and vice versa.
I have also noticed the trees,and wondered if it had anything to do with the riot in February?
-
September 14, 2006 at 2:05 pm #730282
urbanisto
ParticipantYou mean the riot that wasnt a riot phil? The thing is that many of these missing trees where only put in place after the riot, particularly along the upper stretch of the street.
I also though it might be something to do with the installation of the kiosks. I reckon the CC have gone cold on these. Id say there wasnt sufficient uptake to make them commercially viable and they fear a repeat of the situation on Grattan Bridge. I may be wrong but it they havent even been mentioned lately. The planning permission for the kiosks on the lower half of the street was granted early last year and I would expect that the kiosk incorporating the Luas power room be in place at least. Instead this concrete lump just got a paint job to make it less conspicuous. The tender for the kiosks, issued earlier this year I think, mentioned that they were build and operate jobs, that is the CC wasnt undertaking thew works themselves.
Mr Fenetec has found another spot for one of his (or is it her) non-descript telephone kiosks. At least Fenetec is sticking to the median as proposed by the overall plan for the street. Eircon also recently installed a number of booths along the side pavement although they are in line with the lamps, trees, etc.
-
September 14, 2006 at 2:18 pm #730283
Anonymous
Inactive@StephenC wrote:
You mean the riot that wasnt a riot phil? The thing is that many of these missing trees where only put in place after the riot, particularly along the upper stretch of the street.
As an eye witness to the incident I can tell you that it was definitely some form of riot.
Yes, I know that some of the trees were not in place at the time of this incident, but even in the upper end there were some already there. The six closest to the Parnell Monument being a case in point. The other exlaination, as you have already mentioned is that there was something wrong with them when they were delivered. Of course, the other option is that they were damaged since then.
-
September 14, 2006 at 8:24 pm #730284
GrahamH
ParticipantIt seems likely they were damaged during the Junior Cert ‘celebrations’ on O’Connell Strreet the other night.
I walked the length of the street only a few days ago and everything was fine – where is all this damage Stephen? 15 trees is a heck of a lot.Agreed about the median lighting – a number of clusters are not operational, and many were on during daylight the other day. Clearly there’s still teething problems.
Fennetec’s phone pedestal (taken few months ago):
Also one of the bright new LED units on the Upper median – they’re wonderfully bright and clear in their new state. They ought to be regularly cleaned.
-
September 15, 2006 at 10:39 am #730285
Anonymous
Inactive@GrahamH wrote:
It seems likely they were damaged during the Junior Cert ‘celebrations’ on O’Connell Strreet the other night.
I walked the length of the street only a few days ago and everything was fine – where is all this damage Stephen? 15 trees is a heck of a lot.Some of them have been missing for quite a while now. Not sure how long, but it certainly hasn’t just happened in the last few days.
-
September 15, 2006 at 5:58 pm #730286
Anonymous
InactiveHumm…I dont remember but was bikes locked to trees and poles a part of the design? :rolleyes:
-
September 15, 2006 at 6:02 pm #730287
markpb
Participant@weehamster wrote:
Humm…I dont remember but was bikes locked to trees and poles a part of the design? :rolleyes:
Pretty it aint but there’s a hugh shortage of cycle parking in the city centre. There have been more than a few evenings when I’ve gone in to find all the spaces beside the GPO full. And OCS is relatively well served compared with the Grafton St and Stephens Green area.
-
September 20, 2006 at 3:58 pm #730288
urbanisto
Participant@GrahamH wrote:
It seems likely they were damaged during the Junior Cert ‘celebrations’ on O’Connell Strreet the other night.
I walked the length of the street only a few days ago and everything was fine – where is all this damage Stephen? 15 trees is a heck of a lot.Im surprised you didnt notice these Graham. I haven’t counted but I would guess it’s about 15 in all. There are a number missing on the Spire to Bridge stretch as well so it not just something related to the last phase of works.
-
September 24, 2006 at 2:34 pm #730289
corcaighboy
ParticipantGiven that there has been much discussion in this thread about ‘temporary’ signage on shopfronts, I thought the following article might be of interest. At the very least, good to see the issue getting some publicity.
The Sunday Times September 24, 2006
An Taisce in war on lurid shopfronts
Colin CoyleTHEY style themselves as shops “designed for the way we live today†but An Taisce, the National Trust for Ireland, has claimed that the “increasingly brash and lurid†shopfronts of convenience stores are destroying the fabric of Dublin.
The planning watchdog has filed documents with the city council claiming that Spar, Centra and Londis “are showing an increasing contempt and disregard for planning laws and requirementsâ€, and that their obtrusive, gaudy facades are ruining the capital’s historic streetscapes.Kevin Duff, a spokesman for An Taisce, says Centra and Spar are the chief offenders. “These shops are openly flouting planning regulations and there is now a significant level of unauthorised development and non-compliance with planning authority decisions in Dublin, where a new convenience store seemingly opens on a weekly basis,†he said.
“We’ve identified at least 20 examples of these stores disregarding planning regulations. The city council is reluctant to get tough with them and doesn’t want to get involved in messy legal battles, but the situation is getting out of hand. It’s only a matter of time before it spreads to other urban areas.â€
The city council has issued enforcement orders against a number of convenience stores in recent months and admits that there have been a growing number of complaints from the public about the visual impact of such shops.
“We have taken action against several shops recently, forcing them to remove unauthorised signs,†said Rory O’Byrne, an enforcement officer. “We’re not actively targeting convenience stores, but we do investigate any reports of unauthorised development.â€
An Taisce claims that when convenience stores open, they sometimes use cheap plastic signage emblazoned with their logos and claim that it is a temporary arrangement.
Duff said: “There is a Londis on O’Connell Street, right in the heart of an area with its own special planning controls, that has had a temporary sign outside it for almost 18 months. The policy appears to be to establish themselves visually with a big, bold sign and leave it in place for as long as possible.â€
Londis admitted that erecting a permanent sign on its O’Connell Street store was taking longer than expected.
Spar has also been known to erect bold plastic “temporary†shopfronts, Duff claims. “The Spar on Patrick Street had ‘temporary’ signage for eight months. It has finally been removed and replaced with a stainless steel sign, but it’s completely different to what was agreed with the city council.â€
Spar, Duff said, has opened several shops without securing planning permission for their facades first.
“Over the past year a significant proportion of their stores in the city centre have been fitted with an internally illuminated protruding plastic box fascia. These boxes have a cheap downmarket appearance and fly in the face of basic shopfront design principles,†he said.
Spar claims that it has a strong tradition of working closely with local authorities in all large European cities and is happy with its relationship with Dublin city council. “Spar takes it responsibilities in relation to planning very seriously,†it said.
“We are in continuous dialogue with the city council through our architects in relation to store frontage and signage.â€
Centra claims that although its stores are individually owned by independent retailers, “store fronts have to conform to an agreed brand identity and quality standard as well as conforming to the planning requirements of the relevant local authorityâ€.
Duff cites a Spar on Mayor Street and a Centra on Capel Street as two models of restraint in shopfront design. “Both of those stores have discreet, simple designs, but these constitute a minority,†he said.
-
October 10, 2006 at 11:28 am #730290
Seandub1
ParticipantI’m just wondering when the street is going to be finished!
Half the lights from the spire to the top have never worked. Also the ones in the middle opposite Easons were damaged by a fire during the riot and have never worked since. The sodium lights on the buildings at the top end are still lighting the street as the new lights dont work. Its months since the street was supposed to be completed.
I really want to see the street at night with all the new lights working and the old sodium ones turned off. Only then can one really judge the success of the street at night.
-
October 11, 2006 at 8:15 pm #730291
-
October 12, 2006 at 7:09 pm #730292
urbanisto
ParticipantEircom are indulging in a phone kiosk installation extravaganza on OC street at the moment…. You better get in their quick Fenetec
-
October 13, 2006 at 4:02 pm #730293
urbanisto
ParticipantOPW are to apply for permission to redevelop Findlaters House on O’Connell Street as a headquarters and information centre for Irish Aid. The plans will include replacing the exsiting facade with a new angular glass facade incorporating display panels. The ground floor will be used as an information centre and performance space with offices overhead.
Finally some movement on this eyesore but sadly by more or less retaining its present usage it won’t do much for footfall on the upper street.
-
October 13, 2006 at 6:26 pm #730294
Urban_Form
ParticipantI’m sorry if this has been brought up before, I tried searching the thread and came up with no results, however I couldn’t quite be bothered to read all 99 pages to this thread so here goes;
Does anyone know what that large up-right vent is on the central median of O’Connell Street? It’s an unfinished looking concrete structure about the height and width of a telephone box but about twice the length with horizontal ventilation slits at the top of the sides. It’s located outside Schuh or Supermacs on the central median just south of the Luas intersection between some trees?? It looks completely unfinished, it’s obviously for ventilation but it doesn’t look like the type of thing that would have been included in the original designs for the streetscape since it’s so rough. Everytime I see it I’m just completely miffed that something like that was left there and seems to have gone completely un-noticed.
-
October 13, 2006 at 6:29 pm #730295
markpb
Participant@Urban_Form wrote:
Does anyone know what that large up-right vent is on the central median of O’Connell Street?
I think its something to do with the power supply to the Luas line above it. Initially it was meant to be incorporated into a kiosk so it wouldn’t be quite so ugly but nothing has happened with those yet.
It is appauling awful 🙁
-
October 16, 2006 at 11:37 am #730296
Urban_Form
ParticipantStephenC: Exactly…what happened to that cyclelane?
I read in the paper recently that O’Connell Street was designed with the provisions of a cycle lane but that it wasn’t included initially since the cycle lane would end abruptly at either end of O’Connell Street; there’s no continuation of a cycle path at either O’Connell Bridge/the quays or Parnell Square.
Frankly this is somewhat of a cop-out really because it implies that even if there were cycle lanes on O’Connell Street cyclists still shouldn’t be using it as they don’t lead anywhere at either end of the street. It’s putting pedestrians, cars and busses before cyclists.
From looking at the street now what I don’t understand is that if, and when cycle lanes are included they would obviously be incorporated into the main road, but why wasn’t the cycle path designed in such a way as to be segregated from the main road and the footpaths like on the Continent? It’s not as though O’Connell Street was lacking in space.
-
November 1, 2006 at 5:49 pm #730297
Fennetec
ParticipantQUOTE FROM ABOVE “Eircom are indulging in a phone kiosk installation extravaganza on OC street at the moment…. You better get in their quick Fenetec”
Well, I did place a second one at the O’Brien Monument but your observation could not be missed as regards Eircom. As is usual in these matters the goalposts are on a moving rail. At the beginning of discussions with DCC Mr. Skay told me that NO PHONES, were being placed on the footpaths. I agreed with that and located on the central median. Then, directly opposite, Eircom planted theirs on the footpath ! Next, Smart Telecom (or now not so smart telecom) placed one of theirs directly opposite my unit and about ten metres south of Eircom’s – where? On the pavement where we all agreed they would not go.
The gas thing about it is that both Eircom and Smart are in a well publicised war at the moment and both are offering calls to anywhere in the world for 10cent per minute including Vat ! Is it any wonder that the poor unfortunates who invested their last few bob in savings lost so much money in shares in these companies? Ask them will they give you calls for the same price and see what they will say!
Worse news for you guys who (rightly) seem to care about O’Connell Street is that when I asked a certain Architect in DCC yesterday what the hell was going on he said that the phones on the pavement had to be allowed as there are seven more to go up! Some obviously without dial tone!
On an aside issue, I am removing the one from beside the Spire and replacing it with the same design as the one beside Mr. O’Brien. Then, before I erect anymore I am refurbishing all my existing installations with the same type. So, I haven’t gone away, just trying to do things half right, but sometimes I wonder why?
-
November 1, 2006 at 6:11 pm #730298
urbanisto
ParticipantJez, I have to wonder why too Fennetec! It seems the best laid plans of mice and councils gang aft ary! Now let the signage pole frenzy commence!!! Oops its already started on O’Connell Bridge
-
November 1, 2006 at 7:14 pm #730299
Niall
ParticipantWhat amazes me is that councils are told by the Traffic Signs Manual issues by the DOE (carbon copy of the UK’s) to place signs as much as possible on existing objects (i.e. lamposts!!) to avoid clutter.
Do the councils do this? No!!
Hence a whole load of ugly plethora which is an absolute eyesore. They can’t even put the poles up straight, never mind the signs!!!
-
November 4, 2006 at 7:58 am #730300
Morlan
ParticipantI’m disappointed with this street and in particular the central median. Isn’t it meant for people to mingle and chill? At the moment it seems like a safety corridor for people to walk through quickly – “Take your photos of the Spire and then you’d better be on your way”.
Out of all the cities I’ve visited, Barcelona’s main though fare “Las Ramblas” has a lot in common with O’C St.
I think the new design of O’Connell street is flawed. The central median should have been a lot wider and the footpaths on either side didn’t need to be as wide. There’s nowhere for tourists and locals to sit and enjoy the street.
Have a look at this:
You wouldn’t think that busy traffic was streaming down either side of it.
Las Ramblas is the same width as O’C St., perhaps narrower in places, but it works because the central median is wide enough to cater for caf
-
November 4, 2006 at 11:54 am #730301
hutton
Participant@Morlan wrote:
I’m disappointed with this street and in particular the central median. Isn’t it meant for people to mingle and chill? At the moment it seems like a safety corridor for people to walk through quickly – “Take your photos of the Spire and then you’d better be on your way”.
Out of all the cities I’ve visited, Barcelona’s main though fare “Las Ramblas” has a lot in common with O’C St.
I think the new design of O’Connell street is flawed. The central median should have been a lot wider and the footpaths on either side didn’t need to be as wide. There’s nowhere for tourists and locals to sit and enjoy the street.
Spot on – the median should have been widened, not narrowed – a la the original mall, taxis should have been relocated onto Cathal Brugha St, public seating would be a novelty, while surely the nursery for street poles could have been somewhere else? And as for the way the bridge has been left so unresolved – ghost painted lanes etc… Maybe with the construction of the Airport Metro and Luas connector there may be an opportunity to get it right 😉
-
November 4, 2006 at 12:33 pm #730302
Morlan
ParticipantMetro and Luas connector? Jaysus, I’ll be on a zimmer frame by then and probably won’t care.
Yes, you’re right about the bridge. The footpaths on either side can now be widened. Everthing takes SO.. SO.. LONG.. in this city.
I will rest when I see West Morland, Dolier, College Gr. and Dame street all renovated and designed to link the PEOPLE from south to north. Not Dublin Bus.
-
November 6, 2006 at 2:00 pm #730303
fergalr
ParticipantI think it might be time to abandon notions of people actually stopping on O’Connell St. It’s an almighty thoroughfare linking north and south Dublin and must be the busiest road and pedestrian route in the city.
Perhaps a better comparison with it is the Place de la Concorde in Paris. Big and pretty* but used mainly to get from a to b and to cross the river.*This assumes that one day O’Connell St will be pretty!!
-
November 6, 2006 at 2:32 pm #730304
Frank Taylor
Participant@Morlan wrote:
I’m disappointed with this street and in particular the central median. Isn’t it meant for people to mingle and chill? At the moment it seems like a safety corridor for people to walk through quickly – “Take your photos of the Spire and then you’d better be on your way”.
Out of all the cities I’ve visited, Barcelona’s main though fare “Las Ramblas” has a lot in common with O’C St.
Las Ramblas is more like Henry Street (with seating). It is a place for strolling and lounging in the sun. O’Connell Street is a main vehicle traffic thoroughfare more like Avenue Diagonal. Las Ramblas has a single lane of traffic on each side. Also Barcelona doesn’t have doubledecker buses. It might have been an idea to make the street single lane in each direction with bays for buses to pull in at the sides.
-
November 17, 2006 at 3:59 pm #730305
urbanisto
ParticipantChirstmas lighting has been attached to all the lampposts along OConnell Street. Any idea when the lighting up ceremony is. Rumour has it that Newbridge Silver will be decorating the tree! You know your in the Land of the Celtic Tiger when you hear that!
-
November 17, 2006 at 4:04 pm #730306
Anonymous
Inactive26th of November it seems, but I could not find a time. There is more about it on the City Council webpage:
http://www.dublincity.ie/press_news/the_magic_of_christmas_in_dublin_unveiled_.asp
-
November 20, 2006 at 3:41 pm #730307
Punchbowl
ParticipantWell lets hope that they put a bit more effort in decorating these trees than the usual ‘Lets drape the lights diagonally, and let them all gather at the bottom on the tree’….
-
November 20, 2006 at 7:01 pm #730308
GrahamH
Participant😀
That drives me nuts! Though London also seems to have the same regimentalising problem in fairness – apparently only the Americans can light their trees properly!
An elegant tree has been sourced for this year for O’Connell Street anyway – nicer than last year and surely the tallest we’ve ever had, if not quite the largest. It shall be interesting to see what barriers are put in place to prevent these silver stars from being nicked and sold for €20 a pop round the corner on Henry Street.
Great idea to attach decorations to the lampposts the whole way down the thoroughfare. Just a pity something a bit more distinguished than blown up tacky Henry St versions weren’t selected for the city’s main street.
-
November 21, 2006 at 4:13 pm #730309
urbanisto
ParticipantThe plaza trees are being fitted with lights today. And they look to have been more thoughtfully added.
-
November 23, 2006 at 12:40 pm #730310
Fennetec
ParticipantJust to let you know, I have now removed the “prototype” pedestal from north of the Spire and replaced it with a newer type. I think SDCC are going to let me place two or three of these on the pavement between the colums directly outside the GPO on the footpath!
I am replacing the pedestals in Grafton Street and Henry Street with the same product but I still think that all companies should have a uniform design. Smart Telecom Payphone division is up for sale so maybe some of you should buy it.
Tom
-
November 23, 2006 at 2:52 pm #730311
Paul Clerkin
Keymaster@Fennetec wrote:
Just to let you know, I have now removed the “prototype” pedestal from north of the Spire and replaced it with a newer type. I think SDCC are going to let me place two or three of these on the pavement between the colums directly outside the GPO on the footpath!
I’m sorry but over my dead body should phone kiosks be placed between the columns on the GPO….
-
November 23, 2006 at 3:56 pm #730312
Anonymous
Inactive@Fennetec wrote:
I think SDCC are going to let me place two or three of these on the pavement between the colums directly outside the GPO on the footpath!
@Paul Clerkin wrote:
I’m sorry but over my dead body should phone kiosks be placed between the columns on the GPO….
I assumed that was meant to be a joke of some form… Just an attempt to wind us up. However, it is a worrying reflection on this city that part of me takes it seriously.
-
November 23, 2006 at 5:17 pm #730313
Anonymous
InactiveI think SDCC are going to let me
Most definitely although I doubt South Dub would have any objection to an issue of this scale notwithstanding the ludicrous nature of the idea outside their patch. 😮
-
November 24, 2006 at 10:42 am #730314
GregF
ParticipantGoing home last night and the Xmas lights on O’Connell street did’nt seem to be lighting. I thought the Minister for ‘An Gaelige agus An Daingean aka Dingle’ Eamonn O’ Cuiv switched them on earlier this week.
-
November 24, 2006 at 5:43 pm #730315
Anonymous
Inactivemaybe Greg, but the official turning on is this sunday afaik …
-
December 13, 2006 at 4:13 am #730316
Paul Clerkin
Keymasterlooks like the Royal Dublin may be history soon…
O’Reilly’s experience in leading the Castlethorn team that developed the successful Dundrum Town Centre has come in handy at the Ilac Centre where a redeveloped frontage on to Mary Street has the high profile fashion retailer H & M as one of the new anchor tenants.
Only last week O’Reilly acquired the Royal Hotel on O’Connell Street to open the way for a larger development on the Carlton site. Dublin City Council has strongly supported the plan to link up O’Connell Street with Moore Street and the Ilac Centre.
The scheme is expected to greatly enhance the top end of O’Connell Street which has been in decline for a long number of years. The council has indicated that O’Reilly is the preferred developer for the Carlton site if its efforts to compulsorily acquire the property from its owners are successful. The purchase is being contested through the courts.
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/commercialproperty/2006/1213/1165221949851.html
-
December 13, 2006 at 10:31 am #730317
Anonymous
InactiveFew will mourn its passing I’m sure
The two obstacles to completion of the Street are the Fingal Office block the ownership of which I am not sure and the early Georgian town house which cannot be lost given its quality and importance given that it is the last house of a logical high quality terrace that was once one of the City’s finest terraces.
My fear on this scheme is that with such a large frontage to O’Connell Street and the problems created by Dick Roche on Moore Street that two seperate and not properly linked schemes may emerge; thus reinforcing the poor permeability between Upper O’Connell Street and the Ilac Centre / Moore Street.
16 Moore Street must be revisited
-
December 13, 2006 at 1:15 pm #730318
jdivision
Participant@PVC King wrote:
The two obstacles to completion of the Street are the Fingal Office block
It’s owned by Joe O’Reilly and has been boarded up. I expect the Royal Dublin will also be boarded up leading to a scene of dereliction along O’Connell Street.
-
December 13, 2006 at 1:52 pm #730319
Anonymous
InactiveWe have heard that the Courts have never operated more efficiently; this will be the test of that claim.
I hope that this case is settled and does not leave the main thoroughfare in the City a throw back to the Destruction of Dublin days.
-
December 16, 2006 at 3:21 am #730320
GrahamH
ParticipantEven as things stand The Royal Dublin’s closed Aer Lingus premises, shuttered Carlton cinema, dead frontage of derelict site, and the substantial boarded up Fingal offices present a bleak vista on the upper street, and that’s not even counting the derelict Findlater House across the road (though work here is hopefully to start shortly).
Half of Upper west has essentially become a well-paved wasteland of bus stops and yet more bus stops with their enormous crowds of patrons standing aminlessly about at peak times filling the entire pavement from front to back.Nobody’s fault in particular just at the mnute, but swift movement must be made to resolve these properties’ issues.
The new Chrismas lights erected on every lamppost on the street are pictured here – they alternate from white to blue frames between the posts, the blue ones featuring the odd flashing light.
A clever concept, if the units hardly elegant. More classical, vertical strips in line with the architecture of the posts would surely have been more appropriate. A relative rather aptly described them to me as whimsical ice cream cones – more suited to a summer festival than Christmas.
-
December 21, 2006 at 8:12 pm #730321
GrahamH
ParticipantHere they are illuminated.
Watching over O’Connell Street’s resident public transport fleet:
A few months ago, probably following on from the GPO installation, new exceptionally powerful LED strips were installed on many, if not all, of the city’s bridges in place of the older ones. Because they are so intense, there’s thankfully no need for an ugly strip to be placed at the top of the balustrade too – now it’s just at the bottom. The shiny casings still need to be toned down though – why can’t they have a matt stone finish?
The orange on O’Connell Bridge contrasts very well with the white halogen bulbs of the lanterns above. The light also makes quite a statement on the inside of the bridge as viewed from the pavement.
The punters are impressed 🙂
-
December 25, 2006 at 1:11 am #730322
Alek Smart
ParticipantGraham H,Shame on you Sir….
How could you remain unaware that the allocation and design of the O Connell St Bus Stops is the result of a process known as the Bus Stop Action Plan.
This BSAP was apparently devised jointly by BAC and DCC and involved a full architectural survey of the opportunities offered by the standard Bus Stop Pole.An Integral part of the O Connell St Bus Stop Action Plan is the inventive use of the spatial integrity of the Bus Stop Pole.
This allows the full 360 degree spectrum of the pole to be utilized by both pedestrians and motorists alike,and when each pole is topped by an imaginitevely crafted headplate carrying inscribed upon it the ancient Celtic term for Bus…..Bùs. the resultant icon serves to attract both casual pedestrian and potential Bus Passenger alike.There were some Phillistinic populist murmurings alledging that there was a popular demand amongst the lower-orders for some form of Bus Shelter structures in which the poor could take shelter whilst awaiting their omnibus.
Thankfully this proposal was resisted even though its proponents were to be found claiming the working classes would be in danger of catching Scurvy or Consumption due to the extended nature of their wait for the said contrivance.
I feel sure Graham that you will be supportive of the Gentry`s efforts to ensure our lower classes maintain a robust good health which the free unimpeded flow of fresh air along the street will do much to propogate.
The new Taxi Rank is a classic example of this,with no reports as yet of any fatalities amongst the Cabmens clients unlike the old Rank which had such fripperies as a shelter complete with seating,which only served to encourage laziness and slothfullness amongst the citizenry….
Your photographic records are very much appreciated by myself and other regular users of Gardiners Mall and I trust you will be well rewarded !
PS I saw the good Senator Norris out for his constitutional yesterday and well he looked too….Bring back the Boulavardiers I say…Hip Hip..!! 😮
-
February 7, 2007 at 6:05 am #730323
Paul Clerkin
KeymasterRoyal Dublin Hotel to remain open for at least two years
The Royal Dublin Hotel, which has been sold to property developer Joe O’Reilly, will continue trading as a hotel for at least a further two years.
At the time of the sale in December 2006, it was announced that the hotel would close in early January 2007. Following discussions between O’Reilly and Hotel Partners, which manages the hotel, it was agreed that the hotel would continue to trade as normal while O’Reilly finalises his plans for the site.
O’Reilly bought the hotel from businessman Michael Holland. Opened in 1971, the Royal Dublin is a three-star hotel with 117 bedrooms. Located on O’Connell Street in Dublin, the Royal Dublin Hotel employs 45 full-time staff and a further 17 people on a part-time basis.
-
February 7, 2007 at 12:00 pm #730324
fergalr
ParticipantIs there a curse on the upper west side of O’Connell St? At the moment, it’s anchors are a McDonalds, Dublin Bus HQ and AIB..
-
February 7, 2007 at 2:40 pm #730325
urbanisto
ParticipantYes, I’d say the proposed revamp has definately been shelved (won’t this 2 years take it past the 5 years since planning was granted?). The area is falling victim to landbanking.
-
February 7, 2007 at 4:25 pm #730326
Morlan
ParticipantHow’s the Eircom monstrosity doing across the way? It was still empty last I checked.. what a site though. Findlater Place would be a fantastic area for a restaurant with outdoor seating. I don’t have a pic at hand, but you know the spot I’m talking about, it has a couple of mature trees growing over a wide pedestrian area.. or did I dream that?
-
February 7, 2007 at 4:54 pm #730327
Anonymous
InactiveI would prefer to see a comprehensive redevelopment of this area than a replication of the piecemeal development of the sites surrounding Findlater House most of which will probably come down again over the next few years having gone up late 1990’s.
-
February 8, 2007 at 5:13 am #730328
GrahamH
ParticipantHmmm – sounds like the proposed Royal Dublin Hotel revamp is in the bin so.
-
February 8, 2007 at 3:16 pm #730329
Anonymous
InactiveGood to see the INBS building getting a revamp it has grown tired in recent years; would love to see something like the NIB signage on Upper O’Connell put on and hope that the update does not involve a like for like replacement of the existing signage.
The Royal Dublin design has dated very quickly it is good in my opinion that it looks like it will be shelved. I wouldn’t think that offices would feature as a runner at this location as passing rents would never acheive higher than 50% of prime rents for places such as IFSC or modern offices in Georgian Dublin 2. This area has always attracted a disproportionate number of government department offices and independent governmental agencies on large floor plates historically and in the context of decentralisation offices are an unlikely choice as the demand from professional service companies would most likely be light on viable rental levels.
My guess is that this site will form part of the wider Carlton scheme and the real value of the site is certainly the ability to create large retail floor plates with the level of profit determined by the number of apartments on top; the quantity and overall height of these will probably be decided by ABP.
Some won’t like this but a continuation of a Carlton Style facade for the entire holding would be my preference for this location and further hope that the apartments are set well back.
-
February 8, 2007 at 5:31 pm #730330
urbanisto
Participant@PVC King wrote:
I would prefer to see a comprehensive redevelopment of this area than a replication of the piecemeal development of the sites surrounding Findlater House most of which will probably come down again over the next few years having gone up late 1990’s.
Im not sure you can compare like with like. The section of the street with Findlaters House has only three other properties fronting OC Street and they are all historically smaller plots. ‘Frazers’ the largest looks likes a bad pastiche job alright and perhaps a more suitable replacement can be considered.
Quote:My guess is that this site will form part of the wider Carlton scheme and the real value of the site is certainly the ability to create large retail floor plates with the level of profit determined by the number of apartments on top]I agree about forming part of the Carlton site…I would imagine that the developer is loking for a Parnell Street facade as well. It would be worth keeping a eye on the site beside Jurys Inn as well as the two pubs here. The last proposal for the site adjoining Jurys was shot down last year. Among the problems was it fell victim to proposed road widening of the rear landway here (is it call Moore Lane).
I disagree with your call for a continaution of the Carlton facade. I think the fact that somany monolithic looking facades were put up here since the 1960s was one of the problems. A smaller more human scale is required, even if what is behind the facade is uniform floorplates. I think a break in the streetscape here and the creation of a new street are called for.
-
February 9, 2007 at 3:33 am #730331
Devin
ParticipantPVC King wrote:Good to see the INBS building getting a revamp it has grown tired in recent years]Yeah, it is designated for removal here in the O’Connell Street Special Planning Control Scheme (scroll about halfway down):http://www.dublincity.ie/Images/ASPC%20Text%20-%20final%20version_tcm35-17124.doc
Advertisement Signs Designated for Removal
Irish Nationwide – between 1st and 2nd floors and 4th and 5th floors – 1 Lower O’Connell Street – internally illuminated and individually mounted lettering. Although the structure has a clear relationship with the use of the building, the size, position and materials and use of internally illuminated lettering detract from this protected structure including the fenestration and stone finishes. Its prominent location at the main entrance to O’Connell Street from the south city seriously detracts from the visual character of the area.Also agree about about the colour of the windows. I hope they will have the good taste to repaint them dark as they were in the early & mid 20th cen. It looked much better.
-
February 10, 2007 at 4:55 am #730332
GrahamH
ParticipantYes – and even as late as 1978 they were still stained dark, dressed with classy 70s smoked nets 🙂
I think this property definitely looks better with dark frames. Also, I can’t find the appropriate picture, but even as recent as the late 1980s it’s very notable just how sparklingly bright and clean this corner building was. Either it was cleaned at the time, or the enormous increase in passing heavy goods vehicles in the intervening 20 years has sullied the facade substantially. Either way we can look forward to a bright new pin on the corner of the bridge by the end of February :). Here’s hoping the signage designation in the IAP will have the desired impact too.
A probably little-noted building on Lower O’Connell Street that is sorely in need of urgent works is No 8, next to the Bank of Ireland premises. It has a delightful facade with a sunken upper floor treatment unusual for this street.
The resulting void, albeit oddly proportioned, is filled with a lovely two-tier bow window with original stained glass intact, so typical of the early 20th century: this building completed around 1918.
As can be seen however, the bow is in an appalling condition, with most of the upper casements replaced with horrible white aluminium or early PVC, and the frames unpainted for so long they’re in danger of decay. Also as can be seen, the orginal stucco or timber swags have long-disappeared, their shadows left to tell the tale. What an ugly setting for the mellow granite framing it all.
The state of this property creates an appalling impression at the entrance to the street, and yet no enforcement proceedings have been initiated in spite of it being both a protected structure and sited in an ACA. No amount of public domain improvements are going to have the oft-touted ‘knock-on effect’ with a small property like this. Meanwhile, the original timber fabric is slowly rotting away up there, even though a local authority can step in at any point to protect the integrity of a PS.
Hee’s a (poor) wider view from a while ago.
And enough said about the ground floor…
The neighbouring property is interesting in having two-over-two sashes – almost an historicist approach taken by the architect, something that usually resulted in Georgian sashes rather than this type.
The building on this site prior to 1916 was the founding place of Conradh na Gaeilge in 1893 – they moved up to near the Savoy in the late 1890s. -
February 10, 2007 at 5:17 am #730333
hutton
Participant@GrahamH wrote:
The building on this site prior to 1916 was the founding place of Conradh na Gaeilge in 1893 – they moved up to near the Savoy in the late 1890s.
Thats right – I was just examining the plaque yesterday! 🙂 First time Id noticed it tbh – it doesnt appear as if its polished much.
I notice that the signage at ground level is for an internet cafe; surely DCC would not have given pp to such signage since the arrival of the internet?
Graham youre quite right about the ACA and yet wheres the enforcement? Remind me again as to what the meaning is of the phrase “Protected Structure” :rolleyes:
Nice shots.
-
February 20, 2007 at 4:03 pm #730334
urbanisto
ParticipantThe wrapping came off Irish Permanent yesterday. All clean again. White windows as predicted. New floodlighting that is far too bright…it looks so out of place along side more subtle lighting such as GPO and Central Bar. And of course they hung on to their signage. What a shame. Here was the perfect chance for DCC to get to grips with the big illuminated signage along the street. Im disappointed.
Also…even though it planting season there is no sign of those 10 missing trees from OConnell Street. Or the kiosks.
-
February 20, 2007 at 7:46 pm #730335
lostexpectation
Participant@StephenC wrote:
The wrapping came off Irish Permanent yesterday. All clean again. White windows as predicted. New floodlighting that is far too bright…it looks so out of place along side more subtle lighting such as GPO and Central Bar. And of course they hung on to their signage. What a shame. Here was the perfect chance for DCC to get to grips with the big illuminated signage along the street. Im disappointed.
Also…even though it planting season there is no sign of those 10 missing trees from OConnell Street. Or the kiosks.
what ya reckon of the huge signing placed inside the building like on the bank next door?
seems very cool, what use to be in that large arch?
-
February 20, 2007 at 10:03 pm #730336
GrahamH
ParticipantAs with all of O’Connell Street’s arches, the entrance to a cinema, lostexpectation.
Hope to have more on this building shortly – it’s had a chequered history.Disappointing news about Irish Nationwide, Stephen. It was a prime opportunity…
-
February 23, 2007 at 3:21 pm #730337
markpb
Participant@StephenC wrote:
Also…even though it planting season there is no sign of those 10 missing trees from OConnell Street. Or the kiosks.
They were planting trees at the southern end of O’Connell St when I passed there yesterday afternoon. Not sure how many though, I only saw one poor tree sitting in the claws of a JCB.
-
February 26, 2007 at 6:00 pm #730338
urbanisto
ParticipantIt seems the cast iron vents that were located at the Parnell Monument prior to the revamp have returned. They were being reinstated today in the same spot.
-
February 28, 2007 at 3:41 am #730339
GrahamH
ParticipantIndeed they have returned, though not in the same position, on account of the sprawling new pedestrian crossing created at this northernmost tip of the median. They’ve been shifted southwards.
2003
2007
It was a concern that they hadn’t returned so long after the completion of works; it looked as though they were going to be quietly removed, hoping nobody would notice. Though they are protected structures, however this raises the question as to the correctness of their removal from site, and also their reinstatement in an alternative location. Surely their ‘merit’ is derived not only from their aesthetic, but also their positioning untouched on the original site for the past 140 odd years? What’s the point in roughly throwing them down again ’round about here’, if the connection with their historical purpose is lost? Sure why not shift O’Connell Monument to the centre of College Green while we’re at it?
I appreciate there can be practical concerns regarding pedestrian movement, and one must be pragmatic, but in this case they simply did not need to be moved given the skewed angle of the crossing. As seen below, the right-hand median crossing need only have been moved a couple of feet southwards (if even), while the Parnell crossing left as it was (it was orginally straighter and the bollards closer together).
Indeed this whole crossing has been treated with the finesse of a sledgehammer. Just relish the City Council’s appreciation of the urban vista and sense of aesthetic.
I mean you really would wonder. That pole is entirely unnecessary, the signals being easily hosted on other existing poles to either side. And especially if the Parnell crossing was straighter on account of correctly positioned bollards, which would line it head-on with the left-hand poles. You see this all over O’Connell Street: seperate poles being used for single signal units, and multiple hosting almost non-existant.
Anyway, the bollards themselves have been beautifully restored, with layers of thick black gloss paint chipped off to reveal crisp relief.
They’ve also been painted matt grey which generates a higher contrast, better showcasing the decorative detail. The black originally concealed much of this.
They all still need to be wiped down!
-
February 28, 2007 at 3:46 am #730340
GrahamH
ParticipantThey’ve also been positioned further apart than they used to be.
Of course the central question remains: what they heck are they?! Well as far as can be made out, they were simply part of a ‘suite’ of furniture introduced to the street roughly around the 1870s. Not only was this design used in protecting William Smith O’Brien at the entrance to D’Olier Street…
…but also used in the base of certain lamp standards in the centre of Sackville Street.
(image a bit squashed at the bottom above)
Our friends at the northern end appear to have been used simply as a protective feature around a three-arm lamp standard (as featured here before), long since disappeared, located in the vast untamed environment of Upper Sackville/Great Britain streets.
From what can be made out, this part of O’Connell Street has been used for generations as a taxi point, reaching back to the mid-19th century. The bollards and lamp would have been a safe point for patrons to wait after dark.
Perhaps the holes in two of the bollards were used as a convenient venting point of a gas/sewer main? Not that that quite explains the mysterious later trapdoor…
And for what it’s worth, once again those fantastic National Library photographs from 1969 🙂
-
February 28, 2007 at 3:51 am #730341
GrahamH
ParticipantAlso, clearly it was decided to leave damaged parts as they were. This model for example has many decorative features missing entirely, and other parts cracked off. The studs around the base also indicate what once was.
Interesting to note some parts have been missing since at least the 1960s if you compare with the above pictures.
-
February 28, 2007 at 5:32 am #730342
Morlan
ParticipantAnother fine chapter Graham, another fine chapter.
They are curious little things. Do you think these particular ones were moved here when Willy O’Brien’s nest was uprooted?
-
February 28, 2007 at 12:38 pm #730343
urbanisto
ParticipantGood to see them back isnt it. And new trees have been planted in most of the missing sections. I garee with your comments about the traffic signals Graham. It follows on with earlier comments about clutter on the street, regasrding the bike stands, telephone kiosks (all Smart’s are now out of use and derelict looking) and other bits and bobs that DCC seem to be happy to put in.
-
February 28, 2007 at 9:16 pm #730344
GrahamH
ParticipantIndeed you’d really have to question the proliferation of telephone facilites here, given the largest telephone room in the state is located on the same street! Surely a double provision at either end is more than enough. Yes it’s good to see the tress going back in
As for the bollards Morlan, no they weren’t moved with Smith O’Brien was because: 1) they’re not the same ones 🙂 (his ones were narrower), 2) they appear in 1870s photographs at the top end of the street which are contemporaneous to the erection of WSO’B, and 3) WSO’B was only moved to O’Connell Street in 1929, so quite late.
Just on the monuments of the street, there’s a new publication out hot off the presses from DCC’s Heritage Office all about the enormous conservation project conducted over the summer of 2005. The foresight for such a publication is most impressive, with many beautiful before and after photographs by Donnacha O’Dulaing and Jason Ellis. The text is highly detailed, focusing on the proceedures adopted for each monument, and really brings home how shockingly badly they were treated in the past. In one instance a stone conservator remembers working on O’Connell in the 1980s (presumably when the railings were also removed), where silica sand was blasted at the stonework of the monument at a pressure of 100 pounds per sq inch! Today glass powder is used at 20psi! It had also been coated in a layer of coppery-orange paint, followed by a layer of black paint!
But the real heros without question are the bronze conservators of Conserve Europe. Here’s some information about the project as seen from their perspective:
http://www.conserve-europe.org/exam_mon.html
‘From O’Connell to Parnell’ is in pamphlet-like format, and only costs a fiver in most bookshops. I suspect they’ll be snapped up fast.
-
March 1, 2007 at 6:52 pm #730345
manifesta
ParticipantThe Stonehenge of O’Connell St? Look at the way they’re huddling round the trap door in that first photo. I’m surprised this hasn’t led to a new thread of speculations on ‘Underneath Dublin’ (and the ice cream factory under the Liffey!).
GrahamH wrote:20032007
It was a concern that they hadn’t returned so long after the completion of works]
Because why do something right when you can do it wrong just as easily? Inscribe that in Latin and you’ve g
-