The Greens and O Connell Street

Have to say I’ve always liked the Deloitte & Touche building – not the windows, but the brickwork is interesting and the brown I think is not only a welcome departure from red (Conrad & Co) but looks good in its own right. One of the better buildings that went up around that time, not least in the Earlsfort area I think. Just unfashionable now though.

The Guardian report was inaccurate in a few places, including saying that 50 historic trees have already been chopped.
Right up to the GPO from the river there were around 6 trees that dated from approx the 50s, the rest were later still.

Saying all that has been said, I think the case for the retention of the trees has grown substantially considering what has since replaced their Lower O’ Cll St counterparts.
Whereas it is difficult to argue from the concealment of buildings point of view, and I still agree on that front, the tree planting thus far has been very disappointing. This creation of ‘rooms’ concept should not be applied to the median. There should be regular tree planting here, whether it be limes, native species or even those varieties that have been planted – anything that reflects the grand sweep of the street, and that of the trees that are being chopped.
I cannot think of anything more horrendous than for the magnificent row of planes at the top end being replaced with feckity clusters of trees. What a wasted opportunity that would be. Fair enough, those that have been planted are hardly mature or established, but that’s not the issue, I think the concept chosen is completely wrong.

I agree on the latter point, if it is possible for them to be replanted than this should be done – the Croppy’s Acre is a good idea.

I do still agree the trees should go, the continuity of the street must be maintained. However I think one of the primary arguements that has been made for removing them – that many more trees will be planted and in a fashion that will improve the street – is now redundant.
The spokesperson for the CC said of the older trees, “From an architectural point of view, it was felt their height didn’t lend itself to the design of the street in terms of symmetry.”
Well the newly planted median trees don’t either (I don’t refer to the plaza limes) – yes they are symmetrical when viewed north-south, but from the much more important aspect of the side view facing into the street, they are nothing short of incoherent compared with what used to be there.

O’Connell Street’s very identity was defined by a linear planting of trees; the primary feature that made it unique in the city is now gone. It was a boulevard, cloaked under a canopy of trees – now that it has at last been exposed, there is nothing there to highlight and reinforce this urban layout.
It has been stripped of its identity, now a series of ‘plazafied’ spaces rather than the avenue it once was.
I am surprised no comment has been made about this, perhaps cause I’ve flogged it to death here, but I really think it is a major blot on the whole O’ Cll St scheme.

The plaza works, the paving is beautiful – the limes equally so, the attention to detail refreshing, but the absence of the avenue effect a great loss.

I’m always caught between head & heart on the trees issue. There’s the emotional attachment – not related to 1916 but to first experiences of town – those trees were always there & looked good – while being dragged across from Henry St to Talbot St as a 5 yr old on the heel of a Saturday afternoon before the shops closed……the first cut is the deepest – then there’s the recognition that the new planting arrangements take better advantage of the width & spatials of the street.

Originally posted by Graham Hickey
O’Connell Street’s very identity was defined by a linear planting of trees; the primary feature that made it unique in the city is now gone. It was a boulevard, cloaked under a canopy of trees – now that it has at last been exposed, there is nothing there to highlight and reinforce this urban layout.
It has been stripped of its identity, now a series of ‘plazafied’ spaces rather than the avenue it once was.

(raised eyebrow smilie) Graham, do I not recall, in the early pages of the O’Connell Street thread, you lauding the arrival of the first of the great new “architectural” limes for lower end plaza, and egging the council on to finally take a chainsaw to “those old ladies” at the top end?

Arrrgh – it can be so difficult at times to get a clear arguement across.
I mentioned the case for retention of the older trees simply to register my dissatisfaction with what has gone in to date on the median – the fact that the CC were saying what was proposed would be superior to to the existing trees.
I still genuinely think the trees should be chopped – as exactly as I said before, and as you say Devin, to axe them is difficult but necessary.
I did indeed laud the arrival of the limes (as I recall it was the upper plaza trees) and still think they look great. That is the plaza trees, not the median ones.

I also agree with every word Paul says about the lower trees, they were ridculously large, and not only were they planted in parallel rows, they were actually tripled over, with the 40/50s trees in the middle, and a row of spindlies from the 80s job either side! And their size not only blocked nearly all views of the other half of the street, they also began to loom over the street like a dark cloud.

However, what they did contribute was an identity for O’ Cll St. From a distance, and on the street itself, you could see them stretching into the distance, you could appreciate the grand length of the thoroughfare. And developing your point Devin, every child in the city knew these trees from the effect generated and the ‘importance’ of the median, with facinating glances of stone statues hidden amongst the foliage.

I viewed the plans for the street as an opportunity to remove the existing mess, and start from scratch, reinserting the boulevard effect on a managable scale and in a more effective way, not to mention in a contemporary fashion – involving replanting trees in line of what was once there, ie along the median.
We do not have this now by any means, and the idea of the grand effect of the upper trees being replaced with a couple of clusters of 6 trees and bike parks I think is terrible.

One need only look at the area outside Easons, where the plaza simply runs into the rest of the median, save two limes. There are no new trees here, it is just a bland plazafied area now, similar to other areas.
Either way the upper trees have to go, they can’t be left stranded, further contributing to the lack of the ‘boulevard effect’.

I just think what is going to replace these 101 year old trees is a slap in the face to their age and history.

I’m glad you noticed this Devin – thought it was just me!

What doesn’t help at all are the acres of granite cobbles on the roadway here at the Princes St junction, and on the other side, at Clery’s.
Exactly what purpose do these serve? All they do is blur the lines with the plaza.
I originally objected to the idea of a plaza, concerned at the impact on the nature of the street – but conceded upon considering the benefits for the GPO, and the creation of a focal point for the city.
But it has not been executed properly.
The undefined paving, coupled with the lack of tree regularity has led to a bland space here.
I note the silver birches on the median stretch outside Easons have been omitted on the O’Cll Monument stretch. Surely the CC can’t think up any more inconsistencies for this street?

I really think the linear nature of the street has been destroyed, which is a great shame considering the quality of upgrade. I wait in hope for the execution of the Upper Phase.

Here’s a great pic from FJP’s ever-fantastic site of O’C’ll St from the air. I don’t know how anyone can say that this magnificent boulevard has been justly treated in the current upgrade in terms of tree planting:

http://www.fantasyjackpalance.com/fjp/photos/kf/aerial/002/north-lotts-1-aerial.jpg