O’ Connell Street, Dublin

Only 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.

The 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.

heh 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!