O’ Connell Street, Dublin
- This topic has 3,789 replies, 212 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
The 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.
Brilliant 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…Well you know what they say; purple is the new black
Nahhh good photoshop is always welcome
Sw101
Did you get that image from http://www.p45.net or did you have to do it up yourself?
Just 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…..
You 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:Interesting 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.
Why 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!
I 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
The 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.
I 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.
Agreed 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….There 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.
I 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.
@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
I 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.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
