O’ Connell Street, Dublin
- This topic has 3,789 replies, 212 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
It must be in a private collection
Definitely 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.Looking 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
Talking about quality has there been any announcement of a timescale for the Gresham renovations ?
DonΓ’β¬β’t know, though it would make sense for work to get underway while the rest of the street is in chaos Γ’β¬β get it over and done with.
IΓ’β¬β’m sure theyΓ’β¬β’re delighted with the digger thatΓ’β¬β’s been ripping up the pavement outside the front door for the past week πSome 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 Γ’β¬β 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 Γ’β¬β 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 couldnΓ’β¬β’t give a damn as to their condition, their only outlook being Γ’β¬ΛgroundfloorismΓ’β¬β’, concerning themselves with counting the cash from the cheap shops that occupy their pavement frontages.
McDowellΓ’β¬β’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 havenΓ’β¬β’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 Γ’β¬Λpersonal rightsΓ’β¬β’ 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 Γ’β¬β 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?Many 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.
Well there’s a couple of bikes that have to be cleared away first π
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.It 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.
@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.
P & 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.
@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
P & 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.
Cheers TP. Couldn’t have put it better myself. π
Graham- does this answer your question (provide necessary ammunition? π ) re duty of care on O’Connell St.?
π
Well let’s start at the beginning then – part (a) of subsection 3 of Section 58 sates that… π
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.
Had you never read those regulations before?
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.
The 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.
@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!!!!!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
