O’ Connell Street, Dublin
- This topic has 3,789 replies, 212 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
I think you are right. There is definitely some meaning behind the over-sized hands.
Or 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 🙂
@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
@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
A 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?
“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.
Certainly 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.
@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?
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.
@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?
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; 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.
@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.
@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?
Is 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…
@Graham Hickey wrote:
Is there any space left on George’s Quay?
Where on Georges Quay were you thinking?
@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.
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.
@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.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
