O’ Connell Street, Dublin

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’ 😀

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.

The 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…”

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.

It’s always reminded me of a Lego brick that came with a train station set – had that exact symbol on it 🙂 😮

Yes, 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?

Paul – 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.