Thomas Street & James Street, Dublin!

All comes back to a comment made by Tom Phillips at the Smithfield enquiry in 2000.

“developers have no problem making development contributions once the sums are spent for the improvement of the immediate area or specific purpose the contribution is levied under”

Given the amount of development contributions paid out in this area over the past decade it should not look the way it does.

As for the retailers I am sorry to see Gilna’s go they were very good on the one occaision I used them but Frawley’s really isn’t any loss. This area needs to go the way of Camden Street as it will never be a Capel or George’s Street again.

What I have really noticed over the last few years is the neglect of Guinness´s / Diagio of their own buildings along both side of James´s St. The windows use to sprakle and the brass would dazzle. Its obvious they were planning to move camp and sell up for some time now. Its hard to imagine drinking Guinness from some new brewery say up in Sandyford Indusrtrial estate or some other God / Guinness forsaken place. And also so much for Ahern´s Digital Hub that was going to be the greatest thing since Guinness to come to Dublin 8. Best get use to James´s Gate Dublin 18 or where-ever !!!:mad:

It (the brewery) going to Balbriggan they’d never afford Sandyfor prices

Even though Frawley’s was tack town, I was sad to see it go – very much part of the area, a local institution you might even say 😉

My mother (age 80) loved Frawley’s! It was very popular with her age group. Also Guiney’s (Talbot St). Not everything has to be aimed at the young and trendy……….

I’m sorry but all this nostalgia for a retail model based on selling terralean school apparell and bingo gear is turning my stomach.

George at ASDA sell school gear from £4.50 €6.50 a piece no stand alone retailer can survive selling Shanghai standard apparell.

I view the unit as a great opportunity for the street to put in a more viable anchor unit to draw the hoardes using the bus routes heading west.

This area needs a BID programme now.

@GregF wrote:

Anyone see the ever derepit run down state of Thomas Street and James Street, Dublin. I’ve mentioned this here time and time again over the years and there is still no improvement with these potentially fine streets.. What a great historical area, with such fine landmarks as St Augustine and St John’s Church, St Catherine’s Church (where they hung Robert Emmet), the great Guinness brewery, the NCAD, St James Hospital etc….This vein also attarcts thousands of visiters each year as the tourists make their trek to Guinness’s.
Over the years shops that were icons to the area have closed, ie Fitzgeralds jeans shop (where Christy Moore bought an odd pair of dungarees ) and the latest victim to suffer Frawleys. Gilnas, the opticians, are the only shop on this block now. What is going on here? There is nothing but closed shops. Is there a protection racket in the area, I wonder? The shops that remain are kinda huckstery and tawdry. Come on Dublin City Council, make an effort and give this area of the city the attention it deserves. There have been great improvements with North King Street with the HARP project over the years, why not do the same here. It is disgracful really to see the condition of this prime inner capital city area in such a run down state especially in Celtic Tiger Ireland. You can se the look of bewilderment too on the tourist faces.

this area has such huge potential. I was driving there last night and there are so may jems like St Catherines etc. The area has a pre celtic tiger feel and thankfully there is a lot of the orginal stock down there.
However the the greatest hinderence is the complete lack of resolve to deal with the unsocialable elements in this area. While sitting at traffic lights I watched one junkie urinate throught the door of an undertakers of all places. Two other junkies kicking forty colours of shite out of each other on the other side of the street.

😡 Diagio´s motto ´ Enjoy the sell off – of James´s Gate sensibly´

Had a look up this way today; some of the best sites in the city combined with some of the worst run – and what would seem to be deliberate derelicting – period buildings and older stock. In particular, old fire station beside NCAD is disgraceful; it’s now a real contender for a boo-boo award of having “the longest left scaffolding in place while the building rots”. (It would seem to have replaced St Georges Church in that regard, as Eugene O’ Connor is pressing ahead there with restoration of that buildings envelope).

However the real Shock! Horror! story must be no. 85 James’s St/ Thomas St – it’s the building on the corner with Watling St, a stand alone Georgian-style with a black frontdoor. Out of historical significance in terms of connections with the brewery, there is a brown plaque, and for many years this house was well-maintained…but not anymore; broken windows, dirt, etc all combine to form a completely derelicted look.
Presumably this belongs to Guinness/ Diageo, as it has one of their billboards on the side – and if so it is more the shame. It is intolerable that such a building should be let rot, and IMO DCC must look at either CPOing or using the powers under the derelict sites act. Either way something must be done – it is a real disgrace 😡

Maybe Diageo should twin the new Guinness´s with the San Migual brewery outside Malaga airport as in the future the first thing one will see leaving Dublin airport will the new Guinness´s in its airport setting. Also the youth of the country regard Guinness as not such a cool drink to seen drinking yet on their holidays its a must be seen with fashion icon.

This area has some of the most interesting architecture in town, of which the Guinness hop-store and surrounding buildings are worthy of preserved monument staus in any city.

There are some excellent flats complexes showing Amsterdam school influences, take a look at Oliver Bond flats since they’ve been renovated.

I agree with the Guinness thinking here , the whole complex is looking like shite and it’s a great pity, Thomas street is lifeless except for wandering tourists.

So take a walk up Meath street, down Thomas street and sample the atmosphere because globalisation or total decay or something is going to change it all soon.

I wouldn’t say the Christchurch end of Thomas Street is a complete lost cause. There’s a few nice furniture/interiors shops have opened up along a stretch on the northern side of the street and that usually means more will come. As we know from Capel Street, this is no bad thing and could give the street a nice feel if it became associated with that instead of tatty old shops like Frawleys.
One point that should be made is that on-street parking/loading bays is critically important for certain types of shops. I can see Capel Street beginning to suffer since the “traffic-calming” project, which removed about half of the available space for cars. Though then again with house deliveries, maybe it’s a bit of a moot point.

Thought I’d add a few shots to illustrate the points so far made. First off No 84, the house near the corner of Watling St, opposite the main entrance of Guinness’s.

and a side view with the Guinness billboard stating “a surge of inspiration”…(Is it possible to confirm Guiness’s as the owner of the house, as they also have a plaque on the front?)

Meanwhile a close up of the plaque on the front, followed by 3 other plaques that were also erected by Guinness’s on other buildings along James’s/ Thomas Streets. One wonder whether Diageo would be so civic-minded these days …

Also adjacent to the hopstore on the corner of Thomas St and Crane Lane are these 18th C buildings, simply being left to rot –

while here is the Crane Lane elevation of the same corner; a good example of a now rare traditional-style shopfront. Thousands of tourists pass this way everyday; ah well at least they can admire the authentic Irish approach to heritage protection. Well done to both the authorities and the owners.

Across the road on the south side of Thoomas St, is a substantial site adjacent to IAWs sitting idle. Gets my prize for the most inappropriate billboard ever, courtesy of Guinness – “Heart of the city…It’s alive inside” 😮

Heading east, going back towards the city-centre, tourists and other visitors can continue to soak up the athmosphere. These well-maintained gems are all on the south side of Thomas St. Who owns them?

It would appear that the only properties along this stretch that are maintained to any kind of standard are a bar and a hostel, the bar in pink can be seen in the first photo, while the yellow hostel stands between the buildings shown in the last two snaps.

These are also on the south side of Thomas St, east of St Catherines. Again either poorly maintained/ being let go –

Continuing east, beside NCAD, on the north side of Thomas St are these properties:

While almost adjacent, at the junction with Meath St is this building – now in scaffolding for by my estimate for almost 10 years (I am open to correction if wrong):

A closer view of the side of the scaffolding shows this; maybe the real intention is revealed?

Finally – and again continuing east – are these at the corner with Vicar St. Again who is the owner – might it be Harry Crosbie given his Vicar St venue interests? Any info would be appreciated. In any case I note yet another inappropriate billboard adverising Guinness; knowingly or not they thru their images are really running the risk of becoming synonymous with dereliction in this area. A real pity given that in the recent past (as already noted by other posters) they were once notable for maintaining their holdings to a template standard 🙁

are the latter ones not simply awaiting redevelopment? One of the digital hub planning applications is for a site adjacent IAWS. Is this the same site? And the Manor Park one was for across the road, remember 51 storeys and all that. Obviously they’ll be back in again. Now I’m not sure if they’re related to your pics in any way. Perhaps someone could confirm?

edit: I was referring to hutton’s first post

@alonso wrote:

are the latter ones not simply awaiting redevelopment? One of the digital hub planning applications is for a site adjacent IAWS. Is this the same site? And the Manor Park one was for across the road, remember 51 storeys and all that. Obviously they’ll be back in again. Now I’m not sure if they’re related to your pics in any way. Perhaps someone could confirm?

Indeed Alonso, any information would be welcome. That said most of what’s shown here is period stock clearly being let go – and that should obviously not be tolerated.

The interesting thing about areas like this is that when they are eventually redeveloped the various property developers involved will be heralded for the successful regeneration of the area, when much of the reason for its dilapidation in the first place has been the large-scale property speculation indicated in Hutton’s images above. In terms of conserving this street it seems that Dublin City Council are at the mercy of various land-owners who in reality don’t really care about either the physical or social continuity of the area.

I travel along this sorry route pretty much every day.

I thought most of both sides of James’s/Thomas Streets were sold by the OPW in the last year or 2 as part of the Digital Hub development. Remember the ‘mini-Manhattan’ proposal that did the rounds last year?

Some of the conditions of sale included redevelopment and provision of office space for digital hub use.

As for the scaffolding on the front of the NCAD, whie there’s been hoarding there for years, I’m pretty sure the scaffolding has only gone up very recently. I think I posted a question on this site at the time asking what was being planned. Edit: around the beginning of June accoroding to my post https://archiseek.com/content/showpost.php?p=67412&postcount=27

Does anyone know the status of this project by HKR architects? It would involve the demolition of the pink pub buildings in Hutton’s photo above.

@jackwade wrote:

Does anyone know the status of this project by HKR architects?

It was granted by DCC and is currently awaiting an appeal decision from ABP.

The 51-storey etc. proposal by Manor Park Homes stole all the attention when it was lodged last year, but this mega Dig. Hub scheme on the opposite side of Thomas Street – the ’Windmill Site’ – went through at around the same time. The prot. struc No. 84 Thomas Street would be refurbished as part of the scheme.

The tall building is not by HKR. It’s by an English firm – John Pardey Architects – but HKR are doing all the rest (same set-up as the Arnotts site, incidentally, with John Pardey doing one building & HKR doing the rest).

Both the Manor Park & Windmill schemes are due an ABP decision on the same day, so they are obviously being looked at together (perhaps partly because they both propose high buildings but are both located outside the designated areas for high buildings). Details:

http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/221294.htm
http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/219930.htm

As Sarsfield said, the NCAD / Fire Station building on Thomas Street has been hoarded off since 2001, but work has recently begun on <a href="http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=4812/05&backURL=Search%20Criteria%20>%20Ref. 4812/05

[align=center:2ptxy19y]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[/align:2ptxy19y]

@hutton wrote:

Hutton, good document of Thomas Street’s wonderful but sadly decaying period stock. The building that was in the above gap was only demolished in 2003 (see below) … nice old building …… don’t go ….

Why would it have been demolished if there’s apparently no replacement planned*? It didn’t look like it was in that bad shape?

* – or at least, nothing’s happened since 2003

http://www.etenders.gov.ie/search/search_show.aspx?ID=AUG091047

Corpo tender out today

‘Dublin City Council invites tenders for the engagement of a consultant design team for the design of an Environmental Improvement Scheme for Thomas Street, Dublin 8’

Manor Park APPEALED that decision!!!! What a boon for their planning consultants! Not only do they get their fee for lodging a lost cause, but they go on to get paid to lodge the appeal. Fckin hell. More money than sense.

@tommyt wrote:

http://www.etenders.gov.ie/search/search_show.aspx?ID=AUG091047

Corpo tender out today

‘Dublin City Council invites tenders for the engagement of a consultant design team for the design of an Environmental Improvement Scheme for Thomas Street, Dublin 8’

Jaysus is that the power of Archiseek? An illustrated bitch/ moan yesterday – and by today theyre issuing tenders!! 😮 😀

Some good information and illustrations added there]http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w108/hutton001/PICT0058.jpg[/IMG]

Why are these being let rot? They abut the hop store complex on one side, and the redbrick victorian used by the digital hub on the other, so it’s not as if the footplate could form part of a bigger scheme. Would it be cynical to suspect that the owners are simply letting them to rot so they can replace the 3 floor corner with a 5 floor Henrietta Hag type scheme? If this were to transpire it would amount to rewarding anti-social ruthless speculation with pp – something I have touched on in the thread “Endangered Georgian Dublin”. There is no excuse for this. 😡

Meanwhile No. 84 across the street should not be left derelict, it’s not as if it’s restoration or active use is materially dependent on the John Pardey/ HKR Manor Homes scheme – particularily as their proposal shows retaining the house abutting the scheme. Again, unless a better explanation is forthcoming, there is no excuse for this.

Also the building shown by Devin as demolished in 2003 is very odd – again it’s not as if the cleared area completes a larger site. 4 years on with no sign of anything, it would appear that the owner is incapable of developing; here and some others already mentioned, perhaps time for CPOs ?

Then (2003)…

Now…

A little bit of good news re these on the corner of Crane Lane – I am informed by reliable sources that these are currently being preped for restoration, with one of the city’s better known and respected practises attached to the project. Apparently these passed thru the hands of DCC in recent years, who it is said were largely to blame for their current condition. However I am now happy to report that those currently involved are doing their work very diligently, having already researched other builings of similar stock. So here’s hoping to a happy-ending on this one 🙂

This is great news indeed.
Its so sad to see in many cases fine old building stock left to fall into disrepair. The historical context and the old and original building stock of this area should be restored and maintained. Ye wouldn’t see an equivalent significant historic area in such a paltry condition abroad, especially in Europe.

Again this whloe area has great potential from Christchurch right up to Kilmainham Gaol. (Even far more historically valuable than the overly inflated egotistic Ballsbridge & Co , in the headlines at the mo.)

@igy wrote:

Why would it have been demolished if there’s apparently no replacement planned*? It didn’t look like it was in that bad shape?

* – or at least, nothing’s happened since 2003

It was claimed at the time that it had structurally deteriorated and needed to be demolished. Whether or which, there was a site assembly going on there for a number of years, so it wouldn’t have been any harm to get an old building out of the way …

[align=center:2b251fo9]~~~~~~~~~~~~[/align:2b251fo9]

@hutton wrote:

A little bit of good news re these on the corner of Crane Lane – I am informed by reliable sources that these are currently being preped for restoration, with one of the city’s better known and respected practises attached to the project. Apparently these passed thru the hands of DCC in recent years, who it is said were largely to blame for their current condition. However I am now happy to report that those currently involved are doing their work very diligently, having already researched other builings of similar stock. So here’s hoping to a happy-ending on this one 🙂

The buildings (Nos. 7 & 8 Thomas Street) formed part of the infamous Manor Park Homes Mini-Mahattan plan of last year. They are an interesting survival of Dublin-vernacular architecture. The Crane Lane frontage is interesting too. The proposed treatment of them in that plan by deBlacam & Meagher architects was pretty diabolical; they proposed building directly upwards over the protected structures, as seen in the drawing below.

The proposal for that whole block actually between St. Catherine’s Church and Crane Lane was crude, the attitude being ‘regeneration hasn’t worked so something dramatic is needed’.

After DCC refused the whole thing, the developer appealed, but it just got log-jammed with the Board; every time it reaches its decision-due date, it gets put back another month. Reading between the lines, they were told the proposal wasn’t a runner, and, hutton, I’ve heard the same thing, that a complete revised proposal is being lodged right at the moment … we’ll wait and see …..
.

Yeah. As said in Post 21 on the previous page it will be refurbished as part of the ‘Windmill Site’ development, provided it gets the go ahead from ABP. Decision due on 4th of October, but I won’t be surprised if it’s put back again; it’s been put back several times already:

http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/221294.htm

Thomas Street generally needs to be designated an ACA. Many of the terraced buildings that make it what it is have no protection – only the weak old ‘Conservation Area’ designation.

Take this group (above) between Frawley’s and St. Catherine’s Church. None of them are protected structures. They have a wonderful array of pitched roofs and gables at the rear, very characteristic of the old city (including what appears to be a rare cruciform roof to No. 30). But that could all be lost at the moment because they have no protection. And they could well the subject of landbanking arising out of the Frawley’s closure/sale …… jdivision, maybe you know?

What is also important about these building is that they give historic context to St. Catherines Church. So many settings of major buildings have been ruined by the demolishishment of their immediate surroundings…ie the Four Courts with the offices to the left, the GPO with Penny’s (BHS) to the left etc…

deBlacam & Meagher are definitely sociopaths or mentalists of sorts to design such an absurdity for this historic and neglected area of the city.

Thanks to the decision to put a QBC on the North Quays, those of us stuck on buses on Thomas and James Steet every morning now get extra time to appreciate these streets. Like a little slice of the 70s they are …

sorry for not reading the whole thread but do we have a decision on two potential high rises tomorrow…?

Yes. Here, this’ll get you salivating; the Manor Park scheme as seen from O’Connell Bridge:

Ah that’s absolutely rediculous …they’ve gotta be havin’ a laugh. The architects are definitely on some happy pills or something. Would be hard to take this architectural firm serious with such an outlandish proposal or anything else for that matter.

lol not a hope! maybe it was one of those promotional type projects like shamrog city,but that windmill development has a chance at least.

Saw on the Irish Times today that the DCC is planning a whole new regeneration project for this area….aka, the Liberties etc… About time! North King Street and Smithfield have never looked back since their makeover. Let’s hope Thomas St., James St., etc… gets the attention it deserves.

SoHo springs to mind. Big announcement, nothing happens.

@jdivision wrote:

SoHo springs to mind. Big announcement, nothing happens.

I’d be inclined to agree with you alright, though tbh imo the Manor Homes scheme was a grossely greedy scheme which DCC were right to reject. DCC should not be dependent on the whims of those who wish to overdevelop in order for renewal of the area to get under way; equally buildings on the RPS which are owned by the same interests should not be left continuing to rot – DCC needs to enact the derilict sites act, and imo issue the letters threatening CPO. If there’s still an inadequate response, CPO at current value (ie no commercial concern) and then sell tto those who will put such buildings to good use. Here’s where DCC should be using CPOs – not at the Carlton, where it was used imo most unfairly. But then which was the more valuable to certain parties? :rolleyes:

@GregF wrote:

Saw on the Irish Times today that the DCC is planning a whole new regeneration project for this area….aka, the Liberties etc… About time! North King Street and Smithfield have never looked back since their makeover. Let’s hope Thomas St., James St., etc… gets the attention it deserves.

Smithfield, in my experience, is regarded as a massive failure by local residents. The Liberties could do well to learn how not to repeat similar mistakes.

@Adolf Luas wrote:

Smithfield, in my experience, is regarded as a massive failure by local residents. The Liberties could do well to learn how not to repeat similar mistakes.

I was just remembering the disgraceful condition Smithfield and North King Street were in compared to now. Compared to the acres of dereliction, wastegrounds, etc..(aka ground zero), it is an improvement.

Anyone know what building this is / was?

The cynic in me suggests foul play.
@ireland.com wrote:

Dublin fire disrupts Luas services

Four units of Dublin Fire Brigade are tackling a blaze in a derelict building in the inner city.

The fire broke out shortly before 8am close to St James’s Hospital in the south inner city.

No injuries were reported, and it is believed the building was empty at the time.

James’s Street was closed to inbound traffic, and gardaí are directing motorists. Service on the Luas Red Line was disrupted between Heuston and Blackhorse Stations.

@GregF wrote:

I was just remembering the disgraceful condition Smithfield and North King Street were in compared to now. Compared to the acres of dereliction, wastegrounds, etc..(aka ground zero), it is an improvement.

I agree! What a spectacularly over the top statement Adolf Luas to say that Smithfield is seen as a “massive failure”. What residents are you refering to? The residents of Council houses at the north end that now have shops, a supermarket, a health centre, a gym, restuarants, bars,cafe, a cinema (soon), and cultural facilities. Or perhaps to mean the Council residents on Balckhall Place who have received completely revamped apartments as well as the above. Or maybe you mean the new residents to the area – ie the ones who werent there before!

Its obvious that Smithfeild isnt perfect and there is still along way to go, particularly the inexplicable lack of attention to the southern part of the square. It has its problems and I would have plenty to say about some aspects of whats happened there. But its not a massive failure!

@StephenC wrote:

I agree! What a spectacularly over the top statement Adolf Luas to say that Smithfield is seen as a “massive failure”. What residents are you refering to? The residents of Council houses at the north end that now have shops, a supermarket, a health centre, a gym, restuarants, bars,cafe, a cinema (soon), and cultural facilities. Or perhaps to mean the Council residents on Balckhall Place who have received completely revamped apartments as well as the above. Or maybe you mean the new residents to the area – ie the ones who werent there before!

Its obvious that Smithfeild isnt perfect and there is still along way to go, particularly the inexplicable lack of attention to the southern part of the square. It has its problems and I would have plenty to say about some aspects of whats happened there. But its not a massive failure!

I was privy to some research on this previously and in general the regen is welcomed by the community. But to note the health centre is not viewed as a community facility at all and apart from the spar the yokels don’t rate the new fancy dan shops and miss the old fruit and veg shop/wholesalers that was once there. Re; Blackhall place/marmion court – the locals hate the salmpn pink paint/render of the new(ish) duplexes along there and Queen st. A mixed bag

Well the health centre is a community facility whether they think so or not. You have to pay for a doctor wherever you live. The mix and type of shops could be improved and probably will be as the area gains critical mass. But lets face it a quality supermarket on your doorstep is a bonus, even if its a tad overpriced.

Also Blackhall Place has been repainted since it was completed. Agreed the original colour scheme was awful and maybe the new one isnt much better.

As I said the area isnt perfect. But its a whole lots better than what was there pre-regeneration.

I am always wary of this idea of gentrification. The focus always seems to be on how discommoded the exsiting community has been. the fact is there wasnt a huge existing community here. Most had up sticks and left and the area was crumbling because of it. It also may be un-PC to say but most of the longer term residents are Council tenants – low rent, secure tenure, city centre location. The area around them had improved immeasurably and they didn’t even have to put their hands in their pockets in most cases.

But they still seem to dominate the area despite all the gentrification and yuppification. When all the Corpo housing was built in the ‘80s the first tenants must have done nothing but spawn kids for the next 10 years solid because the place is full of teenagers. And now they use the pedestrianised streets of Smithfield Market and Smithfield Village as their playground, streets that were supposed to be full of sophisticated urbanites shopping in artisan delis. But there is only the local kids going shouting through the streets, having snogging competitions and throwing their junk food wrapping on the ground. Integration of the new and existing communitiues isn’t too good in Smithfield.

The courts complex here doesnt help

@Devin wrote:

But they still seem to dominate the area despite all the gentrification and yuppification. When all the Corpo housing was built in the ‘80s the first tenants must have done nothing but spawn kids for the next 10 years solid because the place is full of teenagers. And now they use the pedestrianised streets of Smithfield Market and Smithfield Village as their playground, streets that were supposed to be full of sophisticated urbanites shopping in artisan delis. But there is only the local kids going shouting through the streets, having snogging competitions and throwing their junk food wrapping on the ground. Integration of the new and existing communitiues isn’t too good in Smithfield.

I think your perception is most definitely more influenced by the shenanigans outside the Juvenile courts than by any serious demographic analysis Devin. From what little I know the locla community broadly welcome the regeneration. The existing community is also very tightly knit (ie made up of a limited number of family groups) that have been there for 3+ generations not really lending itself to immediate integration

@GregF wrote:

I was just remembering the disgraceful condition Smithfield and North King Street were in compared to now. Compared to the acres of dereliction, wastegrounds, etc..(aka ground zero), it is an improvement.

isn’t that the problem, deliberate dereliction and then they can force anything they like on an area

@StephenC wrote:

I agree! What a spectacularly over the top statement Adolf Luas to say that Smithfield is seen as a “massive failure”. What residents are you refering to? The residents of Council houses at the north end that now have shops, a supermarket, a health centre, a gym, restuarants, bars,cafe, a cinema (soon), and cultural facilities. Or perhaps to mean the Council residents on Balckhall Place who have received completely revamped apartments as well as the above. Or maybe you mean the new residents to the area – ie the ones who werent there before!

Its obvious that Smithfeild isnt perfect and there is still along way to go, particularly the inexplicable lack of attention to the southern part of the square. It has its problems and I would have plenty to say about some aspects of whats happened there. But its not a massive failure!

I have recently attended some weekly workshop meetings organised by the Grangegorman Development Agency prior to an announcement regarding a master plan for the redevelopment of the Grangegorman site which will incorporate the new DIT campus as well as an Educate Together school and a health board facility.
Members of the local community have been exploring different aspects of how DIT will affect and integrate with its immediate environment. The one example that seems to have been repeatedly cited at these meetings of how things recently went wrong is the redevelopment of Smithfield. Of course there have been improvements, particularly Shay Cleary’s remodelling of the flats on North King Street that were previously in a terrible state. Although Smithfield Square itself has been improved upon I still think it has failed. Many of the ground floor units remain empty on Smithfield, North King Street and on Brunswick Street. The health centre is, I believe, great. However, a flat fee of 120 euro to see a doctor exists as opposed to the usual 50 euro for all the other GP’s in the area. The supermarket, Fresh is also very nice but overpriced. Thomas Reid, the bar, is always almost empty. The Gym has a spectacular swimming pool that is only open to adults. I have to drive my daughter to Finglas for a swim. The viewing tower in the chimney has, as far as I know, been closed for some time. The square is a wind tunnel, quite why another smaller open area in front of the tower was necessary is beyond me. Most attempts at cultural events seem to fall flat on their face, the space is just too long and open.The groovy little sound/lighting building at the southern end of the square has always been totally redundant. The gas braziers that used to be lit every weekend are rarely operational. Whenever I’ve attended any cultural/musical events at Smithfield I’ve looked up at the myriad of balconies that overlook the square and would be hard pressed to spot more than half a dozen residents actually watching the proceedings. The apartment dwellers and Smithfield don’t appear to connect. The Lighthouse cinema is very exciting, a very welcome development that’s been on the cards for years. Less welcome, in my opinion, is a sign currently on one of the units that reads “coming soon. Paddy Power”. Aesthetically I think most of the development looks awful and think it will look really terrible in a few years time. That’s a matter of personal taste though.
I’ve lived in the area for 17 years and was genuinely very excited about the whole Smithfield scheme. Some may see it as a success, I’m not being negative I just think its failed on many levels, in particular in terms of what has been given back to the local community as opposed to facilities for people who reside in the apartments.

See in James St. yesterday opposite the hospital an old derelict pub went on fire. It looks like an old Georgian which had render applied in Victorian times. It was in reasonable good condition . Now the roof and the top floor are destroyed. It is adjacent to derelicts sites. It once had hoardings around it with the developers promising captions of ‘restore, rejuvenate, etc’…or something like that. I suppose the whole lot will be razed now and another rudimenatry appartment block thrown up. Another piece of history lost.

As we saw in the papers today, these two have now been refused:

http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/221294.htm
http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/219930.htm

Passed by DCC, there was some good design in the Windmill site, but they were trying to squeeze on way too much development, and that’s what tripped them up in the end.

The revised proposal for the “mini-manhattan” site across the road was lodged on the 11th of October. Just one 26-storey building this time, and some lower ones. Details: <a href="http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=5666/07&backURL=Search%20Criteria%20>%20Ref. 5666/07

What is the next stage for this sorry mess now?

Perfectly workable buildings are being left go to dereliction and it is bringing down the area further.

Perhaps the developers want to trap the state Agency (digital hub) into a bind and get the site for free. 87 companies there now, no office space even though leases have been taken on buildings as far away as Cork street to accomodate demand.

3/1/2008

As some may have seen in the news section today, Harry Crosbie has just lodged a planning application for an – unorthodox shall we say – hotel just off Thomas Street behind the Vicar Street music venue. It is to be sited on the footprint of this warehouse building to the rear.

‘Monastic no star’ hotel for Vicar Street
Edel Morgan

Crosbie Property has submitted a planning application for a 200-bedroom “no star” hotel as part of the Vicar Street music venue which will be almost “monastic” in terms of its facilities, says developer Harry Crosbie.

Designed by Grafton Architects, the hotel will not seek a star rating from Bord Fáilte because it will be “too basic to have any stars”, says Crosbie

The press release announcing the planning application says the polished concrete walls of the rooms will be “a homage to Corbusier and Eileen Gray”. Crosbie himself describes the rooms as “cells to sleep in with concrete walls and a very good bed with a duvet”.

There will be a communal TV room on the top floor. The most lavish aspect of the development will be the €1 million spent on art works by young Irish artists for the bedrooms.

Crosbie says everything else will be “very basic” such as the freight lift which will bring patrons to the residents’ bar and check-in area in a “big glass box on top of the hotel” which will look out over the city. The proposal is to locate the hotel to the rear of the the music venue and demolish an existing warehouse on the site.

He says that the “no star” approach is part of a worldwide trend to offer hotel accommodation “at the lowest possible prices”.

Packages will be available to people attending shows and concerts at Vicar Street. the new Point Arena and the Libeskind theatre in the docklands, and room rates will start at €50.

© The Irish Times

Grafton Architects’ involvement sounds encouraging. Although not everyone’s a fan of their house style, I’d certainly welcome a trademark crisp cubular edifice in what is a particularly jaded area as far as contemporary design is concerned – the idiom usually extending itself to red brick boxes with a ‘modrin’ boxy timber window.

Just a slight concern as to the standard this development may set for the area, given it’s little better than a high class hostel; then again that’s (rather unfortunately) a decent step up for Thomas Street. Also I cannot imagine it to be anything less than impeccably managed, and there is huge demand for this type of accommodation in which Dublin is lacking. Apparently it’s intended as a ‘young rocker’s hotel’. It’s also great to see budget accommodation getting a smart, purpose-built solution for once, rather than the northern Georgian core getting mauled; 200 bedrooms equates to an entire streetscape of saved townhouses! Thanks Harry 😉

It was passing by this morning as the notice went up that brought it to my attention.

(Grafton are so uber-chic they even sign off in lower case…)

NCAD have their new Harry Clarke building by Murray O’Laoire on their Christmas card.

However it states on the reverse that it will open in June 2008. Has it been started?

Forget that – you can see it in the background of Mr.Hickey’s photograph -they’re at the steelwork.

They are indeed. It’s literally just gone up – was vacant as of a week ago.
What’s the glowing tubular yokamabob to the side there?

Cleaning and other works to the Fire Station is also well underway.

@GrahamH wrote:

(Grafton are so uber-chic they even sign off in lower case…)

Just like ee cummings, yes, but also like k.d. lang, let’s not forget. 😉

I’m keen to see the design for this. As you say, Graham, the city needs it.

@GrahamH wrote:

What’s the glowing tubular yokamabob to the side there?

Whatever else it is, the word ‘unnecessary’ springs to mind. It looks like a heated towel rail. Maybe a detail from the Grafton scheme got taken by the breeze and landed on the wrong side of the road?

😉

A towel rail is exactly what sprung to mind here too. Gives new meaning to a warm quality of streetscape doesn’t it.

It has the potential to act as an eye-catching linkage between what are rather disjointed campus buildings. Lets just hope it’s better executed than Robocop’s eh, ‘dressings’. It must be with MO’L.

like orange hotels then,didn’t lecorbusier paint or whitewash all his walls, even the joy and kilmainham are painted.

some more yuppification for thomas street you mean.

How is this ‘yuppification’?

In recent months there has been general agreement among the members here (I know, I know- the sound of hell freezing over) that Thomas Street / James Street needs work. What that work should consist of is a topic of debate, but I don’t think anyone wants the status quo preserved.

Then when something like this is proposed, it’s only for yuppies? Come off it. If anything, your comment is far more ‘classist’ for its assumption that a high quality budget hotel would be of no benefit to the residents of the immediate area. Don’t they have friends from out of town too?

the status quo was delivered by property speculators make again place so bad they’ll take anything as a replacement, I thought the members here wouldn’t fall for that. I thought you thought yourselves as a better class of people.

@lostexpectation wrote:

I thought you thought yourselves as a better class of people.

Ah now, talk about making assumptions :p

@lostexpectation wrote:

the status quo was delivered by property speculators make again place so bad they’ll take anything as a replacement, I thought the members here wouldn’t fall for that. I thought you thought yourselves as a better class of people.

Actually, I’m scum of the earth and I’m well aware of the fact, but my low breeding shouldn’t mean I can’t dream the dream with the big boys and girls from the right side of the tracks.

Seriously- ‘a better class of people’? For the second time in as many posts, let me say Come off it. The only people I’d say I’m better than are people who make sweeping generalisations regarding people they know nothing about.

@Devin wrote:

Thomas Street generally needs to be designated an ACA. Many of the terraced buildings that make it what it is have no protection – only the weak old ‘Conservation Area’ designation.

Take this group (above) between Frawley’s and St. Catherine’s Church. None of them are protected structures. They have a wonderful array of pitched roofs and gables at the rear, very characteristic of the old city (including what appears to be a rare cruciform roof to No. 30). But that could all be lost at the moment because they have no protection. And they could well the subject of landbanking arising out of the Frawley’s closure/sale …… jdivision, maybe you know?

Discussion on Frawleys should probably be on this thread. You know the way some posters get angry and then there will be bears.

As Devin said above, these buildings are not on the protectred structures list.

Why doesn’t DCC acquire (by CPO) these semi-derelict bldgs on Thomas St (a disgrace for a capital city) or alternatively force the delinquent owners to refurbish and maintain them? Their current values must be very low and any compensation should be based on their current usage, state of repair and potential cost of reinstatement or demolition.

@johnglas wrote:

Why doesn’t DCC acquire (by CPO) these semi-derelict bldgs on Thomas St (a disgrace for a capital city) or alternatively force the delinquent owners to refurbish and maintain them? Their current values must be very low and any compensation should be based on their current usage, state of repair and potential cost of reinstatement or demolition.

johnglas, the old arguement used to be that ‘ . . the Corporation couldn’t possibly buy every old, endangered, house in the city . .’ I don’t know how they answer the question now that there are so few left.

The loss of originally gabled houses, in Dublin, is the built heritage equivalent of genocide.

A formerly gabled house, i-e, a curvilinear gabled house, altered in the late 18th century to conform to prevailing taste (there has to be a thread coming on the legacy of Luke Gardiner), is just regarded as a bad ‘Georgian’ house, and sure this city has loads of good ‘Georgian’ houses.

Just to point out that Crosbie’s hotel plan was rejected. Devin I’m not aware of landbanking around Frawleys but he certainly owns a couple of other places around there and if I was him I’d be doing it.

@jdivision wrote:

Just to point out that Crosbie’s hotel plan was rejected. Devin I’m not aware of landbanking around Frawleys but he certainly owns a couple of other places around there and if I was him I’d be doing it.

Im glad to hear that nasty “hotel” :rolleyes: plan was rejected – it was a real BFG – Big, and F****** uGly!

gunter: I couldn’t agree more – why regeneration has to equal acquire, accumulate, run down and demolish I’ve never been able to understand. The backs of the houses shown in your thread above are as ‘romantic’ and characterful as you’ll get anywhere. Even the fronts are a nice tutorial in building history.

dublin 8 cubes of new york and some finance???

@jdivision wrote:

Just to point out that Crosbie’s hotel plan was rejected. Devin I’m not aware of landbanking around Frawleys but he certainly owns a couple of other places around there and if I was him I’d be doing it.

Just to add, there’s a funny story told about how Carroll got planning to develop apartments on a site around there but decided he’d build offices instead and got a change of use. The potential tenants got a bit of a shock when they were shown around and suddenly heard animals screaming. It was right next to a slaughterhouse!

The flats behind Thomas St. are a bit rough, but a slaughterhouse! is that going a bit far?

@jdivision wrote:

Just to add, there’s a funny story told about how he got planning to develop apartments on a site around there but decided he’d build offices instead and got a change of use. The potential tenants got a bit of a shock when they were shown around and suddenly heard animals screaming. It was right next to a slaughterhouse!

Lol. I suppose he didnt make a killing on that one so 😮

*gets coat*

@hutton wrote:

*gets coat*

There are different time zones hutton. Just because it’t Friday evening where you, are doesn’t mean it couldn’t be Tuesday morning here!

Just to balance the usual negitivity with a bit of positivity, the College of Art extension into the old Thomas St. Fire Station seems to be scrubbing up good.

Now back to negitivity.

How could an early 18th century city mansion not be on the list of protected structures?

Unexpected archway evident on the left side of the facade during replacement of facia boards.

Yes, that really is a shocker; the archway suggests some kind of a ‘pend’ or passageway through to the rear, which could be a real feature. Whoever owns this building has no sense of anything architectural very much. Why the poorly- maintained render? Why not strip it back to the original brick? It looks as though someone tried to give it the ‘Art Deco’ treatment in the past – bizarre! Even the cheap tiling on the ground-floor facade (do. next door) is awful, and those trailing wires!! Next door has deteriorating brickwork and boarded-up windows.
This is surely (non-) benign neglect by DCC – what does its Planning Dept do?

johnglas: the building was a much loved department store and, as such has doubtless been gutted several times over the last hundred years or so.

I’ll try and fish out my Rocque maps and see if the passageway shows up on the 1750s map.

The Art Deco thing was probably a attempt to blend this wing of the store with the 1930s wing to the right of the top picture. The end pilasters, which I had thought were an original and unusual feature, appear to be just part of that 1930s make-over, as you can just make out flush granite quoins in the archway photograph, which would tie in better with the 1720s or so date.

Yes, and if they are typical Dublin granite, they would really sparkle given a bit of tlc; can’t for the life of me understand why DCC tolerate Thomas St. Since I first got to know Dublin in the early 1990s, it’s looked utterly decrepit and neglected. Some people are so hooked on ‘character’ that they can’t recognise squalor and neglect when they see it. Some combination of carrot and stick would seem approprioate. I’m sure the old fire station will look splendid when it’s cleaned; the combination of red brick and golden sandstone (I think it’s sandstone) is classic.Thomas St has enough punctuation mark buildings to give it real character, while the rest could be restored or rebuilt as appropriate – and it must be prime residential area if only the air of neglect could be removed.

@gunter wrote:

Just to balance the usual negitivity with a bit of positivity, the College of Art extension into the old Thomas St. Fire Station seems to be scrubbing up good.

Agreed. Good to see this one buck the trend. Looks like a good job too 🙂

Ahhh … that Frawley’s fascia was vitrolite, wasn’t it.

Will also miss the mad island entrance with terrazzo floor:

@Devin wrote:

Ahhh … that Frawley’s fascia was vitrolite, wasn’t it.

Will also miss the mad island entrance with terrazzo floor:

There’s a new shop for plus-size ladies & gents opening up soon. Don’t know what, if any, changes will be made to the front.

Also, while passing along Thomas/James St today I saw a what looks like a new planning permission sign up on the old delapidated house beside the Bank of Ireland at the corner of Watling St. Anyone know what it says. Can’t find anything on the DCC website.

@Sarsfield wrote:

Also, while passing along Thomas/James St today I saw a what looks like a new planning permission sign up on the old delapidated house beside the Bank of Ireland at the corner of Watling St. Anyone know what it says. Can’t find anything on the DCC website.

That site notice is for the new application for the Windmill site (Digital Hub). Apparently it’s phase one (office blocks) of a pending proposal for the whole site. The Reg. no. is 1712/08, but in the on-line planning file, the ‘documents’ refuse to open for me. The five weeks must be nearly up. I don’t like not knowing what’s happening here, will have to get into the counter tomorrow.

Presumably because they have to provide the State with a certain amount of office space as part of the deal to buy the site

Yes jdivision, I understand that, and also that the delivery of the office content is hemmed in by a tight time frame because of the refusal last time. I would just be concerned whether this split approach to the overall site is going to deliver a genuinely ‘mixed use’ scheme. Thomas St. / James’s St. is dead enough over most of it’s length without sticking in offices as the only use category on the upper floors of a nice, south facing, street frontage.

It just sounds a bit ‘Plan B’ and a bit rushed.

Got a quick look at that Digital Hub, P Elliot & Co. planning application for the Windmill site opposite Guinness on Thomas St/James’s St. (Reg. no. 1712/08, lodged 29 Feb.)

Sorry about the poor quality of the images, I had to resort to a bit of guntering to get them to post at all.

I suppose for HKR, this is bordering on sensitive.

I think we can take it that they’re bound and determined that this thing is going to make a big impact one way or the other. I don’t think background in-fill was one of the options considered.

I’m glad they’ve retained the informal approach to the windmill from the first scheme. The windmill should make an interesting focal point when you come upon it casually, it’s not strong enough for any big formal set-piece setting.

I think the relationship to the retained protected structure adjoining the bank on the west edge of the site is better than the last scheme and shouldn’t jar too much. The stacked icecube block on the eastern edge is a massive improvement of that appalling mini-Centrepoint that was proposed the last time, but it’s still pretty aggressive and it’s going to present a lot of blank wall towards Thomas Street over the roof tops of IAWS.

There’s one objection in so far from the ‘National Conservation and Heritage Group’ signed by Damien Cassidy, and people said they were just a flash in the pan!

It will be interesting to see how the planning office go about reversing the decision ABP made the last time.

All in all, a nice little headache for some planning officer. I’m actually fine with that.

How funny, it is a corporatization of the new museum:

http://www.newmuseum.org/

looses some of the elegance, some of the playfulness and most of the beauty, but still fun and attractive. Even the looming facade looks quite handsome in is own way, unforgiving though of poor workmanship. Certainly a big improvement and hence a victory for the planning process, probably a good building if built.

Quite like the stacked cubes, but it really is very heavy on IAWS, it would help if there was some kind of bridge between them to carry on the parapet & line before going off on such a bender … though obviously space is tight. The scale of the curtain wall is more objectionable … surely other options here ?

The stacked box thing reminds me of the Herzog & deMeuron design for the new Tate extension.

Alas, the caricature of ‘modern’ architecture as being ‘shoeboxes stacked one on top of another’. This would be OK in a ‘business park’ (the nadir of contemporary design), but not in a prominent and sensitive inner-city location. It’s just crass and artless (cf. the new bldg near City Hall for the likely public reaction.). A tall narrow frontage reflecting the form and function of what lies behind, detailed using contemporary materials, would be more appropriate here.

jonhglas:

I told you we’d be falling out, I think that was two days wasn’t it?

Your’re fundamentally wrong on one thing: Thomas Street isn’t shoeboxes stacked on top of each other, I think you’ll find it’s ice cubes stacked on top of each other!

It sort of reminds me of a glass version of Molyneux House in the ‘eyecatching front bit stuck onto a big bland box’ approach. Or a glassy version of some Benson & Forsyth confection. It’s pretty huge, no? That second image is quite deceptive.

On the other hand, I don’t mind the apartments (apartments, yes? the bld to the left) too much- the scale, at least, seems sympathetic. Was that bld applied for at this stage too, or will it be later? And if so, will it change in the interim?

I like the design but really the scale is awful; it’s at least twice the height of it’s neighbours. I think they are being a bit disingenious to show it in the context of one one existing building on the street.

I’m still dreaming that at some point in the future that the remaining historic stock and streetscapes of the city will become treasured among the public, planners, property owners and developers and that the whole Thomas St/James St stretch could be restored in a historically sympathetic way. As the historical high street of the city, such a restoration would provide a far more noteworthy icon for the city than some planner & developers egotistical notion of what will be an “iconic” building. There is a lot of dereliction on this street but even then there is enough left that something stunning could be done here. Without having to look to the continent, looking across the water to the royal mile in Edinburgh shows what can be achieved.

Ok it would be unfair to say that this building alone would ruin the chance of my fanciful dream ever being realised (we’ve already f*cked up the Christchurch end of this stretch) but it certainly would not help. So I’m agin it in this location.

gunter: and icecubes will melt…
jimq: the ‘Royal Mile’ in Edinburgh – Walt Scottery and Walt Disneyana, not the bit at the top (the ‘real’ bit), nor at the bottom (1950s and 60s attempts at human-scale domestic – apart from that carbuncle the Scottish P*******t Bldg, grhh!), but the commercial debris in the centre. Totally agree with the spirit of your comments.

@jimg wrote:

I like the design but really the scale is awful; it’s at least twice the height of it’s neighbours. I think they are being a bit disingenious to show it in the context of one one existing building on the street.

I’m still dreaming that at some point in the future that the remaining historic stock and streetscapes of the city will become treasured among the public, planners, property owners and developers and that the whole Thomas St/James St stretch could be restored in a historically sympathetic way. As the historical high street of the city, such a restoration would provide a far more noteworthy icon for the city than some planner & developers egotistical notion of what will be an “iconic” building. There is a lot of dereliction on this street but even then there is enough left that something stunning could be done here. Without having to look to the continent, looking across the water to the royal mile in Edinburgh shows what can be achieved.

Ok it would be unfair to say that this building alone would ruin the chance of my fanciful dream ever being realised (we’ve already f*cked up the Christchurch end of this stretch) but it certainly would not help. So I’m agin it in this location.

jimg: I think you’re absolutely right on the value of Thomas St./James’s St. Enough of the street has survived for repair rather that re-making to be the order of the day. The presence of the Guinness buildings has ensured that the street retains a civic scale which is, in large part, still in reasonably good condition.The hope is that the older 18th. century housing stock ( see Devins photographs further back in the thread) has survived just about long enough to be cherished and conserved, although there is little obvious evidence of this just now.

It would be fantastic if the two Digital Hub schemes could be scaled down to a level of responsible in-fill from that of aggressive interloper, but what are the chances of that happening? In fairness to HKR and the planners, (assuming there’s been some consultation), this scheme does make an effort to respect the streetscape and there is the arguement that the two buildings proposed frame the entrance to something like a new street winding it’s way down through the site past the windmill towards Bonham Street

Here’s another of the submitted renders from the west. Apologies again for the quality, I use the point and shoot method of photography.

johnglas: The Scottish Parliament building is eccentric, in no way is it a carbuncle.

ctesiphon: Both building are offices! The building on the left looks like apartments, but as far as I know the apartment element of the scheme isn’t ready yet. Does that suggest to you that a ‘tower’ may be involved?

Normally I would think the scale excessive but isn’t this part of the street all about big buildings, the old guinness buildings, looming over small, more domestic-scall ones?

Completely off topic, but still on James Street, my Grandfather used to own a bar on James street, in the 50’s and 60’s called the Fountain Bar. It was right at the west end of the street where the Luas goes now ( I think) and around the corner from Stevens Lane. Anyway there used to be a fountain in front of it and I think there was a public WC there also.

As my Grandparents lived upstairs I have many fond memories of having a glass of club orange and some crisps passed through the “money hole” in the stair case.

Anyway I’ve been trying forever to find a picture of the building with absolutely no success, does anyone have one or have any ideas of where I might possibly find such a picture?

gunter: you did not have to (a) pay for it or (b) live with the hype (or incompetence). It owes nothing to Edinburgh or Scottish tradition, it is in fact three disparate and not very much at ease buildings, the entrance is incredibly gloomy, it is faced internally in concrete and it grovels perceptibly in front of the ‘royal’ presence in nearby Holyrood House (there’s even one of HM’s heraldic lions sticking its tongue out right at it). It’s an over-priced, over-designed, over-engineered mess. Did I say I don’t like it? Eccentric doesn’t get anywhere near it.

@notjim wrote:

Normally I would think the scale excessive but isn’t this part of the street all about big buildings, the old guinness buildings, looming over small, more domestic-scall ones?

Good point notjim, hadn’t thought … still have a problem with the massive walled gable to the right, nice to see the left has a face.

johnglas: you Scotch types are always going on about the cost of things, you don’t hear gunter going on about the last €200 he wasted on a third party appeal. I think if we stripped down your critique of the Scottish Parliament building to it’s roots, we might find some Glasgow v Edinburgh thing going on there!

Ciaran: Re the Fountain Bar. I have some shots of that corner, I just can’t quite locate them at the moment. We are talking about the pub right on the corner, not the one, now called ‘The Tram’ on the Protestant church side. Coming from Thomas Street there were two properties facing the ‘fountain’, a pub on the left and a bookies on the right (the Bow Lane corner). In recent times the corner pub was called ‘The Barn Owl’, or ‘The Aul Barn’, or something like that. They’re just finishing a curvy building on that corner now which I think is some kind of homeless hostel. It is a pity that a more active street frontage couldn’t have been conjoured up here.

I take your point, notjim, about the way that a number of Guinness buildings already ‘loom’ over the streetscape, and there’s not a whole lot wrong with that. Is this some kind of a vindication of the planning process? That would be asking for two positive comments in one post!

The old post office, now closed (except for the parcel service at the rear) is a particular gem. You Dart types might grumble about Starbucks in your post offices, but I’d linger outside and smell a Starbucks any day, it’d beat the pong off Guinness.

Gunter: I’m not letting go, and less of the racial stereotypes; of course, it’s a Glasgow/Edinburgh thing (I jest; Embra is the capital, much as that sticks in my craw). £460m is a bit more than Eu200 (note, no symbol on my keyboard!), though your dedication does you proud. I just don’t like it and I’ll argue the toss with anyone.

PS ‘Embra’ is the approximate keelie* pronunciation of the nation’s capital.

* = an inhabitant of Glasgow, also ‘weegie’ (as in ‘Glaswegian‘)

@johnglas wrote:

PS ‘Embra’ is the approximate keelie* pronunciation of the nation’s capital.

* = an inhabitant of Glasgow, also ‘weegie’ (as in ‘Glaswegian‘)

Am I right in saying that a ‘gurrier’ / ‘scanger’, in Glasgow is a ‘ned’?

If so, the growing campaign to save ‘Ned’s’ pub on Townsend Street must be raising a smile!

Indeed they are (regarded as non-PC but in universal use nevertheless); Ned’s must make up in atmosphere what it lacks in street presence. The posting of the Guinness photo above – a superb collection of industrial buildings which should ‘loom’ over their surroundings. Is the church just off-picture St James’s (just for me to get my bearings)?
Talking of the black stuff (gives me indigestion; I much prefer Beamish) – has anything ever been mooted about restoring the area around Basin St and re-opening the canal link? What a townscape that could be.

@johnglas wrote:

Talking of the black stuff (gives me indigestion; I much prefer Beamish) – .

feckin Langer!!!

Translation needed; does it imply one-handed exercise (thought the ref to Beamish would get someone going!)?

It’s a Cork term of endearment/abuse (presumably because of the Beamish reference?).

Thanks for that – derivation?

pfffft God knows. I’d be hard pushed to justify the existence of Cork or from whence the place was derived, let alone the silly words that they inflict on the rest of us….

(I jest of course)

James St PO is a great little building – designed by the same guy who designed Fusiliers Arch in the Green – J. Howard Pentland

https://archiseek.com/search/search.php?template_demo=&site=&path=&result_page=search.php&query_string=pentland

@hutton wrote:

A little bit of good news re these on the corner of Crane Lane – I am informed by reliable sources that these are currently being preped for restoration, with one of the city’s better known and respected practises attached to the project. Apparently these passed thru the hands of DCC in recent years, who it is said were largely to blame for their current condition. However I am now happy to report that those currently involved are doing their work very diligently, having already researched other builings of similar stock. So here’s hoping to a happy-ending on this one 🙂

The planning application for this bit of restoration was lodged on 7th March (Reg. no. 1840/08), only noticed it today.

The restoration of 7 & 8 Thomas St. / corner of Crane Lane, is attached, in the planning application, to this:

This looks like a cross between the Stephen’s Green ‘Mississippi River Boat’ and ‘The Crystal Palace’!

Incredibly, Vat House no. 7, (apparently what this former Guinness building is called) is not a ‘protected structure’, so the proposal is to take off the roof (Point Depot style) and drop a four storey glass office block on top. In some circumstances this could be a ‘bold’ statement, but, on Crane Street? which can’t be more than 7m wide, that’s got to be pushing it! The Crane Street elevation projects slightly further out as the new floor rises ending in a roof garden above the eight floor, but the profile behind no. 7 Thomas Street, does the opposite by stepping substantially back in, as each new floor rises!

What’s happening to deBlacam and Meagher on the Digital Hub site?

I used to think they had a pact with the devil, their buildings were so perfect!

More distressing dereliction going on up at the ‘Fountain’ end of James Street

This attractive small Georgian was in reasonably good habitable condition last year, but has been going down hill rapidly in the last nine months. I spotted a heavy weight team of DCC hard hats accessing part of this terrace about four months ago (couldn’t see which house), but any City Council attention hasn’t resulted in even the slightest attempt to provide temporary repairs to the roof, or close up the broken windows. This looks a lot like old fashioned pre-development degradation to me.

Front and back views.

Two doors up, is this elegant little former ‘Dutch Billy’ twin, and it’s pink (former simple ‘Dutch Billy’) neighbour. The three bay, double roofed house is too valuable to risk losing, but it also has had no slates on it’s roof for about six months. At least this one has a felt covering, for now.

Front and back views.

Given what happened recently to one of the last 18th century houses on the opposite side of James Street, facing the entrance to the hospital, you would hope that some warning lights are flickering somewhere in the bowels of Dublin City Council, or is that being hopelessly optimistic?

feckin Langer!!!
@johnglas wrote:

Translation needed; does it imply one-handed exercise (thought the ref to Beamish would get someone going!)?

It’s a great word! Brought back to Cork from India probably by the Munster Fusiliers . Langur, a class of small monkey with a decidedly long tail. Therefore word is applied to another appendage, hence “he’s a right langer.” Also, “he was langers” as in very drunk, and tottering/cavorting around like said monkey.
K.

So, now I know! I was half-right, anyway. Good etymology KB – isn’t (local) language wonderful? Save us all from received pronunciation (and vocabulary); an approximate equivalent in Glaswegian for the latter use is ‘stoating’ or ‘stocious’ (‘he was stocious’) – hence, ‘ya stoater!’, which is actually a compliment. ‘To stoat’ is to bounce.

One would have thought johnglas to excel in all matters RP. How illusive the internet can be!

Yes they’re gems up at James Street, gunter. I was looking at them again only recently – they really have deteriorated shockingly.

God, do I seem as tight-arsed as that!? Take it from me, GH, I am NOT an exponent of RP, much as I might be old-fashioned about writing good standard English.

johnglas:

You sound refreshed, I hope you haven’t been away enjoying yourself for two weeks!

Si! And in Palma de Mallorca as well – indigenous architecture, sense of place, active conservation, contemporary style and panache? Don’t get me started! Glad to be back.

@gunter wrote:

Two doors up, is this elegant little former ‘Dutch Billy’ twin, and it’s pink (former simple ‘Dutch Billy’) neighbour. The three bay, double roofed house is too valuable to risk losing, but it also has had no slates on it’s roof for about six months. At least this one has a felt covering, for now.

Front and back views.

I was passing by these one day and the front door of the 3-bay house (red door) was open and it has an original fully-panelled early 18th cen. hallway. Thankfully, it’s a PS.

[align=center:ypcwj1s9]~~~~~~~~[/align:ypcwj1s9]

Proposal for demolition of remaining structures at Nos. 61/62 Thomas Street and construction of new 7-storey glazed building – <a href="http://195.218.114.214/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=2067/08&backURL=Search%20Criteria%20>%20Ref. 2067/08. As can be seen in the proposed section, the top 3 floors would be set well back. Still, it somehow doesn’t have the ring of model infill for Thomas Street about it, does it?

What gets me with these buildings is that they have (or had) perfectly decent facades which have (deliberately) been allowed to rot. This thread on DBs has been fascinating, but these Victorian (?)/Edwardian (?) (sorry for the Hanoverian/Saxe-Coburg language) facades have their own quiet merit. The replacement building is so inappropriate and boring that it should be refused pp on stylistic grounds (that would make the basis of an interesting appeal!). Where is the DCC design guide for this area? The ramshackle shopfronts and the lurid colours, alongside crumbling (and crumbled) upper stories would make you think that developers were deliberately trying to make these areas as run-down as possible so they could justify building any old rubbish in their place.
Developers wouldn’t do that, would they?

Oh this is a real shame. I had hoped these would be fully restored to their most recent intact state (gunter don’t go there ;)). I was under the impression that a student was engaged in a study to reinstate these buildings – even if informally, it’s clearly not having any influence.

So what is this building? All of the drawings online are equally evasive. How is any member of the public (or a planner for that matter) supposed to make an informed decision on an application based on a few sketched lines? This is a common occurance with medium-sized applications – vague CAD drawings posted online and nothing in the way of photomontages, streetscape views or artist’s impressions.

One of the problems could be that they don’t really teach ‘in-fill’ as a skill in the architecture schools, or they didn’t use to anyway. I remember we were given a in-fill project in Bolton Street in 2nd year, and it was a total shambles. Nobody could do it. The crits were one shocking scheme after another, including gunter’s, I have to say.

In-fill is a very difficult thing to do, unless you get into the mindset. In Bolton Street, we just moved on to the next project, a riding school, or whatever. We never went back to try it again, and a couple of years later, after a nice opera house thesis, we were out on the streets practicing!

Devin: That 3 bay in James’s Street with the red door might be a PS, but it doesn’t have any slates on it’s roof.

@gunter wrote:

@gunter wrote:

These two proposals have both been given the green light by Dublin City Council in the last few days.

The top one(Reg. no. 1840/08): deBlackam & Meagher’s office block on top of Vathouse no. 7 on Crane Street gets off particularly lightly IMO.

The planner’s report doesn’t mention the narrowness of Crane Street, except to note that the proposed widening of the footpaths might be a bit tricky. The report states that ‘The stepping back of the profile from Thomas Street would protect the visual amenities of the streetscape and those of the adjoining protected structures.’ I have to say I disagree with that. It was quite correctly pointed out by notjim, earlier in this thread, that several of the existing Guinness buildings already ‘loom’ out quite successfully over the streetscape of Thomas St. The proposed redevelopment of Vathouse no. 7 clearly looms out above Crane Street and Rainsford Street, and if this bold design approach has validity on these narrow streets, (which it possibly does) then to abandon this approach for the narrow frontage that addresses the main thoroughfare of Thomas Street, is a denial of that architectural strategy and seriously compromises the integrity of the design.

The planner’s report also states that ‘The design treatment of the additional floors is contemporary in form, detailed in glass and aluminium and iroko panelling, bounded by continuous balconies at each level’. It would be pedantic to disagree with that assessment, but it is a sobering thought that a structure that so closely resembles Paxton’s Crystal Palace of 1856?, could come to be regarded as ‘contemporary’ in 2008.

The case is notable in a couple of other ways:

1.

2.

The phrase rush to judgement comes to mind.

The other development pictured above, for the ‘Windmill site’, (Reg. no. 1712/08) got a pretty favourable review on this thread, from what I recall. This application (by HKR) was handled by a different planning officer and the planner’s report appears, to me, to be a bit more insightful. The only blind spot in the report is the absense of any mention of the high profile blank wall that will appear over the rooftops of IAWS, when looking west on Thomas Street. Notice how a phantom tree appears in the render to soften this particular junction!

The report praises the ‘unashamedly modern’ design approach, the ‘minimalist and uncluttered elevational treatment’, and the ‘vertical rather than horizontal emphasis’. In respect of the relationship with IAWS, the report concludes that ‘. . . despite being higher . . (the proposed block A) . . presents a lightweight appearance which is not unduly overbearing.’

Both planning decisions repeatedly quote the densification strategy in the draft ‘Maximising the City’s Potential‘ with the implication that the guideline of ‘heights of up to eight storeys in the city centre‘ may have already become the new benchmark. Most people would probably go along with this, but there is a danger that we will just end up replacing our present ‘gap toothed’ streetscapes of derelict sites interspersed among four storey structures with a new ‘gap toothed’ streetscape of occassional retained four storey structures interspersed amongst an otherwise uniform eight storey ensemble.

@gunter wrote:

Both planning decisions repeatedly quote the densification strategy in the draft ‘Maximising the City’s Potential’

Not only has this not yet been adopted, it is now being referred to as a ‘discussion document’ by DCC itself, downgraded from the original status as a ‘draft strategy’. But as I suspected, none of this matters a whit- the Council is just ploughing on with this worthless piece of crap ‘strategy’ regardless of the rubbishing it has received almost across the board.

@ctesiphon wrote:

Not only has this not yet been adopted, it is now being referred to as a ‘discussion document’ by DCC itself, downgraded from the original status as a ‘draft strategy’. But as I suspected, none of this matters a whit- the Council is just ploughing on with this worthless piece of crap ‘strategy’ regardless of the rubbishing it has received almost across the board.

The Windmill site report (Reg. no. 1712/08) refers to the said ‘worthless piece of crap’ as: ‘the current (draft) strategy on building heights in Dublin City, ‘Maximising the City’s Potential‘, and goes on to state that this document ‘allows for heights of up to eight storeys in the city centre’, and that the proposed heights are in keeping with this. In case that’s not enough, it adds: ‘The site is also close to the Heuston area, which is identifed as a cluster for higher buildings’.

The Crane Street Report (Reg. no. 1840/08) refers to your ‘wpc’ as ‘A discussion document ‘Maximising the City’s Potential: A strategy for Intensification and Change’. It notes that this document was published in Dec. ’07 and is ‘an elaboration of the thinking already articulated in the DEGW Report of 2000, ‘Managing Intensification and Change: A Strategy for Dublin Building Height’. The report goes on to acknowledge that while ‘. . this is a discussion document at present, it provides a coherent context in which to consider the current proposal’.

A person would be tempted to suggest that the current Dublin City Development Plan 2005 – 2011 might offer a more ‘coherent context’ in which the planning authority might conduct it’s business, but then that would imply that everyone has to sing from the same hymn sheet and there wouldn’t be much scope for guitar solos then!

I meant to post this up earlier, it’s a copy of the current (second) application for the Digital Hub site. This went for Additional Information in December, so it’s probably due back in any day now. I think the tallest building now is 30 storeys (down from 52 in the first application) but possibly the most bizarre aspect of the proposal isn’t the cluster of glass towers, but the elevation treatment to Thomas Street.

Part of the AI is a request to both, explain what we’re supposed to be looking at and, also to justify this very strange, apparently blank, brick wall treatment. That should make interesting reading. The other odd aspect of the proposal is (or appears to be) a wide, north facing arcade running behind the length of the Thomas Street frontage at ground level cutting trrough all new builds and protected structures in it’s way!

For orientation purposes, no. 19 Thomas Street is pretty much in the centre of the drawing, with the old library (or 4 out of the 5 bays of it) a bit to the left of that, with half of St. Catherine’s Church visible further to the left. The right hand margin of the drawing would be Crane Street. The tall arch in the centre right is the entrace to a proposed new stepped ‘street’ which rises up to the summit of a 4 storey ‘podium’, and then back down to Rainsford Street to the south. As an indication of how confused the Planning Office was with these drawings, one of the questions they’ve asked is ‘is it intended that the new north / south street be vehicular?’, which unless we’re talking about another remake of ‘The Italian Job’ seems possibly unlikely.

Gunter,
“Re the Fountain Bar. I have some shots of that corner, I just can’t quite locate them at the moment. We are talking about the pub right on the corner, not the one, now called ‘The Tram’ on the Protestant church side. Coming from Thomas Street there were two properties facing the ‘fountain’, a pub on the left and a bookies on the right (the Bow Lane corner). “
That’s right my grandfather used to own this bar at least 40 to fifty years ago and now it’s long gone for the LUAS. Any pics would be appreciated. Thanks

If any further proof was needed that the property developers of ireland had lost the run of themselves, that proposal is it.

Believe it or not the first one was even funnier.

mabye the blank walls are because they moved the carpark up from the underground???

just a guess…

I noticed on the way home this evening that number 29 (Martins Butchers at the corner of Catherine’s Lane) is cordoned off and a very large skip is sitting outside the building. Is something due to happen there or is the building just falling down?

Pic taken from a post by Devin earlier on this thread:

@Sarsfield wrote:

I noticed on the way home this evening that number 29 (Martins Butchers at the corner of Catherine’s Lane) is cordoned off and a very large skip is sitting outside the building. Is something due to happen there or is the building just falling down?

I saw that skip too. I think it may be just a bit of renovation, there was a shoot from one of the upper floor windows when I went by. The building has looked vacant for a good while now, I think the butchers has been closed for at least three or four years.

On an unrelated matter, did anyone notice the article in the Irish Times on Saturday indicating that an announcement about the probable closure and re-location of all, or most, of the Guinness operation is imminent? It mentions that the ‘. . determination of Irish Rail to tunnel under the brewery to build an interconnector between Heuston and Connolly stations . . has influenced the decision’. ‘Diageo intends to establish a new brewery on a greenfield site at Grange Castle near Clondalkin’! The new facility would replace not only James’s Gate, but also the Harp plant in Dundalk and the Smithwick’s brewery in Kilkenny as well.

The Guinness holding in Dublin is vast and as it sits between the ‘Heuston high rise cluster’ and the ‘Digital Hub’ / ‘Knowledge Axis potential location for high rise cluster’, you suspect that the model makers will be buying in bulk supplies of balsa wood and perspex.

On a serious note, if this was any other city in the world, the presentation of an urban challenge / opportunity like this would immediatly result in the commissioning of an architectural competition to develop a master plan to ensure that full advantage is taken of a once in a hundred years opportunity like this. Personally, I hope that whatever emerges in the coming months, Diageo are persuaded to retain a meaningful Guinness presence on their core site on the south side of James Street. 250 years of heritage can’t just be replaced by a visitor centre.

Sorry about the poor graphics on the map.

Future of St James’s Gate brewery in doubt
Thursday, 8 May 2008 17:03

Diageo says it will make an announcement tomorrow on the future of its brewing operations in Ireland including the historic Guinness brewery at St James’s Gate.

It has been anticipated for some time that the company plans to consolidate its operations in Ireland into a new green-field site.

Diageo Chief Executive Paul Walsh is to fly to Dublin for a news conference at St James’s Gate tomorrow morning.

He will give the results of a review of its brewing operations.

A company spokesman said there will be a significant announcement at the news conference.

It is widely anticipated that a new site in Clondalkin will be used for brewing operations, with a possible closure of plants in Dublin, Waterford, Kilkenny and Dundalk.

2,500 people are employed in total with 800 employed in Diageo’s brewing operation, which also manufacturers Smithwicks, Kilkenny and Harp.

A SIPTU spokesman said they expected to be briefed tomorrow.

International master plan competition would do this joint the world of good…

as well as material and style planning overlays

and extending bond st/island st and the rest…

Now if the DCC could buy just a little bit of the northern site and give it to some TCD, NCAD and DIT joint not-for-profit to build post-graduate accommodation, now then we could have a knowledge quarter, the cool creative quarter we lack!

notjim:

A ‘Knowledge Quarter’ and a ‘Creative Quarter’! Pretty soon we’re going to have more quarters than a Vegas slot machine. I think you’ll find that the ‘Knowledge’ one is an ‘Axis’ anyway, which is like a quarter, but stretched out.

Ok ok ok, I just wrote just in case someone from DCC reads the thread and bing, a little jargon light lights up and we get the graduate accommodation: we need the graduates to start living in graduate accommodation so that they stop working 9 till 5 and the college authorities seem sort of blind to this maybe because they didn’t spend enough of their careers in proper universities; take for eg the sale of 4 and 5 Forster Place which could have held oh a score of graduates, it could of been special accommodation for something-something award holders. Anyway, re the creative quarter, it was worth a try but I was rumbled.

So surprisingly they are going to continue brewing porter at James Gate for consumption on these islands with a new brewery to be build in or around Dublin for Harp, Kilkenny, Guinness for export beyond the archipelago and so on. Some of the current site will be sold. Dundalk and Kilkenny breweries to shut.

the areas marked in red are to be retained – the remainder to be developed

This is the opposite of what I was expecting.

Not much chance of getting any new streets going north – south from the river to James’s Street, or a nice diagonal from Heuston to Thomas Street.

Why must everything be so much less than you hoped for?

@gunter wrote:

This is the opposite of what I was expecting.

Not much chance of getting any new streets going north – south from the river to James’s Street, or a nice diagonal from Heuston to Thomas Street.

Why must everything be so much less than you hoped for?

+ 1

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0509/breaking2.htm

@hutton wrote:

+ 1

Do you have a ‘+1’ key on your keyboard these days, hutton? 😀

Cant believe you’re surprised about this – the river frontage is the most underdeveloped (and also most desirable) part of the site

@ctesiphon wrote:

Do you have a ‘+1’ key on your keyboard these days, hutton? 😀

+ 1 :p

@Rory W wrote:

Cant believe you’re surprised about this – the river frontage is the most underdeveloped (and also most desirable) part of the site

The surpise (to me) is that the sell off includes all of the the core Guinness properties to the south of James’s St. (except the Storehouse and the actual gate at James’s Gate) and also, that it includes just the northern half of the vast holdings to the north of James’s street.

I was expecting they would retain some kind of token brewery on the original site and sell off everything else, including all of the northern site.

I agree with you that the Victoria Quay frontage is probably the prime real estate out of the whole package, but to have a modern brewery / chemical plant (as characterised elsewhere) on the high ground to the south and not to have the inter-connectivity north/south from the river to James’s Street, certainly surprises me. You probably saw this coming.

Looks to me like an amazing urban ‘opportunity’ either way, lack of potential grands boulevards aside. However, it is a brewery – what about the smells?; the ripe smell of malted barley (or whatever) is very evocative occasionally, but living and working right on top of it?

@hutton wrote:

+ 1 :p

Now I have a vision of a keyboard, probably like a phone keypad, with just a ‘+1’ key and the full range of smileys! :confused::D:o

😉

OT: Aren’t most of the better buildings (PSs) in the southern part? It’s odd to embrace a constraint like that when the more straightforward option seems also to be the better one from a redevelopment / city point of view.

Hmmm, it is a real shame that the riverside portion of the site won’t have any connectivity with James St. It would have been much better from an urban perspective to have concentrated all the Guinness activity south of James St. yet I can see why they didn’t – the most modern sections of the brewery, the power plant and most of the current production is there in the section immediately North of James St. already…
I wonder would there be any way of running a public route through it – whether an elevated walkway or an actual street where the machinery and production lines could bridge across dramatically (im thinking a modern day version of Shad Thames if anyone knows it) – it could become quite an attraction in it’s own right, the ability to walk right through the middle of the Guinness plant, with bars and cafes enlivening the public level at certain points – plus it would help the connectivity of the new riverside quarter….

Heres a pic of Shad Thames, one of my favourite places in London

I’d imagine any version passing through the Guinness plant would be more like something from a sci-fi movie but you get the idea!

like this?

Heh- I was just thinking of Hugh Ferriss and Antonio Sant’Elia, but Metropolis is better yet!

(PS Not disparaging the idea, BTH- if the land stays in service, something like your suggestion could make a big difference, and the fall from south to north has potential for changes of level etc. [though the last thing we need is another BTs car park].)

@gunter wrote:

possibly the most bizarre aspect of the proposal isn’t the cluster of glass towers, but the elevation treatment to Thomas Street.

Regarding the latest De Blacam & Meagher proposal – what is going on there!? Bizarre isn’t the word for that street elevation and going for the mega towers again (even if chopped back a bit) seems a bit crazy when they were so comprehensively rejected the last time round.
In honesty I actually think the site could handle the high rises with the Guinness sites and the digital hub site also particularly suitable to create a genuine cluster of tall buildings within a strongly defined area. The approach of clustering taken here is so much more dynamic and interesting than the usual agglomeration of mid rise lumps with their “landmark” tower popping up as proposed at Heuston Gate and being built over at the Point. A high rise district interspersed with the historic structures of the Guinness site and the digital hub could be a very interesting piece of city – I’m thinking a bit like a minature version of parts of Manhattan or Chicago – and I cant really think of a better place for it to happen than here since the Docklands are already lost to the march of the mid rise…

Notjim, ctesiphon – you’ve read my mind! 😉

I actually think it could be a runner, but I’d worry that since Diageo will ultimately run this site as their tourist trap “GuinnessWorld” they’d end up charging people to walk through!

The decision was exactly how imagined it would be (he says after the event) – centralising around the existing concentrated core of brewing/manufacturing facilities to the south of James’s Street and ditching the rest.

Nonetheless I would imagine there are many opportunites in the reordering for the creation of a new street or right of way to the river from James’s Street, remembering that the upheavals will no doubt also affect the retained operations and their buildings in some shape or form. DCC could also make new applications for the retained Guinness site dependant on a right of way being opened. In any event I would imagine it to be in Guinness’s interests to do so – they may well open a form of factory tour as part of the scheme, bussed over from Storehouse, while the desirability of sites along the quays would be much boosted by improved permeability. Many possibilities.

Apologies if the below overlaps with the Dutch Billy thread – hard to know which one to drop it into…

Moving back eastwards, one of the most fascinating buildings on Thomas Street is Foley’s Pharmacy at No. 55, almost opposite SS. Augustine and John.
Instantly you can tell there’s something ‘up’ 🙂

What makes it so important, and as far as I’m aware completely unique on Thomas Street, is its retention of extremely early Georgian brickwork and original small window opes. It is certainly the oldest facade to survive in its original condition without major alteration such as render or paint additions, and probably the oldest full stop.

What makes it of special interest is the three layers to the building from different periods: an early 18th century lower facade and substructure, a mid-19th century third floor addition and two-over-two sash windows (in themselves relatively uncommon), and an early 20th century shopfront. Indeed it would appear even the attic addition was later refaced in red rather than yellow stock brick.

It’s entirely possible this building is a Dutch Billy with its gable chopped off and built up, and if so would probably make its facade one of the best, if not the best surviving in the entire city.

Here is its roof form to the rear; the 19th century additions give it a deceptively substantial modern appearance.

However what makes this property of outstanding significance in the wider city is its breathtaking array of early sash windows to the side elevation. Just look at those glazing bars!

Absolutely incredible survivors. The significance of such an array of early sashes cannot be underestimated.

Not to mention early crown glass. This can all easily be seen from the adjacent alleyway.

Diminutive little four-over-four windows also survive abutting the neighbouring building over the alley (visible above).

It can be difficult to think of this as a Dutch Billy given the ‘modern’ array of windows to this side elevation, however the adjoining plot (occupied by the white building in the first picture) was only built over a wide laneway – even roadway – in the 19th century. The right of way was maintained as a narrow alleyway characteristic of Thomas Street. So this was orginally a more significant elevation for the house.

Without question one of the most important domestic-scale buildings to the west of the city.

Another possible candidate for Billy status is this wonderful two-bay curiosity a little further east at the juntion with Meath Street.

Oooh the possibilites…

Alas around the back is so consumed with modern housing and apartments that it’s impossible to view the rear on location. However this aerial perspective gives a vague idea of what’s going on behind. There appears to be a single window/ope of sorts to the centre of the top floor. The position of the roof halfway between the windows and parapet top is suggestive of the building being of two storeys originally.

Graham: That cute little pharmacy at 55 Thomas Street, always looked like a former ‘Dutch Billy’ to me because of the low floor to ceiling heights and the small equal size of the windows on first and second floor, but, when they rebuilt the top storey, (which was only 5 or 6 years ago) they followed old 19th century photographs that showed a fourth floor with a flat parapet and the same window arrangement here as on the floors below.

Oddly enough, the closer you get into the original city centre, the less sure you can be that the houses were ‘Dutch Billys’. We see this in the Joseph Tudor print of College Green (what thread was that on?) that the ‘Billys’ were all concentrated down at the College end of the street and older, smaller, simpler, triangular gabled houses predominated further west towards the medieval city. A good many, centrally located, houses probably skipped the whole ‘Billy’ thing and went straight from 17th century triangular gable to flat parapet Georgian by the second half of the 18th century. The same is true of many houses on the arterial routes into town, like anything that shows up on Speed’s map of 1610. It’s on the new streets, laid out after the 1670s, and for the bones of half a century, or more, that ‘Billys’ were the only show in town.

I remember being perplexed by a memorial of a deed to a house on Francis Street, which described the property as the house commonly known as ‘The Dutch House’ before I realized that Francis Street is shown fully developed on Speed’s map and a new ‘Dutch Billy’ here would have stood out very prominantly fully meriting this local label. On the other hand, it could have been just that some Dutch man lived in it!.

Sorry, I probably should have posted this on the ‘Dutch Billy’ thread.

@GrahamH wrote:

What makes it so important, and as far as I’m aware completely unique on Thomas Street, is its retention of extremely early Georgian brickwork and original small window opes. It is certainly the oldest facade to survive in its original condition without major alteration such as render or paint additions, and probably the oldest full stop.

What makes it of special interest is the three layers to the building from different periods: an early 18th century lower facade and substructure, a mid-19th century third floor addition and two-over-two sash windows (in themselves relatively uncommon), and an early 20th century shopfront. Indeed it would appear even the attic addition was later refaced in red rather than yellow stock brick.

The top floor was only added in 2006.

And it was badly done. They insisted on bringing it up to the height of the circa 1800 building next door, resulting in awkward proportions. The top storey should have been smaller. Gunter, are you sure about the 19th century photographs. I remember the planning application and I don’t remember seeing any. I agree that many of the remaining early houses around the city were more likely to have been plain gable-fronted houses – much as we’d like to fantasise that they were curvilinear – because you always see more plain ones in the old prints, and of course Speed’s, where they are all plain.

The windows down the side lane are great.

@Devin wrote:

The top floor was only added in 2006. They insisted on bringing it up to the height of the circa 1800 building next door, resulting in awkward proportions. The top storey should have been smaller. Gunter, are you sure about the 19th century photographs. I remember the planning application and I don’t remember seeing any.

Devin: There was a exhibition of old photographs of Mullinahack and adjacent areas of Thomas St. and John’s Lane in the Photographic Centre in Temple Bar about five years ago (maybe less) and there was at least one, and possibly two, shots of this part of Thomas Street. From memory, they showed this house with a common parapet height to next door and three more windows pretty much as they rebuilt it. I remember it because I had always harboured notions that it was a Dutch Billy and I was disappointed that the planning application was just for another storey.

All the old photographs of High street and Patrick Street are the same, they all show tall, not particularly well proportioned, Georgian type houses where you’d half expect to see much more interesting stuff.

Ah yes, got in briefly to see that exhibition. I just remember there were loads of unusual photos of parts of the city you don’t usually see in old photos, and I said I would have to come back for a better perusal then of course it was gone next time I looked!

Patrick Street never seems to have had any great quality from what you can see in old photos. High Street was perhaps a bit better from what I’ve seen. There was a good uniform early 19th century 4-storey terrace in front of St. Audoen’s (CoI) Church. The ground & 1st floors of the east-most house of this terrace is still standing as Murphy’s pram shop (though got it permission for demolition and replacement with a 5-storey glazed building a few yrs. ago).

What’s the story with this medieval wall?

What we see (through the archway of the Chadwick’s gate) is obviously the inside of a substantial medieval? structure with a line of corbels to carrry floor, or roof beams and several bricked up window opes.

I think there was some kind of monastry, or hospital, dedicated to St. John the Baptist, (which somehow was apparently not connected to the Knights Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem, up at Kilmainham) located somewhere around the start of Thomas Street, outside Newgate (Cornmarket).

Presumably this wall is a remnant of that monastry / hospital, but which part? Was it part of the church, or the refectory, or some other building. If this wall survived because it just got incorporated into a party wall between later houses, and then came back into view with the creation of the builder’s yard (Dublin Saw Mills) in the early 19th century, have the other houses on the street been surveyed to ascertain if there are other medieval remains hidden in the fabric of those house walls?

Presumably also the pub to the right of the Chadwick’s gate incorporates the ‘outer’ face of this wall, possibly with blocked up mullion windows, or other dateble architectural features.

Does anyone know if DCC, or anyone else, is on top of this situation? The recent planning application that Devin gave notice of earlier in this thread, is just three, or four houses west of this wall. You’d like to think that warning lights are flashing somewhere!

Chadwick’s wouldn’t be the most conscientious of heritage custodians, they bulldozed the oldest Presbiterian church in Dublin, in the late 80s or early 90s, if I recall.

Yes, and I recall a reference to there being part of a graveyard under there too. Again the aerial view (link below) comes in very handy here – you can see the extent of the wall and structures behind. This exactly shaped wall/building is also marked on Rocque’s map of 1756.

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCC&cp=swqd09gg96rz&style=o&lvl=2&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=29507579&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1

Just on the pharmacy building again at No. 55, I don’t quite understand the reasoning about the top storey. I presume this is the 19th century photograph you refer to, gunter, dated 1893.

Even though this shows it as being built up, it was of course very typical by that time for most gables to have been replaced on prominent streets. And clearly something had been replaced, or at the very least subtantially raised, in the 19th century using yellow brick which is still visible along the bottom and the right-hand side of the recent red brick rebuild.

Also I’m glad to note (after counting bricks :o) that the windows to the side elevation are precisely the same size as those of the front, so at least we know the side is contemporaneous with the front, and vice versa. Whereas by no means confirming this was a Billy, there’s every possibility that it was. Even being an early or just particularly old-fashioned Georgian makes it of great interest.

Graham: You’re quite right there about the Pharmacy, it could have been a ‘Billy’ with the top storey replaced. I missed the point that the black and white photograph didn’t discriminate between the yellow brick top and the red brick below. The window proportions and the spacing are too perfect for it not to have been a ‘Billy’.

If you put this one together with 20 Thomas St, 25 Aungier St. and one I spotted today on Bolton Street, the features, proportions and scale are almost identical.

That’s sub-group no. 1 sorted.

We still have a problem that the side elevation, even with the right window proportions, is constructed in yellow brick, or appears to be, behind all the grime. I went down there quite late last night to take a look and there was a horse standing in the lane! very atmospheric.

🙂

Yes it can be a bit like the Guinness Christmas ad down there at times – you often encounter horses silhouetted with their breath catching in the light down there…

Yes indeed the side elevation is of yellow brick, but it would appear to be orginal yellow brick as you can see the top storey was clearly replaced!

Wouldn’t you love to have a snoop around inside. The owners/tenants appear to be aware of the value of their building at least – so the history books on display in the window amongst vitamin tablets and photo processing would have you believe anyway.

It looks like this scheme for the Digital Hub has withered on the vine. It was sent for Additional Information on 5th December ’07, so the six months should have been up yesterday and there was no record of any submission today!

In general, developers usually consider an AI request to be the next best think to Planning Permission, so you don’t often see a scheme drop off the screen when it’s got that far.

I’m not sorry to see the back of it, the treatment of the frontage to Thomas Street was indefensible, and then there’s the issue of nos. 20 and 21.

What are the chances of seeing a new scheme that restores the streetscape here?

Isn’t delusion is so much nicer than reality?

@gunter wrote:

It looks like this scheme for the Digital Hub has withered on the vine. It was sent for Additional Information on 5th December ’07, so the six months should have been up yesterday and there was no record of any submission today!

The christmas planning hiatus wouldn’t have an effect on that timeline, I presume? Let’s hope not!

Hi, I haven’t posted before, but thought considering the tread you may be interested in seeing the new planning application and some photos sent recently to the corpo for the frawleys site. Hope the links work.

And a few of the images they have drawn up,

Current view

New View after development

Sorry about the quality of the shots, they were taken with my phone. I have a few more shots taken with my camera if anyone is interested in seeing them and a copy of most of the conservation and impact assessment for the site.

Personally I live locally and think this proposal its a bit of a disaster and if it proceeds it will fundamentally alter the character of the street.

I really dispair at this stage. Why does no one in authority give a shit about conservation of the the historic fabric of this city !

Good lord. If that gets through, I’m emigrating.

Where do you start with this? How do you begin to explain?

Are there people walking round with rocks in their heads?

To coin a few phrases:

+1

Dazed & confused

Vote No (but Yes in the next Europe treaty)

I know the counter argument to opposition to this Frawley’s proposal is: ‘Well these buildings are just going to rot away otherwise’ and ‘I’m not going to restore them just for you to look at’, but the developer is Liam Carroll and you can’t help feel that, given all the shite he foisted on us in the ’90s, he should actually make a gesture to the city by repairing some historic buildings that wouldn’t be profitable but would be very rewarding in terms of civic contribution to the city because of their location near St. Catherine’s Church and on Thomas Street which is of great historic interest and character. And he’s one who could actually do that because he’s got more money than he knows what to do with it, what with his corpoate takeovers and site assemblys.

is it too late to get these buildings added to the list of protected structures?

No, no, no and may I add again, no!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bloody tasteless idiots.

I did a survey on Hanbury Lane about 7 years ago. There was a small low basement area and the owner told me that just under the floor was the floor of a priory. Certainly there was much older stonework. What can anyone tell about the archaeology of this site?

GP: There is a site located between Earl Street South and Hanbury Lane that had planning permission for a small housing scheme about 1992, or so, and when the builder started digging his foundations, a medieval tiled floor turned up. I didn’t see it myself, but I heard about it when I was working for FAS in a office next door.

To the best of my knowledge the City Archaeologist (possibly then Andy Halpin) stopped all work on site. The story at the time was that the builder agreed to walk away if he was given a comparable site to develop by Dublin Corporation.

As far as I know, the gates to the site (on Earl St. South) have never been opened since. I think the general view was that the medieval tiling belonged to one on the ancilliary buildings of St. Thomas’s Court, which was a one of the monasteries on the outskirts of the city, with it’s church being the predecessor of the present St. Catherine’s Church on Thomas Street. There’s a Tuder era characteristic bird’s eye view of it in McCullough’s book (I think) and also an outline in Speed’s map of 1610.

I hadn’t heard of the basement you refer to, it sounds very interesting!

I don’t want to keep harping on about the differences between the appreciation of heritage in Dublin and the appreciation of heritage everywhere else, but I did a bit of delving into another monastic order, the Order of the Knights Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem, whose Irish headquarters was in Kilmainham and found the record to be essentially blank. There are a couple of written descriptions from medieval times, an inventory from the time of the dissolution, some other passing references and one map / graphic representation in the Down’s survey of 1650 and that’s it.

When I searched the record of the corresponding house in London, which was at Clerkenwell and which is almost equally bereft of extant built remains, I found that English Heritage and just completed a 20 year programme of excavations and archaeological investigation at the site and had published an impressive volume as a record of their findings.

But then again your medieval tiles are safe under the ground and we’d only be opening a can of worms if we went off investigating the likes of that.

I just realized GP, that was you having a go at me on the other thread.

Fair enough!

In responce 71gray’s post a couple of weeks back on the proposed demolition of Frawleys, I haven’t had a chance to look closely at the application, but I took a closer look at the existing buildings just to be sure of what were’re talking about here.

The site extends from no. 32 in the west to no. 36 in the east and all existing structures are intended to be demolished.

There can be little doubt that no. 32, recently a Chinese shop and previously ‘Fitzgeralds’, is a Georgian altered former twin ‘Dutch Billy’ in reasonably intact condition. Twin ‘Billys’ on standard width terrace plots appear to have been unique to Dublin and, includind this one, only five example remain, to my knowledge.

No. 33 is a very decent early Georgian sharing a unusual roof profile with the threatened three storey on James’s Street opposite the Fountain, pictured earlier in this thread.

Nos. 34 – 35 is the 1930s Art Deco wing of Frawleys with the unique ‘island’ shop window and quality tiling refered to by Devin.

No. 36 is the early 18th century, 5 bay, mansion house of the Quaker banker Fade, which although altered in the 30s with the removal of the original pitched roof, retains it’s front and back elevations with little alteration (except at street level) and probably a substantial portion of it’s main internal fabric.

The rear elevation of Fade’s house is even more indicative of it’s high status than the front, with the scale of the original central stairwell implied by the arrangement of the windows.

Notwithstanding the role of these structures in the streetscape, on their individual merits alone, these structures demand to be retained and conserved. Demolition should be completely out of the question here.

The rear of no. 32 showing the twin roofs and standard return that can only belong to a former twin ‘Billy’.

The rear of Frawley’s.

As always, acutely observed gunter.

Thanks for the pictures (taken from ‘that’ location ;)). I’ve been dying to get up there for ages to have a look at this lot; jumping to clear the boundary walls never quites cuts it (and makes one out to be quite the lunatic).

I looked at the pics before your text, and so am glad to concur with every point made. The central staircase plan is particularly evident with the grand townhouse. The interior is tantalising in this case given the scale of it – surely something survives. Stockrooms are often great for preserving features.

I’ve often dreaded to think what the Gilna 1960s building replaced. Buildings that were swept away then were often barely altered, and demolished precisely because they were in their original decayed condition. The other bizarre 1960s’-adapted Billies on Thomas Street are testament to this trend – just they escaped complete eradication. I have little doubt this scheme will not get through, on a number of grounds. There’s no cause for concern here.

The Corpo have uploaded pdf’s of the development, conservation report etc,,,

<a href="http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=3202/08&backURL=Search%20Criteria%20>%20http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=3202/08&backURL=Search%20Criteria%20>%20<a%20href='wphappsearchres.displayResultsURL?ResultID=1003896%26StartIndex=281%26SortOrder=APNID:asc%26DispResultsAs=WPHAPPSEARCHRES%26BackURL=Search%20Criteria‘>Search%20Results

71gray: Has somebody lodged a stiff objection to this, or we all just assuming that it’s too horrible and inappropriate a proposal to ever get planning permission?

Thanks for posting that link. I see where no. 32 Thomas Street (the probable early 18th century former twin ‘Dutch Billy’) is described as ‘ . . probably dates from the late 18th century’ . That’s on page 2 of the report, but by page 7, they’ve stated boldly that: ‘No. 32 Thomas Street is a mid 18th century . . . building’!

I don’t think they stressed themselves out too much in compiling this ‘Conservation & Impact Assessment’, they might as well have said ‘we haven’t a clue what these building are, but here’s a few photographs, make up your own mind!’

Hi Gunter, Currently I can see two objections, one from the owner of 37, his points concern the effect of the proposed development on his site. The second is from a group called “Liberties Preservation Group”, I have never heard of them personally, (they may well have come into existence to deal specifically with this) In a nutshell they have objected to the proposed height, arguing that the current buildings along the street are no higher then 4 stories, also,the insertion of a new structure out of sympathy into the recognised environment of Thomas street is unwelcome. They request that any new development be sympethic to the character and ambience of the area and that allowing this development would be precedent setting and ultimitly lead to other similar requests. I would be very suprised if An Taisc dont. I have a feeling that DeBlacham and Meagher may?

I intend to place a similar objection to the one above as a local resident along with a number of my neighbours. Apart from the very relevent points put forward above, I think the sheer scale and density of the development should be mentioned. None of the buildings on the Thomas Street side or Shane De Blacham’s builing on St Catherines Lane are higher then the parapet of St. Catherines Church. I feel that this has maintained the importance of the church as a local landmark. There are other local issues I would raise about the volume of car parking spaces propsed etc..

Any suggestions or thoughts would be appreciated.

Thanks for that.

I would say that there’s no case here for demolition here at all.

They’ve understated the value of the existing buildings big time. Also, unlike much of Thomas Street / James’s Street, the streetscape here is pretty intact, it needs a programme of sensitive conservation and re-use, not demolition and bland re-build.

What would deB+M have to complain about, that they didn’t get to demolish it themselves?

All, I’m adding my voice (and objection) to this…but I want to highlight that the cutoff date for observations is TOMORROW, 16th July.

Please make your €20 ‘donation’ (maybe they’ll have enough to finally designate Thomas Street an ACA)

G’wan G’wan…..

….don’t leave it to someone else to do…

Crosbie gets go-ahead for ‘no star’ hotel

HARRY Crosbie has been granted planning permission to build a no-star hotel – where room rates will start at €50 – to the rear of the Vicar Street music venue in Dublin’s Liberties.

In March, Crosbie’s plan for an eight-storey 180-bedroom hotel was turned down by Dublin City Council because of its height, massing and proximity to properties on Vicar Street, which it said would “seriously injure” and overshadow residential amenities and other developments in the area.

This time around he was looking to build an eight-storey hotel but on a smaller scale with 1,285sq m (13,832sq ft) of space. He is seeking to build 14 more hotel bedrooms than the last application at 194 but, while he is proposing a creative art studio, he is no longer proposing a workshop/ rehearsal space on the ground floor.

Crosbie has said the hotel will be almost “monastic” in terms of its facilities and will not seek a star rating from Bord Fáilte because it will be “too basic to have any stars”.

The most lavish aspect of the development will be the €1 million spent on art works by young Irish artists for the bedrooms. A freight lift will bring patrons to the residents’ bar, restaurant and check-in area in a “big glass box on top of the hotel” with city views.

it’ll be fierce handy fior touring bands playing Vicar st, especially the less paid support bands. In my old muscial days we used to stay at Formula 1 hotels in the UK and the continent – basic as fuck but cheap as chips

great idea – now us folks in the sticks (sorry Greater Dublin Area) can go to a gig or a comedy show and stay in a cheap hotel afterwards with room rates half the priice of a taxi – top banana harry

@Smithfield Resi wrote:

All, I’m adding my voice (and objection) to this…but I want to highlight that the cutoff date for observations is TOMORROW, 16th July.

Please make your €20 ‘donation’ (maybe they’ll have enough to finally designate Thomas Street an ACA)

G’wan G’wan…..

….don’t leave it to someone else to do…

I just read the letters of objection to this planning application and it appears someone’s been taking liberties with some archiseek posts.

I suppose it saved some of us €20, so no real harm done.

On the other objections, there’s a short sharp one in from An Taisce, but unfortunately some of it’s impact is diminished by having some paragraphs relating to a different application inadvertently tacked onto the second page.

There’s another good objection in from ‘LIBERTIES AGAINST UNSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT’, which is nothing like as nutcase-y as you might have expected from an organisation with that kind of title . (Would it not be better to call the organisation ‘LIBERTIES FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT’)

In amongst several other objections that focus exclusively on the negative impact on neighbouring property / business interests, there one from neighbouring architectural practice, de Blacam & Meagher, who’s office block adjoins the site on St. Catherine’s Lane West. Unfortunately, only matters of self interest make it into this objection too, there’s not even a single sentence that could be interpreted as expressing the slightest disappointment, or disapproval, of the proposed demolition of the Thomas Street streetscape.

Unbelievably the case officer here appears to be Emma Deane again. Either, there’s more than one Emma Deane, or else someboby in DCC is stretching their resourses too thin. The rumours we’re hearing at the moment that the DCC Economic Development Unit are gung-ho for this scheme better prove to be unfounded. This is not a economic development issue, there’s plenty of development potential in the back areas of this site without bulldozing everything in sight.

Everyone knows Thomas Street needs a shot in the arm, it’s about how you administer that shot in the arm. If there’s anyone in DCC who thinks that a shot in the arm can still be administered by a butchered amputation, they need to be struck off.

I just read the letters of objection to this planning application and it appears someone’s been taking liberties with some archiseek posts.

I suppose it saved some of us €20, so no real harm done.

😮 sorry about that – under a bit of time pressure…didn’t think I could really give a reference in a planning obj.:o

There’s another good objection in from ‘LIBERTIES AGAINST UNSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT’, which is nothing like as nutcase-y as you might have expected from an organisation with that kind of title . (Would it not be better to call the organisation ‘LIBERTIES FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT’)

I’ll mention it to them – I met them at the last LAP consultation meeting…good point.

In amongst several other objections that focus exclusively on the negative impact on neighbouring property / business interests, there one from neighbouring architectural practice, de Blacam & Meagher, who’s office block adjoins the site on St. Catherine’s Lane West. Unfortunately, only matters of self interest make it into this objection too, there’s not even a single sentence that could be interpreted as expressing the slightest disappointment, or disapproval, of the proposed demolition of the Thomas Street streetscape.

Suprised given their involvement in the 1-3 Thomas Court development?

Incidentally there were 7 obj from the market traders that they never got in on time 🙁

Everyone knows Thomas Street needs a shot in the arm, it’s about how you administer that shot in the arm. If there’s anyone in DCC who thinks that a shot in the arm can still be administered by a butchered amputation, they need to be struck off.

ACA should stop the landbanking and dereliction – together with a decent LAP, I’d hope this would turn the Liberties around.

By the way the Protected Georgian next to the Clock pub just lost it’s roof and top floor – 🙁 more dereliction loss on Thomas Street.

The solitary appeal against the DCC grant of permission for the office block on top of Vat House no. 7 has apparently been withdrawn. Why would a person go to the bother and expense of appealing a planning decision and then change their mind a few weeks later, or am I being stupidly naive?

There was something of a consensus at the time that this proposal was in the brave, contrasting, contemporary category, but that stepping back behind 7 & 8 Thomas Street just rankles with me, it compromises the bravery and simplicity of the design in a half baked effort to ‘reduce it’s impact on the protected structures’.

The slightly worrying thing about this decision is that the permission establishes a plot ratio that the rest of the Digital Hub, whenever it comes back in, is likely to want to emulate, or better. The granting of permission for this development in isolation, and in advance of seeing a comprehensive masterplan for the rest of the Digital Hub site, would seem to be a shade reckless.

Vat House no. 7 from Crane Street.

The present view over the roof tops of Vat House no. 7 with the rear of the Digital Hub houses and St. Catherine’s Church on Thomas Street beyond.

@lunasa wrote:

No, no, no and may I add again, no!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bloody tasteless idiots.

I’m afraid it’s a ‘Maybe’

Dublin City Council decision on the Frawleys proposal: Additional Information

Not exactly the, expletive laden, brutal rejection I was hoping for.

They’re going to come back in next month with two report that say: ‘eh no, we couldn’t find anything’, and DCC are going to say: ‘ok, right then, here’s your planning permission. Btw, your planning contibutions will be €150,000, it’s been nice doing business with you’.

How the hell can they even consider this demolotion proposal with an ACA on the way. Bloody ridiculous. 😡

Wafer thin planner’s report, but you’ll be reassured to know that your objections, and those of the seven other objectors, were ‘ . . noted and have been taken into account in the assessment of this planning application’, all one and a quarter pages of it!

Tellingly, in the inter-departmental reports, the Economic Development Unit, had ‘no objection’ to the demolition of the structures.

Even leaving aside the issues of loss of historic fabric, the loss of early and rare house types, the rights and wrongs of knocking down structures in a pending Architectural Conservation Area, the loss of authentic urban grain, the loss of context to existing protected structures etc. etc., on pure economic development of the city grounds alone, this development is a backward step.

Thomas Street is a crucial link on Dublin’s primary tourist route. the Trinity/Guinness axis. Urban tourist don’t come back to cities that don’t respect and protect their heritage, everybody knows this. City break tourists aren’t stupid, they can tolerate a certain amount of mediocre new cityscape, if there’s a solid civic heritage basis to the city that they’re visiting, but if everytime they visit, they get to see less and less of the essence of the place, eventually they’re going to stop coming back.

This may not matter if the essence of a visit to Dublin is just an expensive booze-up in a Temple Bar pub, but pretty soon even these tourists are going to realize that they can have the same experience, a lot cheaper, by just going down to their own local plastc paddy Irish pub.

Why do we always set our sights so low? We could be one of the cultural capitals of Europe.

The Thomas Court building mentioned elsewhere recently awaits a DCC decision (Thomas Street & Thomas Court elevations above). There are 8 objections against it (Ref. 3328/08). Such a sensitive location. The Malton view of St. Catherine’s (below) – which has remained unchanged in such a long period – would be ruined.

This is not the place for a 7-storey building. You have your permission now to go up to that kind of height on Crane Street deBlacam & Meagher architects, but opposite St. Catherine’s Church is a different kettle of fish.

John Meagher is on record here as saying his practice were originally going to build a 2-storey building for their own offices around the corner in Hanbury Lane, but the DCC planners encouraged them to go higher (I’ll give you three guesses which planner told them to go higher!!). In any event the 5-storey building that was built fits quite comfortably into its site. It’s got those sedum (or whatever) plants hanging over the edge of the floors, which are all the rage now for planner-friendly ‘softening the visual weight’ of proposals. But a 7-storey building opposite the west end of St. Catherine’s Church is a different matter altogether …

I know it can be dangerous to put too much faith in old prints, but the Emmet execution print does show a good Dutch Billy and two fine triangular gabled houses, (all four storey) on the site. The detail on St. Catherine’s Church is very accurate and there is some early brickwork in the gable wall of the present two storey structures on the site, so it wouldn’t be much of a stretch of the imagination to see the existing structures as the surviving lower portion of the houses shown in this 1803 print.

I suspect they don’t mention that in their planning application.

Yeah, and there is more evidence to suggest they are very old structures in the form of windows: A couple of months ago, I was passing by and the billboards covering the first floor windows seen in the picture below were temporarily off – probably while being changed or something – and the windows are very old sashes, to my eye of the 1760s-1780s period (ie before the very slender glazing bars used thereafter). So yeah gunter, your hunch would be right. They’re almost certainly the remains of those houses in the Emmet print.

@GrahamH wrote:

The Digital Hub seems to be extraordinarilly fortunate in the number of their planning appellants who go on to change their minds!

Hot on the heels of the withdrawal of the third party appeal against the Crane Street glass top-up, the third party appeals against the P Elliot & Co. development on the Windmill site have now, apparently, been withdrawn.

As far as I can tell, there are two reasons why a third party appeal would be withdrawn.

I see, from the Digital Hub Newsletter, that a new planning application for the much anticipated residential component of the P. Elliot & Co. scheme on the Windmill site is now imminent.

In the interests of research, and in anticipation of a much needed winter sun break, I’ve made a decision, in principal, to appeal this application myself, irrespective of what it looks like. 😉

Knowing my luck, persuasion will probably come in the form of four heavies in balaclavas carrying baseball bats,

It will if the Cavan boyos in Elliotts get their hands on you

@gunter wrote:

Knowing my luck, persuasion will probably come in the form of four heavies in balaclavas carrying baseball bats,

Hurleys, Gunter, hurleys 😉

@hutton wrote:

Hurleys, Gunter, hurleys 😉

Hurleys? In Cavan? They might pelt you with handballs or set a Silver Band on you… But as long as you have good insurance with Quinn Direct, you should be fine. 😀

gunter- if they bring four heavies, you just need five. Keep me posted.

In the meantime, I’ll hold the poolside deckchairs, ja?

Thanks for all the concern.

I’ll try and take careful note of which timber sporting impliment is being utilized.

On a lighter note I think ‘Misery’ is on the box tonight,

. . . ouch!

Individuals who take appeals come under ferocious pressure to withdraw. Remember the original Gaiety Centre proposal? Residents’ appeals were dropping like flies …….. but one appeal remained in.

gunter, in relation to the withdrawals you mentioned, bear in mind, sometimes an appeal might be strategically taken, as a negotiating point.

I did wonder about that.

Some pictures of the College of Art now that the hoarding has finally come down.

The central arch of the old fire station seems to be the new entrance, replacing the old archway entrance with the blue gates to the right. The contemporary glazed link appears to be designed to be an exhibition space / front window with a meeting room? at first floor level and a studio? above.

Looks pretty sharp to me, only mild criticism would be that the zinc panel, instead of being a piece of vertical roofing, might have been some kind of giant display board for actual art, assuming they have any.

Spent six years of my life there, and that looks excellent – a really nice strip of buildings from the Johns Lane corner to the block after the old fire station.

@gunter wrote:

only mild criticism would be that the zinc panel, instead of being a piece of vertical roofing, might have been some kind of giant display board for actual art, assuming they have any.

Nice idea gunter, temporary artwork could still be mounted i reckon, good way for NCAD to say hello to the city … spring / summer / autumn / winter installations perhaps.

This a really nice contemporary infill on the street. It really looks well!

But pity about the tawdry conditions of some of the surrounding buildings on the rest of the street. Absolutely disgraceful considering we just came through a boom and this part of the city centre is still so neglected.

Gunter, the ground floor is indeed the new gallery and the glazed room above is a new staff room, with offices and lecture theatres in the top two floors of the old Fire Station building. It’s not not just a facade, either – the staircases and lifts etc. seem to be in a new section built on the other side. I think the archway will be reopened, though – it was apparently closed while the builders were frantically trying to finish the paving of the square inside before term started!

feather: I take it that the whole ‘NCAD may be moving to Belfield’ news story, from a couple of years ago, was just an elaborate bluff to get whoever was stalling on the funding for the new wing to get off the pot!

Nice piece of poker playing.

With NCAD anchored in Thomas Street for good, Guinness staying put, in one form or another, on James’ Street and the Digital Hub people apparently re-thinking their scorched earth strategy, we just need Danninger to start again from scratch with their Frawley’s site proposals and this great ancient thoroughfare could yet reclaim it’s place as one of Dublin’s premier streets.

A press release issued by DCC yesterday for the new Liberties LAP.

Press Release
Liberties Local Area Plan – on exhibition
1st October 2008
The Liberties draft Local Area Plan (LAP) is now out for public consultation. The vision is to make the Liberties a great place to live, work and visit. The draft plan will be on display in the Civic Offices, Wood Quay and the Digital Exchange, Crane Street until 11th November.
“The plan represents the culmination of an 18 month process involving workshops and meetings with Liberties residents, businesses and other stakeholders who have contributed to developing a vision and strategy for regenerating this historic 135 hectare area to the west of the city centre (extending from the south bank of the Liffey to Newmarket (off Cork St) and from Patrick Street to St James’s Hospital).” Says Evelyn Hanlon Liberties Regeneration Project Manager, Dublin City Council. “There will presentations and workshops throughout this period with a public forum on 28th October in Crane Street.
“Members of the public can make submissions on the plan until 11th November, after which a report will go to Dublin City Councillors for their consideration. The draft plan will go to Council early in the New Year for adoption. The councillors may decide to amend the plan and if there are significant changes the plan will go on display again.” says Margaret Coyle, planner in Dublin City Council.
“The draft LAP identifies proposals for a number of new community facilities that developers will be required to help provide including:
• a new civic centre with a library, arts area, meeting rooms and a primary care centre at Pimlico
• a new swimming pool on the Diageo Lands
• all weather pitches and extended gym facilities
• a contemplative public garden including an archaeological site (Abbey of St Thomas) on Earl Street
• and three new public parks – (Pimlico, Bridgefoot St and one near Victoria Quays).”
“The number of people living in the Liberties has already risen well above the 13,157 counted in the 2006 census and the development of a number of large brownfield sites could swell the total to between 19,000 – 20,000 over the next 10 – 15 years The LAP includes proposals for developing a high quality network of pedestrian routes, public squares and parks designed to improve the quality of life for the existing Liberties community and for the additional population the city hopes the area will accommodate as part of its strategy to avoid urban sprawl. In placing such a major emphasis on the quality of the public realm the City Council is seeking to enrich opportunities for public life in the city.” says Dick Gleeson, Dublin City Planner.
“As well as being famous for its markets and people, the Liberties is rich in archaeological and architectural heritage (residential, ecclesiastical and industrial). The plan includes measures to safeguard the built heritage and encourages innovative re-use of protected structures for 21st century requirements and advocates the designation of the eastern part of the Liberties, including the Coombe and Thomas Street, as an Architectural Conservation Area (ACA).” Says Mary Teehan, Dublin Civic Trust who prepared the ACA for the council.
“The draft plan addresses the controversial issue of heights by identifying key views in and out of the area which must be protected. The plan sets an upper limit of 8 storeys except for the Digital Hub and Grand Canal Harbour where some additional height is considered appropriate where it can be integrated with the historical high shoulder of the Guinness brewery structures. A case for height near Heuston, as part of a cohesive urban design for Heuston’s redevelopment is also made. The draft plan sets out urban objectives for each character area which in some cases further restricts height.” says Clare San Martin, John Thompson and Partners who along with Metropolitan Workshops were consultants in the preparation of the plan.
A new rail interconnector station at Heuston is proposed by Iarnrod Eireann connecting Connolly via a station at Christchurch. The route is shown in the draft plan. The RPA have also identified a number of route options for Luas through the Liberties. “The one that the local community and council prefer would see the restoration of a tram route down Thomas Street to Stephen’s Green connecting up both the red and the green lines.” says Evelyn Hanlon Liberties Regeneration Project Manager, Dublin City Council.
“A biodiversity audit undertaken as part of the development of the draft LAP showed that 91% of the area is currently hard-surfaced and only 2% is given over to green spaces accessible to the public. The proposals will significantly address this deficit and promote biodiversity and environmental sustainability.” says Mairead Stack, Biodiversity Officer for Dublin City Council.
Dublin will gain a new inland quayside destination at Grand Canal Harbour (renamed St James’s Harbour) when the old harbour walls are revealed and water is reintroduced. A cluster of higher buildings will signify the presence of a new city destination on the skyline while at ground level the proposal will recreate the layout of the former harbour. “’Quality of architecture affects quality of life. It will be an essential throughout the implementation of this Plan that new architecture is clear, generous, appropriately scaled, positive to context and well made.’ Says Ali Grehan Dublin City Architect
A further benefit proposed by the draft plan is a 20% (316) increase in the quantity of social housing in the area. These new units will be spacious and of a high quality and will provide for families and people with disabilities. “ says Ciaran McNamara, Assistant City Manager for Housing Dublin City Council.
“The draft LAP aims to improve the economy of the area by supporting the development of the Liberties retail offer, street markets, and creative and knowledge based industries including digital media. The plan will support and exploit the presence of Digital Hub which has already 100 companies in the area and is likely to expand beyond its relatively small existing site area.” Says Michael Stubbs, Assistant City Manager, Planning Department. “Tourism is also important to the local economy with over 800,000 visitors to the Guinness Storehouse last year. The plan promotes the development of new hotels, cafes, bars and restaurants and designated routes for horse and carriage drivers from the area. The restoration of the historic Iveagh Market and the regeneration of Newmarket as a dynamic retail and performance space will help to put these traditional market venues back on the map. The draft plan also proposes the restoration of the Dutch Billy on Mill Street which is one of only a few remaining in Dublin.”
“The opening of the new NCAD gallery on Thomas St will bring an added cultural focus to the street. Thomas, Meath and Francis Streets which are all in the proposed ACA area will also benefit from substantial public realm improvements, in the case of Thomas Street these improvements will be in time for the 250th anniversary of Guinness in 2009.” Says Anne Graham, South Central Area Manager, Dublin City Council.
“In April this year Diageo announced their decision to rationalise their operations and release land for development. The draft LAP includes proposals for re-integrating these redevelopment sites, along Victoria Quays and around St James’s Gate into the wider city fabric. A new pedestrian bridge over the Liffey is proposed to link Victoria Quay on the south side with Croppy’s Acre on the north side. Various routes linking Digital Hub with Grangegorman will help promote synergies between these new knowledge economy magnets.” says Dick Gleeson, Dublin City Planner
“Another proposal is to create a high quality pedestrian promenade along the south bank of the river leading to Heuston. West bound traffic will be diverted down a new road running parallel to the river connecting up with Johns Road West, thus creating an enhanced setting for the fine 19th century façade of Heuston Station. The introduction of a car free zone at Heuston Square will allow this fine building designed by the architect Sancton Wood (1846) and based on an Italian palazzo to be properly appreciated.” Says Anne Graham, South Central Area Manager, Dublin City Council
“Funding for the proposals in the draft LAP will come from a number of different sources including proceeds from sale of some city council land, developers and central government grants.” says Evelyn Hanlon, Liberties Regeneration Project Manager
For more information see http://www.theliberties.ie or contact Evelyn Hanlon 0868560373 (evelyn.hanlon@dublincity.ie)

Some very good and welcome ideas..I particularly welcome the rejuvenation of Newmarket.

Of course on the same day the Times announced that DCC were substantially cutting back on a lot of publci domain improvement works to save money in light of budget cutbacks.

On the Frawley’s application, apart from the token archaeological response (discussed on the ‘Preservation by Record’ thread), the Additional Information requested by DCC hasn’t been submitted yet.

My hopes would not be high that any real investigation of the existing structures is going on, but in case there is, it might be useful to post up a board of 10, broadly comparable, Dublin ‘town house’ mansions from the relevant period.

(1) The Queen St. house c. 1695 (Francis Place) (2) Marrowbone Lane house, 1703; . . . . . . . .(3) 10 Mill Street, 1705?

(4) Ward’s Hill House, c. 1705 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(5) Molyneux House, Peter Street, c 1708? . . . . . . . . . . .(6) The Mansion House, c. 1710

(7) No. 1 Mount Brown, c. 1715? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(8) Ardee House, c 1720? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(9) Speaker Foster’s House, Molesworth St., c 1729

The Deanery House, Fishamble Street, c. 1730s

If the Christchurch Deanery, the work of Edward Lovett Pearse on Henrietta St and the arrival of Richard Cassells kicks off the full blown ‘Georgian’ town house mansion, then it’s somewhere within this pre-Georgian tradition that Fade’s house at 36 Thomas Street surely fits in.

It’s probably too simplistic to see the pre-Georgian tradition in the three phases suggested above:
1. The first batch of curvilinear gabled houses (1690 – 1710),
2. Some sort of delayed ‘Queen Ann’ interlude with dolls house break-fronts with lots of quoine & key stones, and relatively simple parallel hipped roof structures, and
3. The return to ‘Dutch’ gables with a preference for tripples, [Fosters and Ardee (probably)] in plainer brickwork without quoins or key stones.

Frawley’s has some recognisably mid-period features (the quoins and thin cills and suggested corner fireplaces), but it also has some potentially later features (the simple plan and wide central window above the main staircase on the rear elevation). Either way, the house definitely belongs in there somewhere.

Sorry, the pictures jumped around there a bit, but you get the general idea!

@StephenC wrote:

…The restoration of the historic Iveagh Market…

Does anyone know if that is just some stream-of-consciousness idea that DCC just thought of, or is there a more firm plan other than the current one, i.e. turfing out the existing traders, padlocking the gates and fostering dereliction?

Some fine buildings in those old photo’s. Didn’t they look really attractive, and quite charming. It’s such a pity they are all gone, replaced with inferior and uglier buildings in most cases.

There is a permission for redevelopment of the Iveagh Markets. Its quite comprehensive. Think it was all granted.

Another attempt P. Elliott & Co Ltd. at the Windmill site.
See planning notice 4733/08, just gone in the last week or two.

I don’t know about the residential blocks!

It looks like they’ve just stopped trying. What do you make of it Kilman?

The model from the south with the two (already permitted) office blocks fronting onto Thomas Street in the foreground. A new block on the left seems to overhang the back of the little Bank of Ireland building, in a slightly disturbing way.

The model from the east with that prominent blank wall of the permitted block highly visible above the IAWS building on the left. Deeper within the site a new, Damien Hirst, like ‘glass tank’ block looks interesting, especially if it’s going to contain pickled people, as the model suggests.

The model from the north, with the residential blocks looking a bit like the cartoon city from ‘Top Cat’.

On the one hand, I’m pleasantly supprised that it’s not over-scaled and over-bearing, but on the other hand, the dull, repetitive, elevations and the seemingly random stepping of the blocks that leaves bits of blank gable wall everywhere, hardly constitutes the inspirational new urban quarter that I thought we were being promised.

The Frawleys development (Reg. no. 3202/08) Additional Information was lodged on 8th Oct. (coincidently the last day we were talking about it).

The applicants, Danninger, have provided the ‘analysis’ of the existing structures asked for (including an archiseek photograph incidentally), but predictably the analysis has barely scratched the surface.

*pics originally posted by Devin*

No. 32 (the probable twin ‘Dutch Billy’) is still being passed off as a ‘later 18th century’ house. The ”double ‘A’ frame roof, at right angles to the street” is noted in the slender report, but the significance of this is not addressed in any way. The ‘later 18th century’ date is proposed solely on the basis that the corresponding house on Rocque’s map appears to incorporate a ‘carriage arch’, which the existing house doesn’t have.

As outstanding a cartographer as Rocque was, we simple can’t rely on that level of detail, Rocque routinely mixed up the left and right locations of returns, the locations of passageways and even the exact number of houses on a given section of streetscape. For a start, Rocque shows six houses here between Fade’s mansion (Frawleys) and the laneway at St. Catherine’s Church, when we know that there were seven. In any case the cutting of passageways through existing houses was a constant occurance throughout the period as the relative value of the workshops to the rear fluctuated in respect of the value of the shop unit on the street.

The survey drawings submitted are sketchy, but appear to indicate that the upper floor construction at no. 32 incorporates mid span transverse beams, which would be another indicator of early construction.

On no.36 (the Frawleys 5 bay) the Report concedes that: ”. . . the front facade under the render, the stone arch and the quoins and the first and second floor structure, including the corner fireplaces are probably . . . remaining vestiges of the early 18th century house built by Joseph Fade.”

The report speculates that there may have been a fourth storey, i.e. that a significant amount of original structure, and not just the original roof, has been lost, a suggestion which it doesn’t then offer any evidence to support!

Despite the acknowledgement in this Supplementary Report on Existing Historical Structures, that the terrace in question comprises the substantial body of an early 18th mansion, two other intact 18th century houses (even if under-played) and a 1940s commercial building with unique island window display feature, the redevelopment proposal carries on regardless.

Total demolition is still proposed, no second thoughts, it’s just that, now they know what they’re knocking down!

Unless some sick joke is being played, it would appear this evening that Dublin City Council has gone ahead and granted Planning Permission for the demolition of 32-36 Thomas Street (Frawleys and adjoining sites, Reg. no. 3202/08).

I’m not going to waste everyone time going back over what these houses are and what their significance is, if the people responsible for this decision are so empty headed that they can’t comprehend their own Development Plan, they’re not going to understand anything said here.

From what’s posted on the DCC web file, there’s nothing in the conditions to indicate that the Planning Office even agonized over this.

The archaeological condition is laughable: The developer is invited to ‘not demolish anything below ground floor level until a suitably qualified archaeologist is on site’, lest he disturb anything of significance, for f*@k sake.

*scenario: developer’s archaeologist contacts the city archaeologist: ”I think we’ve found the remains of an early 18th century mansion, yeh, it looks like it was still here up to f*^king yesterday” *

The ‘archaeology’ condition may be dripping in irony, but it’s the ‘conservation’ condition that probably takes the biscuit:

Apparently you can now ‘promote an understanding of architectural heritage’, by knocking down the actual buildings, so long as you keep a drawing and a few phoptographs of the buildings in a drawer. In this regard, I would strongly urge the Irish Archiectural Archive to publicly refuse to take possession of any material that would lend legitimacy to this wanton destruction of the city’s heritage.

Just can’t understand DCC planning office. Is it all about the development levies or what?

Surely ABP will put this right.

@JoePublic wrote:

Just can’t understand DCC planning office. Is it all about the development levies or what?

Surely ABP will put this right.

guys this really isnt on what are the options to getting this overturned?

Shocked that this got permission. Appeal Appeal Appeal. This is outrageous double-standards, propose an ACA in the Draft Local Area plan and then grant permission for this development. What are they thinking???

Edit: Just read the planners report.

The planner feels that this proposed development meets the objectives of the Draft Area Plan – the first objective he names is “Provide the sensitive refurbishment of historic buildings to a high standard” Is this a joke??

The development is acceptable as it provides an “continuous, active frontage”

See you at the oral hearing!

@Smithfield Resi wrote:

Shocked that this got permission. Appeal Appeal Appeal. This is outrageous double-standards, propose an ACA in the Draft Local Area plan and then grant permission for this development. What are they thinking???

Edit: Just read the planners report.

The planner feels that this proposed development meets the objectives of the Draft Area Plan – the first objective he names is “Provide the sensitive refurbishment of historic buildings to a high standard” Is this a joke??

The development is acceptable as it provides an “continuous, active frontage”

See you at the oral hearing!

When is the oral hearing likley to be held?

When is the oral hearing likley to be held?

🙂 Give me a chance….

They just granted permission – so 4 weeks for appeal, plus the inevitable long drag at ABP…

Watch this space.

I don’t know what other people think, but the anger that I felt about this on Friday, has turned to deep disappointment. I’m not especially concerned for the buildings themselves, which will, at the end of this process, not be coming down, whatever it takes, it’s the damage done to the image of Dublin City Council that’s going to take years to repair.

Most people involved in architecture and conservation in this city would have genuinely believed that days like this were behind us, that the people who make the decisions in Dublin City Council are now largely bright, well educated types who understand that heritage is a complex field and you can’t deal with it like a bouncer on a night club door looking for a name on a list, hidden layers, context and the subtleties of urban grain are part of the mix. The fact that 32 -36 Thomas Street are not on the ‘List of Protected Structures’, highlights inadequacies in the listing methodology, not any lack of intrinsic value in the structures themselves. In any case the house at no. 37 next door is a protected structure, as is St. Catherine’s Church, four door away to the west.

Even if no. 36 wasn’t the early 18th century mansion of the prominant Quaker banker Joseph Fade, and if no. 32 wasn’t one of only five former twin ‘Dutch Billys’ remaining in the city, this section of Thomas Street, with it’s interesting and varied facades and largely intact and reasonably well maintained commercial structures, who’s construction dates span at least three centuries, deserved to be retained and conserved for it’s streetscape qualities alone as the setting for the few structures on the street that are fortunate enough to have made it onto the List of Protected Structures.

Although nos. 32 and 33 could use some routine maintenance, unusually for cases like this, there is actually no dereliction involved here to assist the case for demolition and site clearance, unless you count a dereliction of duty on the part of Dublin City Council to live up to the lofty aspirations towards conserving the historic fabric of the city that abound in it’s own Development Plan.

If they had any sense of decency, Dublin City Council would take down their Liberties Area LAP exhibition (the one that swaggers all over their concourse area) and put it quietly away, out of sheer embarrassment.

Gunter – you need to visit the Art History Department in NCAD and talk to a few lecturers and get them going… point out the importance of the individual houses as well as the streetscape

talk to Paul Caffrey, say I told you, he’ll know someone

i’ll happily co-sign anything originating here as well.

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

Gunter – you need to visit the Art History Department in NCAD and talk to a few lecturers and get them going… point out the importance of the individual houses as well as the streetscape

talk to Paul Caffrey, say I told you, he’ll know someone

i’ll happily co-sign anything originating here as well.

Very well put Paul

@aj wrote:

When is the oral hearing likley to be held?

When you appeal, you can request an OH, but ABP is under no obligation to hold one. You must get your written appeal right, not presume you’ll have a second bite of the cherry.

Also- this is a disgraceful decision. At least this time I’m not surprised. So, um, thanks DCC for your consistency. My weak heart appreciates the effort.

[second thoughts]

*** *** ***

Also, as planning submissions are technically public documents, doesn’t that mean that lifting a photo from an Archiseek user is copyright infringement?

Where are you going with this ctesiphon?

Bringing back pilloring in public might be taking the heritage of Thomas Street a bit too far!

@gunter wrote:

I don’t know what other people think, but the anger that I felt about this on Friday, has turned to deep disappointment. I’m not especially concerned for the buildings themselves, which will, at the end of this process, not be coming down, whatever it takes, it’s the damage done to the image of Dublin City Council that’s going to take years to repair.

Most people involved in architecture and conservation in this city would have genuinely believed that days like this were behind us…
If they had any sense of decency, Dublin City Council would take down their Liberties Area LAP exhibition (the one that swaggers all over their concourse area) and put it quietly away, out of sheer embarrassment.

Agreed. This case is a further symptom of planning going backwards in this town. The city’s departments are regressing, not progressing… JC Decaux and dodgy rezoning maps, arbitrary high-rise zones proposed (when we all know nothing is going to get built for the foreseeable future – with dereliction being a likely outcome), minimal sanction applied to illegal demolishers (Terenure convent), a Georgian allowed to be whacked on the quays at Bridgefoot Street (how long is that site now likely to sit idle?), dereliction re-emerging and seemingly unchecked on streets such as Thomas and Aungier Streets, the ugly Robocop block erected beside City Hall (a floor taller than that originally permitted), etc, etc, etc I could write all night – the list goes on and on and on… (Notably all these junk decisions have come down the tracks in the last 5 years).

Point is, it has become very hard for one not to regard the planning department of limited use – but moreover that key elements/ workings within the planning department are actually the problem!

It’s no suprise that the city’s businesses and many others have lost faith in this and related departments. Remember how DCC officials initially tried to claim that 16 Moore Street was of no significance? It’s now a National Monument; perhaps The Thomas Street Mansion should, if it is over 300 years, be applied also for status as a Nat Mon?

Roll on the appeals to this – only the latest – of utterly desperate decisions. I for one would welcome an oral hearing at which the public maybe able to attend; it’s high time that ratepayers get a chance to view how their taxes are spent in advancing ridiculous agendas such is this.

Well done again to all who objected! DCC’s planning department have disgraced themselves once again; appeal, appeal, appeal!

@hutton wrote:

Remember how DCC officials initially tried to claim that 16 Moore Street was of no significance? It’s now a National Monument; perhaps The Thomas Street Mansion should, if it is over 300 years, be applied also for status as a Nat Mon?

That is a very good point hutton, wasn’t it back in the 1970s that the year 1700 was establish as the cut-off date for automatic National Monument designation. Was there something intrinsicly significant about 1700, or did they intend it to refer to structures that were, then, more than 270 years old? Surely there would be more logic attached to the latter interpretation!

I agree with you entirely that National Monument designation is arguably justified in the case of Joseph Fade’s mansion whichever side of even a 300 year old divide that it’s construction falls. Given their architectural, historical/political significance, their age and rarity, there is also a strong case that any surviving ‘Dutch Billy’ deserves automatic N.M. designation also.

Beyond educated guesses, we don’t know the exact date of construction of any of these structures, but it should not go without notice that the building owners have access to that information, which is invariably recorded in the title deeds.

In the future, it would be useful if every proposal for the demolition, or alteration, of a structure suspected of being more than, say, two hundred years old, should be required to be accompanied by copies of the title deeds for the valuable historical information that they contain.

I don’t normally like bankers, but Fade could yet be of some use to us, if we can flesh him out a bit as a historical figure and maybe even establish that he fuelled the early Georgian property boom with sub-prime speculative mortgage lending. Maybe one solution would be to go one step further than National Monument designation and actually nationalize his house 😉

@gunter wrote:

I don’t normally like bankers, but Fade could yet be of some use to us, if we can flesh him out a bit as a historical figure and maybe even establish that he fuelled the early Georgian property boom with sub-prime speculative mortgage lending. Maybe one solution would be to go one step further than National Monument designation and actually nationalize his house 😉

would make for a good angle for a journalist to write a story around

@gunter wrote:

That is a very good point hutton, wasn’t it back in the 1970s that the year 1700 was establish as the cut-off date for automatic National Monument designation. Was there something intrinsicly significant about 1700, or did they intend it to refer to structures that were, then, more than 270 years old? Surely there would be more logic attached to the latter interpretation!

I agree with you entirely that National Monument designation is arguably justified in the case of Joseph Fade’s mansion whichever side of even a 300 year old divide that it’s construction falls. Given their architectural, historical/political significance, their age and rarity, there is also a strong case that any surviving ‘Dutch Billy’ deserves automatic N.M. designation also.

Beyond educated guesses, we don’t know the exact date of construction of any of these structures, but it should not go without notice that the building owners have access to that information, which is invariably recorded in the title deeds.

In the future, it would be useful if every proposal for the demolition, or alteration, of a structure suspected of being more than, say, two hundred years old, should be required to be accompanied by copies of the title deeds for the valuable historical information that they contain.

I don’t normally like bankers, but Fade could yet be of some use to us, if we can flesh him out a bit as a historical figure and maybe even establish that he fuelled the early Georgian property boom with sub-prime speculative mortgage lending. Maybe one solution would be to go one step further than National Monument designation and actually nationalize his house 😉

You’re on the right track about the 300 year designation having emerged in connection with the 1970s – however it was actually the Wood Quay debacle (*cough, cough* The City Council previously known as “De Corpo”‘s shite antics there as well), though I understand that the amendment was actually introduced in 1994 when Michael D. Higgins brought it in when updating the Act so as to avoid another Wood Quay…

Love your idea of nationalising Fade’s house Lol 😀

Not to mention that in the current climate, there’s potentially a very good return to be made on its restoration too. Lest gunter’s earlier post on the early mansions of Dublin be forgotton, and having re-read the conservation report, I’d make a stab that this house was one of the earliest classical barn-type houses in the city with a flat parapet in the style of the early Mansion House, and did not feature gables. The sparsely placed but generously sized windows typical of early Henrietta Street and elsewhere further tends to favour this format. Its terraced positioning also probably precludes a Queen Anne dolls house-style dormer roof too. Disregarding any status as an early mansion, this design, if proven, would make the house rarer still as one of the first Georgian barns, if not indeed the first (being post-1714), and coincidentally last surviving in good nick, in the capital.

New cafe opened up on Thomas st this morning. They’ve done a nice job with the alteration. This and the NCAD development and the resulting removal of hoardings are very welcome. Hopefully more will follow.

Nowhere in the city has the destructive nature of hoarding and dereliction been more obvious.

There is a commitment in the LAP to preservation of the Dutch Billy at Newmarket (Mill St) !!

Selective reasoning for granting permission here or the lure of a €1m development levy?

My name it is Sean Dempsey, as Dublin as can be
Born hard and late in Pimlico, in a house that ceased to be.
By trade I was a cooper, lost out to redundancy.
Like my house that fell to progress, my trade’s a memory.

And I courted Peggy Dignan, as pretty as you please,
A rogue and child of Mary, from the rebel Liberties.

Am I right in assuming that if the buildings are demolished that a whole new development is put in their place, or are similar buildings constructed?

@MurrayMints wrote:

Am I right in assuming that if the buildings are demolished that a whole new development is put in their place, or are similar buildings constructed?

Such refreshing innocence!

We haven’t really focused on the proposed development largely because that isn’t really the issue. The issue is that the existing structures are too valuable, both intrinsicly and in terms of the streetscape they contribute to, to allow them to be demolished, no matter what the proposed replacement was.

For the record, 71gray posted images of the proposed development a few pages back and I don’t think it would be unfair to say that it is an office block, with replacement shops at street level, which the Planning Department appear to have seized upon as a reason to grant permission, as if the existing shops didn’t provide exactly the same ‘active street frontage’.

Developer’s view of proposed development, first posted by 71gray.

That is disgusting.

. . . but it has ‘active street frontage’ ! !

The application documents records that the architects had a pre-planning meeting with two planning officers, Claire Sheehan and Una Bagnal, yet when the application went in, the case officer is listed as Emma Deane! She requests Additional Information, and then when that additional information is submitted, two months later, the case officer has changed again to Sean Flahive, who’s stomping ground is listed as Finglas, Ballymun, Santry (part of), Whitehall, Glasnevin (part of) !

That’s no way to run a planning office.

Shite is too good a word to describe that mass. And gick is too quaint. Any suggestions, my mind’s gone numb.

Public Meeting? I hope to organise one anyway (and quick smart!) – any archiseekers attend this?

Some developments with Joseph Fade.

First of all there are two Joseph Fades, Quakers, prominent in Dublin in the early decades of the 18th century.

One is Joseph Fade, Linen Draper, son of James Fade and who, on the death of his father, came into possession of a veritable portfolio of property interests, mostly in the Patrick Street, Bride’s Alley area, but also including an establishment in Winetavern Street called ‘The Pelican’ and a newly built house on Stephen’s Green (on the 21st plot!). This is not our man however.

Our man is Joseph Fade, Merchant, who’s Will is dated 13 Feb. 1747. This Joseph Fade is a much bigger fish than Joseph Fade, Linen Draper, and his Will reads like the largesse of the best uncle ever. Distant relations are getting 500 quid a shot, Stephen’s Hospital gets £200 to endow a bed, the Bluecoat School gets £100, out of the blue. His sister Elizabeth Willcocks, widow, may have been fond of the jar, she only gets £100 and a silver tankard! A seamingly favourite niece, comes into possession of ‘my shell punch bowl and ladle ribbed with silver’, as well as the £300 that all the nieces got. Even his namesake, (the linen draper), above, gets £50, although he isn’t listed as a relative. Servants and employees are also well taken care of, and this is where we get a glimpse of his operation.

‘To Abraham Fuller and John Bell, clerks at the Glib Bank, £100 each.’

‘The Glib’ is that stretch of Thomas Street in front of Frawleys. It was the name given to the kerb side market here that survives today, selling toilet rolls and tee-shirts. So, in line with European wide urban traditions Fade’s Bank and Fade’s mansion house were one and the same building. Fade’s ‘Bank at the Glib’ was 36 Thomas Street, what we now know as Frawleys.

The main benificiary of Fade’s Will was John Dawson, who may have been his partner in the Bank. The Fade and Dawson families were heavily inter-married and it appears that the Fade name disappears from prominence with the death of Joseph, until later in the century when a relative, Mary, marries into minor nobility.

There seems to have been something of a Quaker community in the Thomas Street area, and we know that there was a Quaker Meeting House off Meath Street, the arched entrance to which survives today (just about).

We’ll have to dig up more stuff, I want there to be a Sedan chair and a portrait would be nice.

@gunter wrote:

‘To Abraham Fuller and John Bell, clerks at the Glib Bank, £100 each.’.

I think my Bank has been a bit glib recently 😀

@Rory W wrote:

I think my Bank has been a bit glib recently 😀

Moving swiftly on . . .

This is ‘The Glib’ market as depicted on Rocque’s map of 1757.

The interesting thing here is that the continuous kerb side market parts infront of no. 36, either in deference to the status of Fade’s mansion / banking operation, or because there may have been prominent railings to a front area here, or both. Rocque only rarely showed railings on his map, but there can be little doubt that the ground floor has been lowered at Frawleys, to street level, the railings and steps to the original front door removed, and the basement area filled in, or covered over, to make the property more retail friendly in the 19th century. The opening of the carriage archway through the left side of the facade would have started this process anyway, probably in the later 18th century.

What jumps out from the map is the obvious status of the house, it’s the only one in view with double width frontage and the only one with large garden and generous carriage access to the rear from Hanbury Lane.

The applicants, in their Additional Information submission, acknowledge that no. 36 is Joseph Fade’s early 18th century mansion, and their drawings clearly show that both the exterior and the interior of the upper floors and a good part of the ground floor is still intact, yet somehow they’ve managed to get planning permission handed to them to knock the whole thing down and it’s adjoining, equally valuable, streetscape!

What are we missing here?

Incredible decision, but not at all surprising. DCC have been on a rubber-stamping suicide run for the last couple of years. Scheme after scheme falls at appeal. To add to the examples posted here, there’ve been four more significant appeal overturnings of their decisions to grant permission in recent weeks, at:

Conygham Road Bus Garage
Usher’s Island
School Street (for the 2nd time)
Smithfield/Haymerket

(Incidentally, the latter three of those appeals were taken solely by An Taisce.)

So what this outrageous decision for Frawley’s, Thomas Street, shows is that they are not learning from appeal reviews of their decisions. Of course, you can never say what the outcome of any planning appeal will be, but, should this scheme be appealed, it is unlikely that An Bord Pleanala would ignore such aspects as the contribution of these buildings to the important 18th century church, St. Catherine’s, their intrinsic merit, the antiquity of Thomas Street etc. etc., as I think DCC have more or less done.

post deleted

@gunter wrote:

Such refreshing innocence!

We haven’t really focused on the proposed development largely because that isn’t really the issue. The issue is that the existing structures are too valuable, both intrinsicly and in terms of the streetscape they contribute to, to allow them to be demolished, no matter what the proposed replacement was.

For the record, 71gray posted images of the proposed development a few pages back and I don’t think it would be unfair to say that it is an office block, with replacement shops at street level, which the Planning Department appear to have seized upon as a reason to grant permission, as if the existing shops didn’t provide exactly the same ‘active street frontage’.

Developer’s view of proposed development, first posted by 71gray.

That yoke is an abomination on the street.The historical context (or whats left of it) of St. Catherines will be ruined!

cheers 4 that gunter, i actually flicked back thourgh all the pages just in case and i must of scrolled right by it!

It looks somehow very dated. Sort of 1990s.

[align=center:1duaplv9][/align:1duaplv9]One or two other things:

There’s a proposal to infill the derilect site at the corner of South Earl Street and Thomas Court – <a href="http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=4557/08&backURL=Search%20Criteria%20>%20Ref. 4557/08. It’s a small but somehow important site in the city, because of the location on Thomas Court, which the Inner Tangent road engineers never got. Marrowbone Lane had been widened, and so had Bridgefoot Street, but Thomas Court was the stone in the shoe of the Liberties leg of the Inner Tangent. So, happy to see a part of it will be reinstated, though the building looks a bit country.

Around the corner, there’s a proposal for a 5-storey building on Hanbury Lane, a sort of continuation of the deBlac & Meagher office – <a href="http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=4100/08&backURL=Search%20Criteria%20>%20Ref. 4100/08. If I were the residents of the little 2-storey artisan houses on the south side of the street, I don’t know if I’d be happy about a 5-storey elevation being run along the opposite side of the street.

[align=center:1duaplv9]- – – -[/align:1duaplv9]

@gunter wrote:

Also, this New Row proposal, posted on the ‘Dutch Billys’ thread, can be updated here, since Thomas Street is ‘main street’ of the Liberties. It’s been refused, for, amongst other things, failing “to protect and enhance the character and fabric of an historically significant area or the setting of the adjoining protected structure”. Decision: <a href="http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=3840/08&theTabNo=2&backURL=Search%20Criteria%20>%20Ref. 3840/08

@Devin wrote:

If I were the residents of the little 2-storey artisan houses on the south side of the street, I don’t know if I’d be that happy about a 5-storey elevation being run along the opposite side of the street.

That’s a valid point, Devin, but we have to acknowledge that, before the late 19th century, these streets were never two storey. The urban regression that went hand in hand with slum clearance produced several charming little terraces, but at a high price in terms of core density and urban coherence.

Back to Frawley’s for a minute.

The proposed front elevation to Thomas Street. The image isn’t very clear, but the development also rises up behind no. 37 (a Protected Structure) on the left, and behind the three surviving properties on the right, the middle one (no. 30) being also owned by Danninger.

Can someone explain to me how this proposal, which involves the complete demolition and redevelopment of nearly half of an entire city block, in a historic area littered with Protected Structures, was not deemed to be significant enough to bring it before the City Council Area Committee?

There may be different views on the value of city councillors, but the mechanism of referring significant planning applications to these monthly Area Committee meetings, at least ensures that these proposals come into the public gaze where a light can be shined on them and the public representatives’ reaction to them reported in the newspapers.

If someone wanted to steer a proposal like this through the planning process, under the radar, not presenting it to the Area Committee meeting would be the way to do it!

Three other points:

Site map with no. 30 (also owned by Danninger) outlined in blue.

How someone in Dublin City Council didn’t steer Danninger towards a redevelopment that incorporated and conserved the existing buildings (that they must have known were mostly early to mid 18th century), defies belief. Ten years ago, they made the developer of the ‘Blanchardstown Mill’ building, directly opposite Frawleys, retain the front facade and reinstate the building’s lop-sided roof. Three years ago, they made the owner of no. 131 (on the opposite corner with bridgefoot Street) build an entirely new pitched roof on top of his existing flat roof, even encorporating a plywood chimney!) to address the historical context of this section of Thomas Street, and then they come along now and, without a wimper, they permit the complete demolition of the oldest and most significant private buildings on the street.

Is it any wonder ordinary people are losing any respect they had for the Planning process?

I used to be around this neck of the woods…

proposals are shockers… mabye they could take a page out of the school st book of knowledge…

The Board inspector wrote a fairly damning report of that School St. scheme in the most recent refusal, missarchi.

Some more stuff:

Proposal for demolition of remaining structures at Nos. 61/62 Thomas Street and construction of new 7-storey glazed building – <a href="http://195.218.114.214/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=2067/08&backURL=Search%20Criteria%20>%20Ref. 2067/08. As can be seen in the proposed section, the top 3 floors would be set well back. Still, it somehow doesn’t have the ring of model infill for Thomas Street about it, does it?

The planning application for 61-62 Thomas Street in the quoted post above was withdrawn and there’s now a revised proposal in. Elevation here. Ref. is 4775/08.

Next door, this proposal for 63-64 Thomas Street was granted permission by DCC and is currently on its 4-week appeal window. Ref. 4300/08.

63 has a 1940s brick front, but when you go round the back the old brick tells you that it’s a historic building, probably 19th century. Apparently the very narrow plot is due to it being built over a former carraige arch/rear access lane, which can be seen on Rocque’s 1756 map.

The proposal is to demolish No. 63 and replace it with a contemporary building, retain No. 64, which is apparently an 18th century building with a circa 1900 brick facade, and put ….. frankly a bit of a jumble of roof accomodation on top of both.

Oh dear, more of the same. Yet more schemes that fail to acknowledge the existence of extant and perfectly renewable historic fabric. Why oh why can we not do what the Italians do in their cities, towns and villages, or countless other continental nations, and simply have respect for traditional materials, forms and scales. Why must there always be such an uncomfortable relationship here between old and new – shoehorning in modern development into sensitive historic sites with little more than token gestures such as parapet heights and the occasional matching window level – while the rest spews out the back, up on top, underground, and the facade faced in clumsily detailed elements which convey ignorance of surrounding structures and often decay or date within a matter or years. We just don’t seem to have an understanding, or want to have an understanding, of what makes cities click neatly together into a cohesive whole.

This site is in a proposed Architectural Conservation Area, a Key Historic Street as designated in the Development Plan, and is surrounded by Protected Structures, including forming the setting of a Pugin church of national significance. Substantial amounts of historic fabric survives on site, and is served by excellent source material for accurate reinstatement. There is no reason whatever why this can not and should not be done in this case. Indeed ignoring this is to handsomely reward the neglect of these buildings.

And far from coming from a fuddy duddy conservation perspective, I would very much like to see the curiousity that is the narrow building at No. 63 cleverly and deftly reinterpreted in a contempirary idiom. Alas a proposed facade comprised almost entirely of factory standard office glazing with clumsy opening parts does in no way do justice to this intriguing little site, nor the high aspirations for Thomas Street as a whole as the sophisticated grand thoroughfare of the western suburb of Dublin.

Nosey foreigner again, but I recall DCC did a good ‘demonstration project’ on a couple of near-derelict houses on Capel St a few years ago, which turned out very well. Surely the same is called for here, but many people need to lose their fear of what they dismiss as ‘pastiche’; intelligent, sensitive historicism (where appropriate) is not pastiche. Overscaled, insensitive ‘contemporary’ design is not good architecture.

It’s a great pity that these old buidings on this site in question were never maintained and painted, for they had fine old Victorian mouldings around the windows, etc… The current appalling condition that they are in is a disgrace. How they were ever allowed to partially demolish the buildings they way they did in that V shape (around the late 80’s or early 90’s I remember) and then stick a roof on the botched workmanship is absolutely unbelievable! Painting them dark grey/black to camouflage the horror did not work either!

‘Thomas Street Environmental Improvements’

This appears on the list of 19 projects which are now defered by Dublin City Council due to ‘budgetary restrictions’.

I can’t wait to find out what this was going to be!

Was it going to be ?:

I’m going to go with (c)

@johnglas wrote:

Nosey foreigner again, but I recall DCC did a good ‘demonstration project’ on a couple of near-derelict houses on Capel St a few years ago, which turned out very well. Surely the same is called for here, but many people need to lose their fear of what they dismiss as ‘pastiche’; intelligent, sensitive historicism (where appropriate) is not pastiche. Overscaled, insensitive ‘contemporary’ design is not good architecture.

DCC actually did commission a project for these buildings by Grainne Shaffrey if I remember. How I wonder where it could be….

@gunter wrote:

Was it going to be… Christmas lights for the giant Budelias growing… (potential legal challenge here; is a Budelia growing out of a Protected Structure, a Protected Budelia?)[/INDENT]

I’m going to go with (c)

Lol 😀

Too true! It is really disgraceful that that has been like that now for a no. of years!

Re study, You can commission all the studies you want – but what’s the point when the legal department seems ineffectual at basic enforcement/ resolution – Terenure convent, Dartmouth Square, 3 & 14 Henrietta Street (though at least now some very emergency repairs seem to be happeningthere – a decade on almost since the CPO process was initiated, and only after structural cracks emerged on the facade). What penalty, what enforcement, what disincentive? 🙁

Revolting art students!

This ugly mob, apparently led by an innocent looking granny, assembled on Thomas Street yesterday, but the I.T. doesn’t tell us the outcome of the protest, or give casualty figures.

Still, another notch on the bedpost of Thomas Street’s claim to the title of Dublin’s most significant street 😉

The Granny was late for the protest to stop the closure of Frawleys 😉

@alonso wrote:

The Granny was late for the protest to stop the closure of Frawleys 😉

Don’t worry, she’ll get her chance yet if the Bord grant an oral hearing 😀

Ha ha….or maybe she’s a rebellious student too! ..and the ringleader of the posse…..Ma Baker!

There’s a gas assortment of characters in that photo, checkout Biggles at the front and the Pirate of the Carribean behind him. A young Van Morrison (Astral Weeks) on the left beside Cyndi Lauper/Pink!

Reminds me of my art college days!

LOL biggles is really trying too hard to be a different art student

Reminder!!

Deadline for appeals on the Frawley’s demolition is Monday 1st Dec.

@Smithfield Resi wrote:

Deadline for appeals on the Frawley’s demolition is Monday 1st Dec.

As in tomorrow?

. . . that can’t be four weeks!

‘Fraid so – however you can have another 4 weeks if you want to put in an observation on ‘someone’ else’s appeal…

A couple of things.

One small step in the right direction with the Planning Officer’s report on 61-62 Thomas Street:

Why couldn’t they have given the Frawleys’ application to this case officer, instead of passing it round to all the guys with blank expressions, like a joint at a hippy fest?

On that Frawleys proposal, is there any other European city that would permit a historic streetscape like this to be demolished, for an office block, in 2009?

And again, leaving the streetscape issues aside, and forgetting for the moment the significance of the early Georgian at no. 33 and the much greater significance of Fade’s bank-house/mansion at no. 36, you look at that double roofscape of no. 32 and you just know that you’re looking at a rare surviving ‘twin Billy’. An actual surviving ‘twin Billy’, almost certainly one of Ireland few contributions to architecture, along with round towers and bee-hive huts! Are we insane?

Here’s a couple of pictures from 1996 of nos. 149 and 150 James Street just on the point that this stretch of the street was about to be demolished.

No. 149 was also a double roofed, probable, ‘twin Billy’, yet it was buldozed without a second thought!

To the best of my knowledge, we’re down to five of this house type at this stage!

If these houses were feckin Hump-backed whales, people would be out on the streets by now.

guys
some progress at least, I see DCC has An Bord P’s appeal up on their planning search.

Heres hoping that these buildings are going no where!

guys
some progress at least, I see DCC has An Bord P’s appeal up on their planning search.

Heres hoping that these buildings are going no where!

For €50 archiseekers can put in an observation on the appeal. Deadline is 6th Jan.
Make a Christmas present to Thomas St!!.:D

Locals kicking up a fuss but only about the yoof. From Area committee minutes:
That the Area Manager contact Danniger to request that they immediately secure their site at Frawleys/Hanbury Lane. Youth are accessing the site and causing a nuisance to locals. Could she please report to this Area Committee as to when the site will be made secure?

From April 2007 Council Meeting

The Lord Mayor read the following statement to the Council “It is with great sadness that one of the last pieces of the old retail sector of the liberties i.e. Frawley`s Dept Store has announced it is to close within 3 months. I genuinely believe that Dublin City Council has done very little to improve the outlook of this historic part of Dublin & our failure to stop property speculators amassing large property banks is to the determinant (sic?) of the local community & built heritage, has not helped the situation Frawley`s finds itself in.

I call on the City Manager to bring forward an integrated action plan for the Thomas St / Meath Street area to include precinct improvements to ensure that this historic area has a future as it should be a thriving area with the Guinness Storehouse Visitors Centre the largest paying in visitor attraction in the state located 400 metres from the St Catherine’s area of Thomas Street.

The N.C.A.D. should be made proceed with the old fire-station project without delay or lose the premises as it is shuttered off for many years.”

Mr. M. Stubbs, Assistant City Manager, responded by briefly outlining the City Council’s proposals in relation to Thomas Street and its environs.

I have been doing my family tree and have discovered that my grandmother Frances Penston was born in 18 Thomas Street, Dublin.. I know nothing about the area or anything.. either when she was born or now she was born on 10th July 1888.. I gather they only rented there or whatever i have no clue.. I would love to see some photographs of the house and maybe someones has some photos from 1888…:)

18 Thomas Street is the pink one on the right, part of McGruder’s pub, I’ll get you a better shot in a day or two. However, finding a 1880s photograph of this group of houses is like the quest for the Holy Grail, that’s going to take a bit longer.

@Smithfield Resi wrote:

By the way the Protected Georgian next to the Clock pub just lost it’s roof and top floor – 🙁 more dereliction loss on Thomas Street.

What is the story with that building?

They removed the roof and top storey, then carefully inserted a steel frame (one imagined to stabilize the rest of the building before restoration) and then, when the hard part was done, they completely knocked down the rest of the building!

Did they suddenly discover it was old?

@gina45 wrote:

I have been doing my family tree and have discovered that my grandmother Frances Penston was born in 18 Thomas Street, Dublin.. I know nothing about the area or anything.. either when she was born or now she was born on 10th July 1888.. I gather they only rented there or whatever i have no clue.. I would love to see some photographs of the house and maybe someones has some photos from 1888…:)

The 1911 census indicates that 18 Thomas Street was a public house and grocers at this time with a young Publican residing at this address along with several “servants” who were working there as grocers assistants.
There was a butchers next door and private housing on the other side as well as the rapidly expanding Guinness Brewery, which by then was the largest brewery in Ireland. A few building away was one of Dublin’s first ever Public Libraries opened 1884 (this is a hostel today as seen in the above photo), a hotel and another pub. Maybe your grandmother or even great- grandmother worked here perhaps for the previous publican. Who knows, but there is no Frances Penston accounted for in Dublin in the census of 1911, she would have been 23 at this time and perhaps using a married name.

This is the actual census form for 18 Thomas Street from 1911
http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/reels/2106838/nai000165888/

you can search at: http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/

Appeal could save Frawley’s site from demolition

By Claire Murphy

Thursday January 08 2009

Historic Frawley’s may be saved from demolition, following an appeal registered by the independent heritage organisation.

An Taisce, the National Trust for Ireland, has registered an appeal against a decision granted to demolish the former Frawley’s shop on Thomas Street by Dublin City Council.

Developer Liam Carroll had placed an application to raze the building at 32-36 Thomas Street and build a five-story office and retail development in its place.

Now, An Taisce has lodged this latest appeal with An Bord Pleanala to prevent its demolition.

Until last year, Frawley’s department store had traded in Thomas Street for 115 years. Dublin City Council granted permission for the redevelopment on November 4, subject to conditions.

An Taisce has appealed against this decision on the grounds that Thomas Street is one of the oldest streets in the city and a designated conservation area.

The submission said that the plan failed to comply with conservation policies of the Dublin City Development Plan.

“The demolition of the existing buildings would constitute a serious and debilitating architectural heritage and streetscape loss for Thomas Street,” the objection stated. “It is one of the city’s oldest streets and is a designated conservation area.”

Adversely

An Taisce, the State heritage organisation, pointed out that the development could adversely impact on one of the city’s most historic structures, including the nearby 18th century St Catherine’s Church.

The developer bought the premises last year in a deal understood to be worth in the region of €10m.

Plans for the site include a 1,430sqm retail unit on the ground floor with four storeys of offices overhead, as well as five small offices.

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/city-news/appeal-could-save–frawleys-site-from-demolition-1595602.html?r=RSS

@Evening Herald wrote:

An Taisce, the State heritage organisation

:rolleyes:

Apart from which, a reasonably good + informative article.

thanks for much for that information.. by 1911 she had moved to moneygarrow in castletown in arklow and then married my grandfather and lived in arklow.. but that information was great thanks again..
gina

Don’t change our historic city centre warns architect
http://www.herald.ie/national-news/city-news/dont-change-our-historic-city-centre-warns-architect-1614889.html?r=RSS

It’s official then, ”Thomas Street is special”, announces Shane O’Toole!

. . . and people doubted gunter 😡

There’s a snippet of a view of no. 31 Thomas street (the 1960s Gilna premises) in this RSAI photograph (published in the new version of McCullough) showing window proportions that more closely match it’s neighbour no. 32 on the east, rather than no. 30 on the west.

No. 30 Thomas Street is, almost certainly, a standard ‘Dutch Billy’, based on the evidence of the steeply pitched cruciform roof, the evidence of the surviving rear gable and characteristic rear return, and on the implied internal layout with corner fireplaces. No. 32 is the probable ‘twin Billy’ based on the same general characteristics, but with a twin axial roof structure in place of the cruciform roof at no. 30.

I’ve always been tempted to speculate that no. 31 was a pair to no. 32, but there’s a grainy 1950s aerial photograph that appears to show the house with a single axial roof volume (possible cruciform) more like no. 30.

It’s hard to make out, but I think the first three houses after St. Catherine’s Church have simple, single
volume, hipped roofs to the street before the lower twin volume of no. 32 can be made out (sort of).

Actually, based on the fact that neither neighbour has a chimney stack located on the party wall with no. 31, it’s unlikely that no. 31 was a mirror image of either neighbour and it’s more likely that it was always a separate structure, probably a standard ‘Billy’ similar to no. 30.

In the glimpse we have, there is some severe settlement of the window heads and cracking in the brickwork evident, which would go towards explaining why no. 31 was subsequently knocked down.

At least we know that no. 31 ended up with a similar facade and parapet level to the adjoining structures and that the brickwork to no. 30 was in pretty good condition around 1900. Remember that no. 30 has been vacant for about a year now and is shown in the Frawleys planning application documents to be in the ownership of Liam Carroll/Danninger Ltd.

One more thing about Frawleys.

Payne’s ‘Universal Geography’ and general history of everything, first published in 1791, records that, in addition to the recent establishment of the national bank, or Bank of Ireland, in 1783:

Joseph Fade’s partner and the principal beneficiary of his will was a John Dawson, so there can be little doubt that this comment refers to the same Fade/Dawson Bank premises at no. 36 Thomas Street (Frawleys) and confirms that Fade’s banking enterprise ‘at the Glib, Thomas Street’ continued at least into the last decade of the 18th century.

For the Fade/Dawson premises on Thomas Street to be ranked, ‘as a structure worthy of notice’, in the exalted company of the La Touche and Newcomen Bank premises, is a high compliment and a considerable indication of it’s quality and status.

Newcomen Bank, Castle St. c. 1735 . . . . La Touche Bank, Castle Street 1781 . . . . Fade/Dawson Bank, Thomas St. (date: 1715+ ?)

*photographs and dates lifted from Peter Pearson’s ‘The Heart of Dublin’*

The La Touche Bank building survives on the corner of Castle Street, facing City hall, Newcomen Bank, opposite, was demolished in 1945 and the site has been incorporated into Dublin Castle, the fate of the Fade/Dawson Bank (Frawleys) is currently in the hands of Bord Pleanála!

I think you are mxing up Newcommen and La Touche. Newcommen is now the Rates Office.

Really facinating stuff gunter. You are a mine of useless information 🙂

@StephenC wrote:

I think you are mxing up Newcommen and La Touche. Newcommen is now the Rates Office.

You’re right, I mixed them up, Newcomen is still there, La Touche was demolished in 1945.
I hope it’s not useless information though! I believe that Frawleys is a significant building for a whole lot of different reasons, and I’m just trying to back that assertion up with any historical references that I can find.

Any contributions would be much appreciated.

A nice little find there, gunter. Fade’s bank with a brick facade, imposing doorcase and perhaps a stone cornice would have been a signifcant structure on otherwise muddling Thomas Street. Indeed, the very fact that most of the stock on Thomas Street of the late 18th century would have been modest at best and bordering on medieval at worst probably emphasised the building’s status in the area.

Agreed your earlier picture shows three standard hipped roofs at Nos. 30-32.

Top marks to reddy for the earlier the heads-up regarding the new café/restaurant on Thomas Street (one must note these important observations). It is located in the former bank premises at No. 84-85 which had been used as grubby offices for a number of years. Designed by William Byrne c. 1900 in a somewhat out-of-date style, it features a fine limestone facade topped by a gawky mansard roof.

(refurbishment 2008)

Sneaky interior photos have yet to be uploaded, but by all accounts it’s been a fine job. Magnificent Edwardian cornicing tastefully decorated, thoughtful choice of furnishings and (generally) good use of lighting. A tad sparsely fitted out, but it should find its feet. It’s interesting to observe how most people immediately gravitate towards the section of the vast room that features the original tiled floor, panelling and fine doorcases.

Food and drink choices are superb, matched by the French standard of service, and by all accounts reasonably priced. Caffé Noto watch out!

Was a very nice branch that in its day – used to be mine, then it closed, so I moved to the AIB Cornmarket which was a nice branch too… then AIB Foster Place

Very unfashionable for 1900 – have you been upstairs?

Nope – any reason? I’d imagine it’s extremely well appointed given it was the former manager’s residence, accessed via the gradiose side door. Various fairly recent applications were made by Howley Harrington for apartments up there. Indeed they were responsible for the most recent conversion in their Howley Hayes incarnation.

@GrahamH wrote:

Fade’s bank with a brick facade, imposing doorcase and perhaps a stone cornice would have been a signifcant structure on otherwise muddling Thomas Street.

Muddling Thomas street! . . . Graham, can you be seeing Thomas Street through Rose tainted glasses?

@gunter wrote:

Muddling Thomas street! . . . Graham, can you be seeing Thomas Street through Rose tainted glasses?

Genius! 😀

@GrahamH wrote:

Nope – any reason? I’d imagine it’s extremely well appointed given it was the former manager’s residence, accessed via the gradiose side door.

no reason – other than what you just posted

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

used to be mine

Well you’re the one that should know, given you go around collecting banks as a hobby!

@gunter wrote:

Muddling Thomas street! . . . Graham, can you be seeing Thomas Street through Rose tainted glasses?

Huh? Quite the opposite I would have thought. Though I’ve a suspicion there’s a pun I’m just not picking up on there.

I imagine ‘Rose tainted’ is deliberately different from ‘rose-tinted’, i.e. sullied by too much exposure to a certain Senior Planner in DCC.

The gag eluded me too, though- not sure how it relates to ‘muddling’. Still- it’s nice to see I’m not the only one whose sense of humour is sometimes lost on the rest of you. 😉

Haha – very good. I smirk merrily I assure you.

Not least after a stupendously delicious toasted chicken and tomato sandwich, with salad and crinkily crispies in The Food Gallery. On the Archiseek card of course.

The facade is still rather grim looking. Limestone at its least attractive really: greasy, sullied and peppered with service accretions. The windows would arguably be more attractive in a distinguished dark shade too.

The conversion to caf̩ has not been entirely without intrusion Рall of the attractive window aprons at ground floor level have been entirely unnecessarily chopped out.

(2007)

They were only waist-level! Hardly of College Green barracks proportions. The left-hand bay is all that was required to be removed. The full-length windows now only overlook a make-shift outdoor seating area. A disappointing decision.

The interior balances things out. Handsome original detailing considerately refurbished.

Excellent choice of chair design, if the tables sadly generic.

Original flooring.

Suburban cornicing ranked up a hefty few notches.

All plasterwork is painted a falling-over-itself tasteful greeny grey. Beautiful.

Shame about the surface-mounted services, no doubt a result of the above residential. Many an irritating blown bulb in the three chandeliers already tsk.

An original doorcase leading to the manager’s side access corridor. Original tiling is evident inside the corridor door further up at the counter end.

Counter area to the rear. All nicely laid out.

And for what it’s worth, well detailed toilets too.

An elegant conversion that is a real trend-setting asset to Thomas Street.

Looks good – nice to see the panelling and tiling survived.

There was no decent cafe in the area for aeons, only the unreconstructed ham & coleslaw sandwich Cafe Assisi, and now there’s Noto, Irie and this.

@Devin wrote:

There was no decent cafe in the area for aeons, only the unreconstructed ham & coleslaw sandwich Cafe Assisi, and now there’s Noto, Irie and this.

gallic kitchen?

Standing room only!

Very Nice…..Very European………….I do hope it lasts, what with these credit crunch times. Let’s hope the arty student folk keeps it afloat. What a great place to imagine and mull over artworks – paintings, sculptures etc…Here and The Clock pub as well!

Could Thomas Street (with the NCAD as an anchor) become what Temple Bar once was…a Bohemian enclave of young artists and creatives, mixed with the local working classes.
London had little enclaves as such and look what the ‘Swinging Sixties’ produced, an era where Britain dominated the art and fashion scene, as well as the music and entertainment industry!

A surprisingly lacklustre new installation by NCAD on their ebullient corner entrance. The black panel is too ‘obvious’ – reminicent of a 1960s plaque mounted on the gable of a national school. Even a charcoal colour, never mind a sharp perspex panel with mounted lettering, would have been preferable.

The reluctance to individually surface mount on the stonework is understandable.

Unfortunately it pales into insignificance when compared with the high art around the corner. Who in the name of all that is sane allowed service engineers to add the final flourishes?!

I don’t have a wider shot on account of the Saturday traffic, but it looks woeful from across the road. Stands out like a sore thumb on the spare classical facade. The irony of a fireman’s switch in the mix does not compensate.

A little further up and, oh, where a Protected Structure stood up until a few weeks ago. Oops.

The remnants of a corner chimneystack where an early Georgian house once stood.

Oh dear, this wasn’t a very happy day on Thomas Street. At least some things raise a smile.

Don’t you just hate when the ladder only reaches so far?

The breathtakingly magnificent windmill of the former Roe’s distillery, the largest smock windmill in Europe at the time of its construction.

(all those with an aversion to yellow brick, look away now).

The delightful pear tree that grows out of its base dates to the 1850s.

Guinness eventually bought Roe out, along with half of the Liberties.

@GrahamH wrote:

The remnants of a corner chimneystack where an early Georgian house once stood.

The building in that gap was demolished about 5 or 6 years ago.

Edit: some more pictures showing it in context:

The building (25 Thomas Street) is on the extreme right. The area to the rear of these buildings is like the proverbial knacker’s yard, and has been for, well, in the years I’ve seen it anyway. Used to be used to park / service the ‘Paddywagon’ tour buses, which may have been connected to the backpacker hostel (the yellow building) on Thomas Street. You can’t help feel that, in another country, an area like this to the rear of a hostel would be nicely landscaped as a chill out area for the young backpackers.

Rear of 25 Thos. St. before demolition.

Gunter’s Joseph Fade gets a mention in today’s Irish Times – but no mention of Frawleys 🙁

Fading memory of merchant banker

Madam, – In response to Frank McNally’s query about how Dublin’s Fade Street got its name ( An Irishman’s Diary, February 27th) the answer is that it commemorates a short-lived dynasty of Quaker merchant bankers in the early 18th century.

Co Dublin.

Good letter. Fills out Fade a little more, though one could hardly describe the dynasty as short-lived?

Great pictures of No. 25 Thomas Street, Devin, thanks. The last one there bears all the hallmarks of an early/mid-18th century house, with a small return, segmental top windows and early 19th century sashes :(.

@Devin wrote:

It’s curious the return projected on the opposite side to the shared chimneystack. Indeed by the looks of things, it appears there was a return on the right-hand side too at some stage!

That’s interesting hutton.

I’m getting a twitch on my right side about this stretch of Thomas Street, I fear evil doings are a foot behind the scenes.

The Brewery Hostel (the old Dublin Corporation library) has closed in the last few weeks, McGruders looks closed and there are sheets of plywood behind some of the upstairs windows. The front windows on the first floor of nos. 20 and 21 have been left wide open for months now. The giant Budelias, that must be putting a huge strain on the brickwork of the facades, are going to be putting on their spring growth around now and there’s already an angry looking crack in the front wall of no. 19 (Protected Structure).

Since the odd demise (just letting the time run out on the planning application) of the daft, megalomaniacal, Manor Park Homes plans for this side of the ‘Digital Hub’ it’s all gone quiet . . . too quiet!

Perhaps the Buddleia should be protected as a later addition to these Protected Structures? It does after all contribute to the special character of these buildings.

There’s good progress at the opposite end of Thomas Street, at Cornmarket. The hapless fragment of city wall at the entrance to Lamb Alley is being given a new status and sense of gravitas through the laying of striking limestone paving along the line of where the rest of the wall once stood.

Simple but clever.

A similar concept was proposed as part of the equally hapless Ship Street/Werburgh Street Framework Plan, to demarcate both the River Poddle as well as the former line of the city wall.

It would be great if the above paving continued right across the road to fully express the concept, provided it wouldn’t be misconstrued as a pedestrian crossing. We wouldn’t want anyone moving about with carefree abandon in the environs of High Street. They might just cross the road.

A crisp pile of limestone going a-begging of a Wednesday evening…

A shame a bit of fearsome Calp couldn’t be employed, to quote johnglas, but I don’t think anyone makes it these days.

The determination of road engineers to run a filter road smash bang wallop through the only current potential civic space in the entire Liberties, across the road at Cornmarket, is a rant for another day. The fact that it mitigates against the beautiful new golden paving and furnishings, against practically every report recommendation ever published on the regneeration of the Liberties, and against any modicum of a civic sensibility, puts us neatly back where we started: High Street of the 1970s.

Good to see this; far more needs done to bring out the ghostly ‘footprints’ of a past era. Thanks for the mention, GrahamH, about the ‘fearsome’ nature of calp (referring, of course, to its texture and its ‘muddy’ look).
As far as road engineers are concerned, I have long believed that they should all be locked in a dark room and brought out into the light only when absolutely necessary and under strict supervision and only after every other design input has been accommodated.

@johnglas wrote:

As far as road engineers are concerned, I have long believed that they should all be locked in a dark room and brought out into the light only when absolutely necessary and under strict supervision and only after every other design input has been accommodated.

ha ha ….Yep, definitely, they should be all treated to a holiday in Guantanmo Bay for the damage thay have done to Dublin city centre over the years, particularly the old medieval quarter such as Cornmarket and High Street in question here.

I contacted Dublin City Council about the appalling state of these streets and this is part of the reply from Anne Graham….

Some of the recent initiatives that Dublin City Council have taken to try to encourage rejuvenation in the area.

a) Identifying the Liberties Coombe Area for the 1998 Urban Renewal Scheme which offered tax incentives for the redevelopment of identified sites.

b) Identifying a number of properties on Thomas Street to avail of tax incentives under the Living Over the Shop Scheme.

c) Preparing a local area plan for the Liberties Area which is centered on Thomas Street and James’ Street which is expected to be adopted by the City Council in May this year.

d) Preparing an Architectural Conservation Area Scheme for the Thomas Street area which will give added protection to the historic buildings on the street.

e) Working with NCAD on the redevelopment of the old fire station in Thomas Street as new facilities for the College.

f) Preparing an environmental improvement scheme for Thomas Street and James’ Street elements of which we hope to get included in the proposed Quality Bus Corridor Enhancement Scheme for the street.

g) Working closely with the Digital Hub to deliver their objectives for the creation of a vibrant digital enterprise centre on Thomas Street.

This gives some indication of the work that the City Council has done and continues to do in this important area of the City.

As the economic conditions in the city disimprove it will make achieving our objectives more challenging but will not reduce the resolve of the City to work towards these goals.

@GregF wrote:

I contacted Dublin City Council about the appalling state of these streets and this is part of the reply from Anne Graham….

Some of the recent initiatives that Dublin City Council have taken to try to encourage rejuvenation in the area.

a) Identifying the Liberties Coombe Area for the 1998 Urban Renewal Scheme which offered tax incentives for the redevelopment of identified sites.

b) Identifying a number of properties on Thomas Street to avail of tax incentives under the Living Over the Shop Scheme.

c) Preparing a local area plan for the Liberties Area which is centered on Thomas Street and James’ Street which is expected to be adopted by the City Council in May this year.

d) Preparing an Architectural Conservation Area Scheme for the Thomas Street area which will give added protection to the historic buildings on the street.

e) Working with NCAD on the redevelopment of the old fire station in Thomas Street as new facilities for the College.

f) Preparing an environmental improvement scheme for Thomas Street and James’ Street elements of which we hope to get included in the proposed Quality Bus Corridor Enhancement Scheme for the street.

g) Working closely with the Digital Hub to deliver their objectives for the creation of a vibrant digital enterprise centre on Thomas Street.

This gives some indication of the work that the City Council has done and continues to do in this important area of the City.

As the economic conditions in the city disimprove it will make achieving our objectives more challenging but will not reduce the resolve of the City to work towards these goals.

should you laugh or cry at this??????

an interconnector with 2 exits is to hard to imagine and too expensive to manage…
this would well and truly sort out this area

@GregF wrote:

I contacted Dublin City Council about the appalling state of these streets and this is part of the reply from Anne Graham….

Some of the recent initiatives that Dublin City Council have taken to try to encourage rejuvenation in the area.

a) – g)

I don’t think that’s the full list Greg, was there not a second page?

. . . . maybe this is it:

That is a more comprehensive list right enough, but I think there may still be a third page! I’ll have to go looking for it.

@gunter wrote:

I don’t think that’s the full list Greg, was there not a second page?

. . . . maybe this is it:

h) We’ve worked closely with the developer to erect a steel frame where the ‘Protected Structure’ used to stand at no. 112 Thomas Street.

i) To assist the visually impaired, we’ve relaxed all our building control proceedures so that double size illuminated signs can be atached to all the shops.

j) As an inovative eco-urban initiative, we’ve facilitated the cultivation of Budelia plants on the facades of many of the remaining 18th century brick houses.

k) To facilitate the comprehensive urban renewal of the Digital Hub area, we’re not going to apply any restrictive designations like ‘Protected Structure’ status to surviving early 18th century gabled houses at nos. 20 & 21 Thomas Street.

l) We’ve worked closely with Danninger Developments to ensure the demolition and redevelopment of Joseph Fade’s surviving 18th century banking house at no. 36 Thomas Street.

m) Again in conjunction with Danninger Ltd. we’ve granted planning permission for the demolition of old 18th century houses at 32 and 33 Thomas Street that are in the way of the welcome develpment of office block on this and the remainder of Frawleys site.

n) We’ve imposed very striuct archaeological conditions on new developments, so that the heritage of this ancient street can be properly protected.

That is a more comprehensive list right enough, but I think there may still be a third page! I’ll have to go looking for it.

excellent

😉

Just a reminder that the Frawley’s decision is due tomorrow. With any luck it will not be deferred.

Other bits n bobs on Thomas Street. The exposed gable wall of The Clock pub has been freshly coated in what appears to be a breathable lime render, on foot of the demolition of the protected Georgian building which stood on the adjacent site up to a couple of months ago. Looks like it may be like this for the long haul…

Remarkably, an application has also been lodged for the demolition of the Georgian-type building right next door to SS. Augustine and John! (no pic at present). Although its coating in a lurid layer of purple paint, atop an equally unattractive layer of render, does the building no favours, it forms part of the critcal setting of the adjacent church and the wider historic ensemble of Thomas Street. Oddly, there are no details online other than an archaeologist’s report (deep breath gunter) outlining the procedures to be followed ‘should the application be granted permission’. Significantly of course, the hospital and church of St. John the Baptist covered all of this general area on the north side of the street.

Meanwhile, the corner building at No. 29 next door to St. Catherine’s Church is in something of a state of undress, exposing a huge Victorian timber beam above its shopfront.

When also supporting floor joists, this is not something you want getting wet.

You can also see inside one of the poor 1830s houses next to Crane Lane at the moment.

@hutton wrote:

And down at No. 81, works on this Regency-era building finally appear to have resumed, after months, if not over a year, of little movement. Alas it seems large parts of the second and third floor facade require reconstruction.

This building has one of the finest domestic merchant interiors on Thomas Street, with marvellously chunky plasterwork at first floor level.

Finally, a nasty recent addition to one of the last surviving Victorian shopfronts in the entire area. Oh dear.

(and yes, the building is otherwise a complete rebuild). The foliate detailing is also sadly lost with that paint scheme.

@GrahamH wrote:

Just a reminder that the Frawley’s decision is due tomorrow. With any luck it will not be deferred.

Phoned them last week, they said that the inspector’s report had been completed, but, surprise, surprise, there’s a backlog waiting to go before the Bord, couldn’t say if we’re talking weeks or months!

@GrahamH wrote:

Re another proposed demolition up Thomas St. . . . . oddly, there are no details online other than an archaeologist’s report (deep breath gunter) outlining the procedures to be followed ‘should the application be granted permission’.

Have a read of the archaeologist’s report on this one (Reg. no. 2474/09) for an interesting looking extension to the house on the corner of James Street and Steeven’s Lane.

As background, it refers to the large adjoining site to the east that was redeveloped a couple of years ago (shown in the background of the model). Basically what it states is that when the archaeologists showed up to carry out their on-site investigation, to satisfy the planning conditions, they found that the whole site had already been dug out by JCB! . . . and this was the site, behind the fountain, where Petrie depicted fine ‘Billys’ and former ‘Billys’ in the 19th century 😡

Not that they’d have probably bothered recording the basements or foundation plans anyway.

:rolleyes:

What a shame. One would wonder how much of this took place in the city, and indeed nationally, over the frenzied boom period. It must have been hectic for archaeology (another sector walloped of late by the downturn).

That extension by Architecture Republic does look very interesting (though eh, have we seen it a few places before by any chance…?). But its mushing in behind the protected house does neither the latter or itself any favours.

The typical merchant-over-the-shop building proposed for demolition at No. 88 Thomas Street is this sturdy number at the corner of John Street.

Need it even be said that the removal of render and/or the installation of appropriate sash windows and a decent shopfront would transform the building beyong recognition. On a host of levels this should be thrown out.

A charming classical doorcase to the side.

There is of course much potential for redevelopment of the extensive backlands area. This would greatly enliven pleasant John Street, which features some of the best surviving granite paving in the city.

Had a look at that today too!

Ok, there’s no excuse for purple paint, but the real irony with proposing the demolition of no. 88 Thomas street, it that for a generation it stood in isolation while the adjoining property at 87 was a gapping hole criss-crossed by decaying timber struts.

From what I recall, it was Dublin City Council that eventually acquired no. 87 and sold it by tender (five or six years ago) specifically as an ‘in-fill’ opportunity to mend the streetscape between the pub at no. 86 and this surviviving 19th century corner at no. 88

Incidentally I’m nearly sure that no. 88 had an interesting corner entrance and behind that cheap timber cladding there should still be a nice square granite column (possibly leaning slightly out).

Confirmation that An Bord Pleanála have put back the Frawleys decision by eighteen weeks! ‘due to a backlog of appeals at Board level’.

D-Day for Thomas Street is now 6th June 😉

On ‘The Buzz Shop’ at no. 118 Thomas St., originally posted by Graham, Peter Pearson has a good shot of the original shopfront (retained behind all the paint and perspex) in his ‘The Heart of Dublin’.

@gunter wrote:

Confirmation that An Bord Pleanála have put back the Frawleys decision by eighteen weeks! ‘due to a backlog of appeals at Board level’.

D-Day for Thomas Street is now 6th June 😉

On ‘The Buzz Shop’ at no. 118 Thomas St., originally posted by Graham, Peter Pearson has a good shot of the original shopfront (retained behind all the paint and perspex) in his ‘The Heart of Dublin’.

I remember when this old building stood. It went on fire (or was set alight) a good few years ago and was rebuilt in it’s current form, minus the fine ornate brickwork around the upper windows. Another sad loss for Thomas Street.

Here it is during demolition in 1999.

And just after reconstruction in mock Victorian brick in 2000, the same brick used on some of the Group 91 buildings in Temple Bar. Ok, it’s an accurate copy of the original facade but no substitute for the beauty of the old brick. The listed shopfront was not protected properly during demolition and the cornice got damaged. No matter, because the whole thing was subsequently knocked off to overlay a new box fascia.

Those nice timber Victorian doors with the diagonal tongue & groove panelling and chamfered frames were junked and white PVC put in. There’s a similar shopfront on a Georgian building on Wellington Quay which still has the old doors that this one had (one of the buildings which will become part of the new Clarence Hotel).

EDIT – The Wellington Quay shopfront, in dreadful condition. We trust U2 will do the right thing with the shopfront, if not the building ..

Mentioned here ages ago, got permission

Planning permission secured for hotel
http://www.dublinpeople.com/content/view/1831/57/

Welcome to the ‘no-star’ hotel
‘Cell-like’ rooms will be aimed at gig fans
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/welcome-to-the-nostar-hotel-1714313.html
IMPRESARIO property developer Harry Crosbie has got the green light for Dublin’s first ‘rocker’ hotel at the rear of his Vicar Street entertainment venue.

With 194 bedrooms, it will be classified as a ‘no-star’ hotel and offer very basic accommodation.

The hotel, which will be built off Thomas Street in Dublin 8, to the rear of the Vicar Street venue, is aimed at people staying in the city overnight to attend events in Vicar Street

On arrival a freight lift will bring patrons to the residents’ bar and check-in area in a “big glass box” on the seventh floor on top of the hotel, which will look out over the city.

Designed by Grafton Architects, the rooms will feature polished concrete walls which will be “a homage” to famous designers Corbusier and Eileen Gray, said the spokesman.

Mr Crosbie has not decided when he will proceed with the development but a spokesman said that it is hoped to begin negotiations firstly with possible Irish or international hotel operators.

Glad to see this got the go-ahead. The public domain improvements associated with the project make it worthy alone, let alone the quality of the design by Grafton. The residents naturally had very valid concerns, living within an outstretched arm’s-reach of the place – hopefully these have been resolved.

Great archival material there Devin, thanks. Always good to get a context on proceedings. Desperate about the fascia being wrecked after the effort of retention.

@lostexpectation wrote:

Mentioned here ages ago, got permission

Planning permission secured for hotel
http://www.dublinpeople.com/content/view/1831/57/

Welcome to the ‘no-star’ hotel
‘Cell-like’ rooms will be aimed at gig fans
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/welcome-to-the-nostar-hotel-1714313.html
IMPRESARIO property developer Harry Crosbie has got the green light for Dublin’s first ‘rocker’ hotel at the rear of his Vicar Street entertainment venue.

With 194 bedrooms, it will be classified as a ‘no-star’ hotel and offer very basic accommodation.

The hotel, which will be built off Thomas Street in Dublin 8, to the rear of the Vicar Street venue, is aimed at people staying in the city overnight to attend events in Vicar Street

On arrival a freight lift will bring patrons to the residents’ bar and check-in area in a “big glass box” on the seventh floor on top of the hotel, which will look out over the city.

Designed by Grafton Architects, the rooms will feature polished concrete walls which will be “a homage” to famous designers Corbusier and Eileen Gray, said the spokesman.

Mr Crosbie has not decided when he will proceed with the development but a spokesman said that it is hoped to begin negotiations firstly with possible Irish or international hotel operators.

anybody find a pic?

2483/09 – 88 Thomas st

1. The Planning Authority is concerned about the proposed demolition of the existing Late Georgian building fronting onto Thomas Street and John Street. It is considered that this building although not protected is of streetscape value. The applicant shall submit a full architectural appraisal of this building and justification for its demolition. In this regard the applicant shall have regard to Policy H27 of the Dublin City Development Plan 2005-2011 which ‘seeks the retention, re-use and refurbishment, using appropriate materials and techniques, of older buildings of architectural, cultural, historic and aesthetic merit which, though not protected structures, make a positive contribution to the character, appearance and quality of local streetscapes and the sustainable development of the city.

Gone for Further Information though, I think an outright refusal would have been more approporiate given the new ACA status of Thomas street.

And here’s another old building just left to die.

Such appalling neglect…hard to believe there was a boom at all.

@GregF wrote:

And here’s another old building just left to die.

Such appalling neglect…hard to believe there was a boom at all.

This is appallling, such a fine building.
I cant help notice the sex shop attached to it and wonder if this might be part of the problem here. there is also a homeless center opposite it…

@ac1976 wrote:

This is appallling, such a fine building.
I cant help notice the sex shop attached to it and wonder if this might be part of the problem here. there is also a homeless center opposite it…

can this building not be reported as derelict with the owners forced to secure it??

ac1976: what is the ‘problem’ with a sex shop (this is 2009), and why should a homelessness centre on the other side of the road equally have any relevance? This is the inner city.

This is the Thomas Court building mentioned earlier in the thread by deBlacam & Meagher architects, granted permission by Dublin City Council (with some minor changes) and now gone to appeal. Yes, that picture is correct. There is a stairs running up the outside of the building and a diving board at the top, opposite St. Catherine’s Church. I know. Looks more like a student project than a building from one of the country’s top practices.

Seriously, it is hard not to conclude that deBlacam & Meagher don’t know the Liberties, or refuse to get to know it. Or maybe they are just so addled by their new environment that they have lost the power of designing buildings – or at least location specific ones. They arrived in here a few years ago having spent 30 years plus (?) in a leafy lane in Dublin 4 and are probably still reeling with the culture shock of anti-social behaviour, broken glass, rotting buildings, needles etc. etc.

First there was the “Mini Manhattan” bunch of skyscrapers for the adjoining site to the west, based on something Shane deBlacam apparently liked by Renzo Piano in downtown Sydney (relevant precedent for Thomas Street!), and now it is proposed to destroy the setting of the finest surviving Dublin church of the mid-18th century. What next?

From that single grainy image that looks like a a very interesting building to me.

Maybe the ‘diving board’ is a tribute to Robert Emmet? :rolleyes:

Aside from the diving board and the dead ground floor frontage, I think it looks like an interesting building too. Wrong location – more suited to a university campus? – but interesting all the same.

@johnglas wrote:

ac1976: what is the ‘problem’ with a sex shop (this is 2009), and why should a homelessness centre on the other side of the road equally have any relevance? This is the inner city.

Indeed. It could in fact be argued that these uses have kept some life in the street.

From that single grainy image that looks like a a very interesting building to me.

Leaving aside any consideration of context, yes. But here?

Some funny lines in the appeal….the Architect is not taking this planning decision well it seems…apparantly DCC made random decisions (although he may have a point! :D)

http://www.dublincity.ie/AnitePublicDocs/00265750.pdf

“it has led to a random decision based exclusively on the personal aesthetic judgement of the Planning Officer to take a floor off the building and to make a comment on the fenestration of the buildings facade.”

…one man’s art and all that….

…..ever hear of Architect’s ‘perogative’, presumably some sort of relation to Planner’s Prejudice and Developer’s Desperation.

“The person who wrote this had no concept of what the Architect was trying to do with the façade. The Architectural intent is the Architect’s perogative, and this was explained in the Architect’s report which accompanied the response to Request for Further Information.”

Seems DCC have been taking liberties with the Liberties LAP and our boy’s work…

“the Liberties Local Area Plan which completely ignored the Industrial Architecture of Rainsford Street, Crane Street and Market Street and we respectfully draw An Bord’s attention to page 190 where cartoon image interpretations of this Architect’s building at the corner of Castle Street and Werburgh Street (a projecting corner in that location has a unique meaning) are reproduced all over the site bounded by Thomas Street, Thomas Court, Rainsford Street and Crane Street.”

All fun and games until someone loses a floor…:D

To be honest I have no clue what the architect is trying to do here either, unless I have utterly failed to hear of the Red Bull Extreme Urban Cliffdiving Slam.

Any more shots?

Dublin 8 has it fare share of issues DBM have had there windows smashed at least a few times as well as all the piss and shit
there are kids are kids as young as 7 breaking into building sites and climbing over razorwire… I’ve seen loads of things in D8 I have never seen before….
Having said that it was enjoyable for the first 2 years just don’t kept anything valuable in your house and when your riding your bike avoid the bottles being thrown at you…
Apart from that D8 is great…

This is wrong, on so many levels!

Which planning official is responsible for this?

Very surprised at you, what?

On public record so;

Mary Conway – preplanning/FI consultation
Claire Sheehan – planning

@Smithfield Resi wrote:

All fun and games until someone loses a floor…:D

I missed that, that’s very good 😀

Ok then, . . . well I’m going to choose to blame Mary Conway

@smithfield Resi wrote:

the Liberties Local Area Plan Which Completely Ignored The Industrial Architecture Of Rainsford Street, Crane Street And Market Street

This is the problem with the building: it is an industrial style building on Thomas Street, where the buildings have a simple, classical style, facades facing the street etc. The argument citing the industrial buildings behind on Crane Street etc. as a precedent for this building does not hold water. They are in a different location architecturally and physically. deBlacam & Meagher are essentially proposing to bring an industrial building to a location to which it has no relation and where it would actually do graet damage to the existing character.

Fully agreed on this point. I find it baffling that ‘the Architect’ would claim that the Planning Authority appears not to hold the same views as ‘the Architect’ regarding the industrial character of the subject building’s environs, when very clearly ‘the Architect’ is entirely incorrect.

Not a single industrial building forms part of the architectural expression, never mind the building stock, of either Thomas Street or Thomas Court – the principal host context of the proposed building – with the exception of a simple red brick structure on the corner of Rainsford Street, which itself is so ashamed of its function that it cloaks itself in a veneer of parish hall Victoriana. Just as the principal elevation of the proposed building addresses Thomas Court and Thomas Street, so too must its architectural language take its cue from these locations.

The history, and the present-day model, of the built environment of the Liberties is one of putting on a respectable face to the commercial thoroughfares, in spite of all that languishes behind. Restrained classical elevations and more exuberant frothy Victorian concoctions, however shallow or predictable, present themselves to the streets, in spite – perhaps to spite – the industrial character of the area. To express this functional heritage, however apt in the wider Liberties context, right next to the signature building of St. Catherine’s Church, conveys a basic lack of understanding of the urban form of these streets. To take this logic further would be to reference timber yards, slaughterhouses and clay pipe manufacturing on infill sites along Thomas Street.

A confident insert of polite scenery was required here, precisely to restore distinguished urban form to a location that once exhibited such – not an over-interpreted piece of chic functional design. The canopy and staircase – referencing distillery buildings and cantilevered walkways – have absolutely no place expressed on a prestige commercial building on a prominent streetscape. It is the Disneylandisation of the Liberties and it is ill-informed. The height is similarly highly regrettable. A ‘portal’ indeed.

Saying that, it looks like a finely crafted building and it is extremely well detailed. And as someone who considers DeB&M’s outstanding 1 Castle Street to be amongst the top ten of all buildings in the capital, I can appreciate the thought and consideration that has gone into this proposal. But very simply it is the wrong location.

@GrahamH wrote:

A confident insert of polite scenery was required here, precisely to restore distinguished urban form to a location that once exhibited such – not an over-interpreted piece of chic functional design.

Very well put Graham, . . . . another call for training in the lost art of restrained in-fill.

I didn’t believe that they actually said that this building was intended to form, with the tower of St. Catherines Church opposite, ”a portal to the regeneration of the Liberties”, but it’s there, in black and white, in the architects submission!

@gunter wrote:

Which planning official is responsible for this?

I’m going to have to back-track on that scurrilous slur, actually the Planner’s report here is quite superb! Every bogus claim is held up to the light and put down with withering politeness.

And when a spade needed to be called a spade, we get that too:)

Extracts from the Planner’s *Claire Sheehan* report:

A slightly worrying aspect of the architect’s submission on this, ”The Bakery”, development is the numerous references to the adjoining ‘Manor Park development’, which may suggest that this particular behemoth is about to be lodged again.

Again CS is having none of it:

Now this is what we’re talking about!

Thousands of tourists weekly, take the trail from Dublin Castle to Christchurch Cathedral and James Gate (Home to Guinness). In doing so they would pass these buildings in Thomas Street, about a hundred yards from James Gate. I lived a short distance from here for three years back in the early 1990s when the first apartments were going up opposite James Hospital.

My Jasus, that deBlacam & Meagher proposal is just bloody awful, it will ruin the whole historic context of St Catherines and the whole area. This area is one of the last of the city whose old stock could be restored to a degree, with new infill maintaining uniformity and taste. That proposal is just a bloody assault.

Those guys are so far up their own arses!

@ctesiphon wrote:

Maybe the ‘diving board’ is a tribute to Robert Emmet? :rolleyes:

Aside from the diving board and the dead ground floor frontage, I think it looks like an interesting building too. Wrong location – more suited to a university campus? – but interesting all the same.

Perhaps an homage to Alvar Aalto’s MIT Baker House?

Bord Pleanála have again postponed a decision on Frawleys [PL 29S.231916]

The inspector’s report was apparently completed seven weeks ago, but the decision keeps getting postponed from the original mid April deadline, first to 6th June and then 8th June, now they’re not even giving a date!

What’s there to decide?

The existing streetscape is too historic, the individual buildings are too intrinsicly important, the context beside St. Catherine’s Church is too architecturally sensitive, and the proposed ‘contemporary’ office block is too architecturally dismal to even contemplate granting permission for this development!

Just drive a verbal stake through it’s heart and we can all move on.

. . . not unless they’re waiting on some new words to be approved by the Oxford English Dictionary

Have faith dear boy! ABP will see you right.

Beyonce cycled past these buildings last week (that’s not as daft as it sounds). If the Bord are having difficulty reaching a decision, maybe they should ask her for an opinion on them. Given that it was a nice sunny day when she cycled up Thomas Street, she would probably say “Keep them!” ….. appeal sorted.

Wow, that would have been a sight to behold…….buxom Beyonce…….. in Thomas Street…..kinda surreal stuff!

What you see when coming out of James’ St. Hospital……..

@GregF wrote:

What you see when coming out of James’ St. Hospital……..

pretty isnt it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:mad:

Pathological, more like!

I lifted this page from http://www.architecturefoundation.ie where it’s being lying idle since being posted six months ago.

Tate Dublin? by Ciaran Cuffe

The Guinness Power Station building looks out across the Liffey, perched on a slope and surrounded by pipes, tanks, brick chimneys and even a disused windmill. It could be one of the most breathtaking additions to Dublin’s cultural spaces if it were converted into a gallery or museum. It is a marvellous icon of early twentieth century architecture, and presents two great facades. One faces to the north looking out towards the National Museum at Collins Barracks; the other looks onto James Street in the Liberties.

I’m still hoping that Guinness will hold onto James Gate and brew their dark porter for generations to come by the side of the Liffey, but ever since it was swallowed up by Diageo, I’ve had my doubts as to how long the Guinness brand will live. It’s an uneasy conglomerate that manages to hold Burger-King and Guinness in the same portfolio. Something has got to give. Certainly if the images on Google Maps are anything to go by, there’s more and more empty space emerging in the St. James Gate complex.

Surrounding the Power Station there’s also a wonderful site, and as an architectural student in the early 1980s I remember eying it up as a prime location for reinventing Dublin. There’s 500m of Quays frontage along Victoria Quay between Watling Street and Johns Road West at Heuston Station. The Power Station could be the cultural heart for an area that would benefit from new housing, new jobs and an influx of people in one of the most historic parts of the Capital.

I visited Liverpool recently. Albert Dock is great, but much of the rest of the city looks tired and weary. Streets of boarded up houses wait for something, anything to happen. The gods of shopping have created a surreal new area called ‘Liverpool One’ containing vast retail halls wrapped in an appealing veneer of architectural wallpaper, but on the day I visited Woolworths and MFI were under threat of closure. It may not be wise to bank on retail delivering a rosy economic future.

Dublin could do something different though; it could reinvent the city creating new workplaces and neighbourhoods that learn from the mistakes of Temple Bar and elsewhere. St. James’ Gate could give us a new model for living and working; hopefully greener and more child-friendly that some of the development that has occurred up and down the Quays in recent times. Next year will see the opening of Dublin’s Convention Centre in Dublin’s Docklands. Tens of thousands more visitors will have time on their hands and will be looking for some alternative to a pub crawl through Temple Bar. Let’s urge them to hop on a Luas and head for James Gate. What better way to kick things off a new wave of urban regeneration than turning the Power Station into a new cultural icon that might dispel the giant pint from its pedestal as Dublin’s number one visitor attraction.

Ciarán Cuffe is a Green Party TD for Dún Laoghaire

It’s not a bad idea, but would it ever rise above being a pale, miniature, version of the Tate Modern?

I’d certainly advocate using the planning process to compel Diageo to adapt their future plans (if they still have any) to incorporate permeability through their vast land bank between James’s St. and Victoria Quay. The topography here is as dramatic as it gets in Dublin and new vistas down to the river and to the National Museum beyond could be the making of the under-performing western end of the city centre.

Shame to let the ideas languish in dry dock!

So the TD for Dun Laoghaire doesn’t know that one of Dublin’s biggest companies Diageo sold Burger King in 2002 – and we let people like this run the country!!! 😡

Perhaps he was referring to the essential “uneasiness” of the conglomerate, which has manifested itself in the past as owning both Burger King and Guinness at the same time. Perhaps he finds no evidence of a vast change in their nature sufficient to rid it of “uneasiness” and therefore ascribes the same quality to the current company as that version of it which existed pre-2002, implying a kind of innate “uneasiness” which manifests itself in different ways in different times!

@rumpelstiltskin wrote:

Perhaps he was referring to the essential “uneasiness” of the conglomerate, which has manifested itself in the past as owning both Burger King and Guinness at the same time. Perhaps he finds no evidence of a vast change in their nature sufficient to rid it of “uneasiness” and therefore ascribes the same quality to the current company as that version of it which existed pre-2002, implying a kind of innate “uneasiness” which manifests itself in different ways in different times!

Perhaps he was, or pehaps he just plain didn’t know.

Spoken like a true politcian sir!

by Ciaran Cuffe:

Leaving the exact composition of Diageo’s portfolio aside for the moment, I think Cuffe’s point is that Diageo are sitting on a massive land bank at James’ Gate that is essentially a blank urban canvas (one or two interesting 20th century industrial buildings aside) and that this presents a huge (potential) opportunity to plan a whole future section of the city centre free from the forces of competing property interests and maybe free from the sterility of the docklands.

There no reason that a glorious site like this should ever end up with just more of the same, which is what is very likely to happen if the uniqueness of the opportunity isn’t grasped.

In this regard does anyone know what happened to the seamingly similar Carlsberg Brewery site in Copenhagen? I think there was talk of an international architectural competition, maybe some interesting ideas emerged from that! . . . I know I should probably look it up, but somebody will know and save me the bother:)

And another thing,
. . . . for reasons which haven’t been published, but I suspect are beyond my comprehension, An Bord Pleanála have apparently requested further information on the Frawley’s application (PL 29S.231916) from both Dublin City Council and the applicants (Danninger Ltd.), with 14 August as the deadline for submission!

I can’t get any other information on this other than that the letter from ABP is two pages long . . . which doesn’t sound like it says . . . ”WHAT THE F#*K WERE YOU THINKING ABOUT??” . . . . . unless it’s just printed in a very large font!

@GrahamH wrote:

Have faith dear boy! ABP will see you right.

I don’t know about you, but my faith is gone . . . . replaced by a feeling in my gut that we’re looking at a car crash in slow motion here

I don’t know about you, but my faith is gone . . . . replaced by a feeling in my gut that we’re looking at a car crash in slow motion here[/QUOTE]

Given the fact that Liam Caroll / Danninger is effectively bankrupt means there is no danger this will be built in my opinion.

Also given that building in prime locations are lying empty at the moment,a speculative medium sized office block in Thomas Street is hardly one that Banks would want to finance in the current environment!

The big risk is that the site is cleared in anticpation of something that is never built!

I’d agree that either way this development will not see the light of day for many years. Still, we should remain confident about the ABP case. There is precedent for ABP requesting significant modification of a major project at Additional Information stage (the recent Arnotts scheme springs to mind), rather than rejecting it outright. I’d imagine in this climate it is increasingly desirable to do that, rather than throw a case out. As such, it is possible the retention of the historic sections of streetscape (which after all only comprise a modest portion of this development) is being demanded, with a redesign/reintegration of the rear proposal. Straws and clutching and whatnot perhaps, but entirely possible.

Reading through the planning file there, I have never encountered a case with such an enormous professional and informed local input in submissions. Quite an extraordinary body of evidence stacked against this case, even if in a Jumble Tower formation which may collapse at any moment.

It’s pretty sad if we have to end up praying for the recession to last long enough to kill off all the bad planning decisions!

We cannot allow these building be demolished, that’s the bottom line IMO, but delivering the right Planning decision here is also absolutely crucial.

The whole problem with planning in Dublin is that it has has repeatedly failed to recognise the value (in terms of heritage, streetscape and pure economics) of existing building stock.

Historic streets like Thomas Street are an absolute godsend. Heritage is the gift that keeps on giving and it belongs to all of us, not just the bloke who momentarilly has his name on some of the title deeds.

DCC gave permission for this development because, deep down, they don’t believe this, they see Thomas Street as a crooked, low grade, transport artery that needs ‘economic’ regeneration, the kind of place, far removed from the sensitive ‘Georgian’ areas, that they can allow spec developers stick in all the generic office blocks that they can’t (anymore) permit on the likes of Fitzwilliam St.

All that guff in the Development Plan, all the progressive talk at ‘urban’ conferences, all the spin around ‘Architectural Conservation Areas’ and ‘Local Area Plans’, it all comes down to this: Frawleys is a test case and DCC failed that test and now we’re watching ABP failing it too . . . . in slow motion.

Spot on, especially re the “transport artery that needs ‘economic’ regeneration..”

In the light of Clarence, such an interpretation may seem nieve, but I view this case quite simply as a benchmark as to whether or not we live in a civilised society. It is just inconcievable that the broadly sophisticated and informed ABP would even contemplate the permitting of the demolition of these houses. The very act of refusing this is as important to our value system as a society as is the physical retention of the houses to the streetscape of Thomas Street and the heritage of the city.

It is uncontemplatable that these houses will vanish. The implications of such a decision would be calamitous for the integrity of our planning system.

To be honest, I also didn’t realise they’d sold Burger King, but I suppose your point is that HE should have known better

De Blacam and Meagher?

Morelike “To Blacken and Mar” this historic old part of the city.

Gas too, when you think of it, that just up the road, the buildings all around Christchurch have been built just within the last 30 years. One of the oldest parts of the city, Christchurch, was an island surrounded by distruction, ie High St, Wood Quay, Fishamble St. Cornmarket, Winetavern St, Christchurch Place.

@GregF wrote:

De Blacam and Meagher?

Morelike “To Blacken and Mar” this historic old part of the city.

Gas too, when you think of it, that just up the road, the buildings all around Christchurch have been built just within the last 30 years. One of the oldest parts of the city, Christchurch, was an island surrounded by distruction, ie High St, Wood Quay, Fishamble St. Cornmarket, Winetavern St, Christchurch Place.

at least we have learned to value our historic fabric since then:D

gunter, if it’s any comfort, the original Manor Park Homes plannng application for Crane Street / Thomas Street languished in An Bord Pleanala for over a year before receiving a no holds barred refusal (PL 29S.219930).

The letter sent by the Board to DCC and the applicant could be about …. anything. It could be about some leasehold technicality.

Or they might possibly be asking DCC for information on the status of the Conservation Area. This has come up before: On Thomas Street, the hatched map lines indicating the Conservation Area cover only the street itself, whereas in other locations, for example the Quays and Aungier Street, the hatched lines extend back over the buildings too. In cases like Thomas Street, developers naturally try to say that buildings fronting the street are not included in the Conservation Area, and so are not subject to its provisions. But there is a precedent to show that, when buildings are on a street where only the street is indicated as a Conservation Area, they are considered to be “in” the Conservation Area.

Since the Conservation Area formed the main grounds of some of the appeals, I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a wrangle going on about that.

Devin: if I understand what you’re saying it’s that the street (sic) is indicated as the conservation area (also sic), but not the buildings fronting it. Bizarre to say the least; can a ‘street’ be an ‘area’? No wonder the law in Dublin prospers!

@Devin wrote:

The letter sent by the Board to DCC and the applicant could be about …. anything. It could be about some leasehold technicality.

If we’re talking Frawleys here, did you not get a copy of the letter? . . . I got mine a day or two after complaining that we should have got notification.

The letter asks DCC, and the applicants, to comment further on the specific objections lodged by the Dublin Civic Trust and some named third parties. These objections had focussed principally on the inherent value of the existing, early to mid, 18th century structures, (nos. 32, 33 and 36), with the probable ‘twin Dutch Billy’ heritage of no. 32 getting a particular outing.

In this regard, we’ll have to see how your recently posted comments on the DB thread play out :rolleyes:

We know that the applicants have already plundered an archiseek photograph for their report, so we know that they’re tuned into this wavelength. What we don’t know, yet, is what hay they may have made with the public airing of your various doubts and insecurities and your ”come on now gunter, can we really say that this house was a twin Billy etc.”, . . . . we’ll just have to wait and see.

I’ll not say any more this stage, . . . but if this were to go belly up, and if concrete evidence were to be found (say in the ABP inspector’s report) that certain perceived divisions in the conservation camp had let the juggernaut through, it might not be wise for Devin to go down any dark alleys anytime soon!

Devin might find that Luke Gardiner wasn’t the only ugly man prowling the streets of Dublin looking for somewhere to leave his mark 😡

Hasn’t it turned out a lovely evening, . . . . must clear out the potting shed.

Ah come off it gunter !!!!

If you want to save an endangered species of Mongolian horse, suggesting it may have been a Unicorn in a former life is not going to help your case.

Did you notice that An Bord Snip recommended the amalgation of NCAD with Dun Laoghaire in Dun Laoghaire

4. Amalgamation of National College of Art & Design (NCAD) and the Dún Laoghaire Institute of Art, Design & Technology

There should also be capital savings arising from the likely cancellation of the planned capital re-development of NCAD. Savings on the same basis as 3 and 4 above are estimated at €700,000.

@Devin wrote:

Ah come off it gunter !!!!

If you want to save an endangered species of Mongolian horse, suggesting it may have been a Unicorn in a former life is not going to help your case.

The time has come for me to get very serious with you.

You’re a conservation advocate, that’s no secret, and being a vocal and dedicated one, you’d be a member of a tiny band of like minded people who will have made a real difference over the years with your relentless campaigning for the protection of heritage and against bad planning.

I can’t boast those credentials, I’m only an occasional objector to what I perceive to be bad planning, because I find the process costly and mostly disheartening and it takes time away from what I should be doing, which is trying to design better buildings myself and not worry so much about other people’s.

It’s no big secret that I’m fascinated by the gabled house tradition. I consider it to represent possibly the pinnacle of urbanism. Across Europe, the gabled house tradition created streets, squares and entire cities where the conduct of business and the business of living mingled effortlessly and where the public realm achieved levels of sophistication and celebration that has seldom been achieved since. Best of all, the gabled tradition created a medium in which the competing forces of the ‘collective’ and the ‘individual’ could be accommodated in a near perfect balance.

Ireland shared in this gabled tradition, we know that, I think the evidence is overwhelming. In the ‘Dutch Billy’ phase, the evidence suggests that we had an urbanism that was up there with some of the best in Europe. When we turned away from that tradition to adopt the sober uniformity and rigid social segregation of the Georgian model, I believe that we lost a part of our innate understanding of what urbanism is.

Because it is virtually a lost chapter in our architectural record and because of what it can still teach us about urbanism, I believe that our heritage of gabled houses deserves to be studied and surviving examples deserve to be conserved and protected. I don’t know a fraction of what I’d like to know about these houses, their streetscapes and the urban entity they contributed to, but I have studied the subject as deeply as time permits and I don’t make claims about individual structures without believing them to be true and without them being grounded in some research.

I believe that, in Dublin, we developed a particular fondness for a twin gabled design of house and that no. 32 Thomas Street was an example of such a house. Obviously I can’t know this for sure, without finding an actual print, or photograph, of the house showing it with twin gables, but as an architect with some conservation experience, I can tell you that the means of finding out this information will, most probably, still exist within the structure of the house, if the right level of detailed investigation is brought to bear.

I can explain what I mean in more detail again but you’ll only go on again about how I can’t possibly know that there’s a beam under the valley gutter :rolleyes:

A while ago, did you not challenge me (on the DB thread) to come up with a concrete example of a two-bay ‘twin-Billy’? . . . . and did I not come up with a pretty clear cut example of one on Newmarket?

Am I to understand from your ‘Unicorn’ remark that you still do not accept the existence of narrow-plot ‘twin-Billys’?

Apologies to anyone who’s been studiously avoiding the ‘Dutch Billy’ thread and feels that this argument has now spilled out of the living room and into the kitchen 🙂

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

Did you notice that An Bord Snip recommended the amalgation of NCAD with Dun Laoghaire in Dun Laoghaire

NCAD is the best thing on Thomas Street, particularly since the completion of the new building with it’s ‘shop window’ . . . . always tasty and always full of arty goodness,

Dun Laoghaire can f*#k off!

@gunter wrote:

NCAD is the best thing on Thomas Street, particularly since the completion of the new building with it’s ‘shop window’ . . . . always tasty and always full of arty goodness

Agree 110%

@gunter wrote:

Dun Laoghaire can f*#k off!

On the contrary – perhaps it should be looked at bringing DL into the city and amalgamating it on Thomas St with NCAD? I know of a number of derelict sites and buildings along a certain stretch that certainly aren’t going to now get redeveloped as 52-floor-whatever-you’re-trying-on type schemes… What say?

gunter, I’m getting a bit tired of this. I’ve really said all I have to say on the issue in Post 332 of the Dutch Billy thread – ie. if the houses you refer to existed, or were as claimed a common Dublin house type, where is the visual/pictorial evidence, out of the huge body of such evidence that regular-to-smaller sized houses had single gables? (And for that matter, where is the fabric evidence? – out of the four or five extant claimed former twin gabled houses, none has yet been proffered.) Isn’t it odd or disproportionate that four or five roof types should survive in 2009 of a house type for which there is no visual representation in their claimed original form, when so few survive for houses for which there is clear visual evidence of hundreds of? I don’t see why disagreeing with you on this should be such a big problem.

If you’ve been through Shaw’s Directory of 1850, which no doubt you have, you’ll have seen that there are several more of those roofs just like on 32 Thomas Street and 7 Bachelor’s Walk: a couple Arran on Quay, one on Dawson Street, one on College Green and a couple more on Bachelor’s Walk near the corner of O’Connell Street, and a few others. But, like the existing ones, there’s nothing about them otherwise that might betray the origins you promulgate of them.

On a planning level, if you wanted to make an argument for 32 Thomas Street as an original twin-gabled house, you couldn’t do it. The evidence just isn’t there. It would be highly dangerous to do so. Up against a canny planning consultant, you could be torn to shreds, and lose your building, current Georgian character and all. Arguments for it should be made on the basis of what’s there, and/or what the building clearly was at an earlier point (and they have been). The house has early-to-mid 18th century origin, as is clear from the plan form, and it has a late-Georgian brick upper elevation of handsome classical proportions. That, and its location in the streetscape close to St. Catherine’s makes it more than worthy of retention. It would be an absolute scandal if An Bord Pleanala granted permission for its demolition.

@gunter wrote:

A while ago, did you not challenge me (on the DB thread) to come up with a concrete example of a two-bay ‘twin-Billy’? . . . . and did I not come up with a pretty clear cut example of one on Newmarket?

Admittedly, I did not respond to this at the time … more to do with the way things get in the way every day that prevent one from spending time on internet forums. I have just put on a reply now.

@gunter wrote:

It’s no big secret that I’m fascinated by the gabled house tradition. I consider it to represent possibly the pinnacle of urbanism. Across Europe, the gabled house tradition created streets, squares and entire cities where the conduct of business and the business of living mingled effortlessly and where the public realm achieved levels of sophistication and celebration that has seldom been achieved since. Best of all, the gabled tradition created a medium in which the competing forces of the ‘collective’ and the ‘individual’ could be accommodated in a near perfect balance.

Ireland shared in this gabled tradition, we know that, I think the evidence is overwhelming. In the ‘Dutch Billy’ phase, the evidence suggests that we had an urbanism that was up there with some of the best in Europe. When we turned away from that tradition to adopt the sober uniformity and rigid social segregation of the Georgian model, I believe that we lost a part of our innate understanding of what urbanism is.

Because it is virtually a lost chapter in our architectural record and because of what it can still teach us about urbanism, I believe that our heritage of gabled houses deserves to be studied and surviving examples deserve to be conserved and protected.

I agree with a lot of what you say here and as usual it is nicely written. But I don’t necessarily agree about the gabled house tradtion ‘possibly representing the pinnacle of urbanism’. I think certain smaller and medium sized Irish towns with their predominant 19th century architecture exhibit urbanism as good as you will get anywhere in Europe through the ages.

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

Did you notice that An Bord Snip recommended the amalgation of NCAD with Dun Laoghaire in Dun Laoghaire

Em, shouldn’t any amalgamation between those two entail the one in the low-density, out-of-the-way suburban location winding up shop and moving to the ultra-sustainable, stimulating urban location of the other?
(no offence to residents oF DL 🙂 )

@Devin wrote:

gunter, I’m getting a bit tired of this
. . . . if the houses you refer to existed, or were as claimed a common Dublin house type, where is the visual/pictorial evidence,

Devin, I want to hit you with a plank, you just go on to list the visual evidence yourself:

All of the twin roofed houses you’ve mentioned, and about a dozen more, fall into the category of probable-twin-Billy, because of their roof proflile, number 1, and because of the fact that they all have other standard ‘Billy’ characterists, or are located in a ‘Billy’ context.

We have the photographic evidence of close-coupled twin Dutch gables on the corner of New Row South and Ward’s Hill, we have the survey evidence from Leask for the same thing at 30 Jervis St. and we have the print and photographic evidence of the tripple gable on Speaker Foster’s house on Molesworth St.

That should be enough to tell any rational person that when it comes to houses of this period, houses that exhibit Dutch Billy characteristics, in plan or detail, multiple roof configurations and multiply gables go together.

You’d have to be some class of stubborn Mongolian mule not to acknowledge this!

@Devin wrote:

. . . I don’t see why disagreeing with you on this should be such a big problem.

If I can’t even persuade the people who are clearly on the same side (in most conservation debates), there’s not much chance of getting through to the people in the positions to make the decisions on the fate of several of these houses.

@Devin wrote:

On a planning level, if you wanted to make an argument for 32 Thomas Street as an original twin-gabled house, you couldn’t do it. The evidence just isn’t there. It would be highly dangerous to do so. Up against a canny planning consultant, you could be torn to shreds, and lose your building, current Georgian character and all.

I’ve already made those arguments for what I believe this house to be, and I’d go toe to toe with any sleezebag planning consultant to defend what I’ve said. And just so we’re clear on this, I do not advocate undoing any of the later Georgian alterations to this house which sits perfectly in the streetscape as it is, I just want it protected, conserved and acknowledged as a valuable survivor from our gabled house tradition and as a representative example of a house that was changed to conform to Georgian taste, just like no. 6 Bachelor’s Walk.

@Devin wrote:

. . . . I don’t necessarily agree about the gabled house tradtion ‘possibly representing the pinnacle of urbanism’. I think certain smaller and medium sized Irish towns with their predominant 19th century architecture exhibit urbanism as good as you will get anywhere in Europe through the ages.

That’s a debate for another day and another thread, I want to explain more fully what I meant by those remarks, but I’ll have to get out the pictures to do that properly.

Returning to the issue of Thomas Street, there was a significant development earlier today (Friday) in the Frawley’s case (PL29S.231916)

Bord Pleanála have circulated for comment a revised alternative scheme for the site submitted by Danninger on 27 July. The alternative scheme would retain and conserve all of the structures from 32 to 36 Thomas St., in their entirety, and build the new office block to the rear separated by a glazed atrium!

However, the applicants make it clear that they would only do this grudgingly and that their prefered solution is for their DCC permission for the original scheme to be upheld by the Bord. They also make it clear that they don’t accept the existing structures are worthy of retention and to no one’s surprise they’re at one with Devin in their assessment of no. 32:rolleyes:

Returning to the issue of Thomas Street, there was a significant development earlier today (Friday) in the Frawley’s case (PL29S.231916)

Bord Pleanála have circulated for comment a revised alternative scheme for the site submitted by Danninger on 27 July. The alternative scheme would retain and conserve all of the structures from 32 to 36 Thomas St., in their entirety, and build the new office block to the rear separated by a glazed atrium!

However, the applicants make it clear that they would only do this grudgingly and that their prefered solution is for their DCC permission for the original scheme to be upheld by the Bord. They also make it clear that they don’t accept the existing structures are worthy of retention and to no one’s surprise they’re at one with Devin in their assessment of no. 32:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

are the ammended plans publically available, i checked the dcc site and abp site nothing there

Hey gunter leave out the ‘physical threats’. It’s not good internet parlance. I have tried to be polite while believing there isn’t a shred of real evidence to show those roofs belonged to twin gables. What if I used the terms ‘makey-up twin gables’, ‘fantasy drawings’ and ‘distortion of history’?

Anyway if you really want to follow through on your threats, you know where to find me …….. but you’d better be ready 😉

Smithfield Resi get’s comfy….

@Devin wrote:

. . . you know where to find me . .

yea I know where to find ye, with hutton, round at Robert O’Byrne’s house, ogling his Palladian etchings!

@Devin wrote:

. . . . ‘makey-up twin gables’ . . . ‘fantasy drawings’ . . . ‘distortion of history’?

your remarks have been noted and will be replayed to you at the appropriate time.

There are some people in this city who think that the glories of Dublin start and end with Georgian architecture. Such people are mostly kindly sorts, honourable types for the most part, the sort of people who take things at face value. These people are reluctant to dig under the surface, because they fear that they will find only unpleasantness there and anyway they are quite happy with ‘reality’ as it’s always been.

In their world, the sober dignity of the Georgian house offers the calm reasurance that taste once prevailed in these parts and if only the brutish types who threaten this Georgian Idyll would go away, everything could be fine once more. This is a world of shallow mouldings and pastel colours, it is a Wedgewood world.

But the people who brought this Georgian idyll to our shores were not great innovators, creators of something new, they were import merchants and they were in the second hand business. They preyed on the insecurities of a planter population adrift from it’s cultural roots and went about their business clutching soiled copies of Vitruvious Britanicus, Volumes 1 & 2.

And they didn’t just peddle second hand architecture, they peddled snobbery. In their developer led world, social class would be segregated and sordid commerce would be banned from their speculative developments, the fundamentals of urbanism were to be cast aside, so that the gullible, moneyed, classes of Dublin could live in immitation of the Whig aristocracy of London.

In their developers’ paradise, ‘the square’, that fundamental civic and commercial focal point of the city, was transformed into a cruel carricature, stripped of commercial activity, ringed by the staid houses of the nobility and railinged off as a private park.

Georgian architecture has it’s place in the story of Dublin, we all know that, but the gabled tradition should have it’s place too, and to a large extent it doesn’t. McCullough said it existed as a folk memory, but I don’t even think it does. I think it’s been so completely lost that people doubt that it ever really existed. We look at the pictures, we murmur ”curious” to ourselves and we turn the page.

I believe, if we dig deep enough, it will be posible to reveal something like the full story of the ‘Dutch Billy’, it’s origins, it’s multiple variations and the scale and depth of the domestic architectural movement it represented. I suspect also that when we are able to look at the full story, I won’t be the only one cursing Luke Gardiner and his bag of grey squirrels 🙂

@aj wrote:

Returning to the issue of Thomas Street, . . . . are the ammended plans publically available, i checked the dcc site and abp site nothing there

I’m not sure if it’s the practice of ABP to make late alternative submissions available on it’s website, but it should be.

I’ll post up some of the more relevant stuff below.

Alternative proposal showing office block behind retained buildings. For some reason no. 32 is shown with a single hipped roof, but I imagine it’s just a graphic error.

Typical upper floor plan showing the retained buildings separated from the office block by an atrium.

More accurate rear elevation/section through the atrium showing some replacement windows.

gunter: can you live with the revisions, or is it the best of a bad (if slightly more sensitive) lot? Just how obtrusive would the ‘extension’ be from street level?

If they’re consistent with their own record and call for the top storey to be lopped off, and if they make the accurate and detailed refurbishment of facades a condition for the permission, then it could be the best possible outcome.

@gunter wrote:

yea I know where to find ye, with hutton, round at Robert O’Byrne’s house, ogling his Palladian etchings!

You’d sooner find me at a Nama client fundraiser.

@johnglas wrote:

gunter: can you live with the revisions, or is it the best of a bad (if slightly more sensitive) lot? Just how obtrusive would the ‘extension’ be from street level?

It’s pretty much everything we asked for johnglas, total retention of all the buildings, not just some facade graft, so it would probably be a bit unfair to go looking for more, however . . .

@rumpelstiltskin wrote:

If they’re consistent with their own record and call for the top storey to be lopped off, and if they make the accurate and detailed refurbishment of facades a condition for the permission, then it could be the best possible outcome.

I’m not even sure it needs the top storey knocked off, the office block is set back about 5m behind the rear elevation of the existing structures, I don’t think it will appear in the streetscape at all, unless in the distance from the Cornmarket direction, which’d be fine.

I do agree with rumpel that they could go the extra seven yards and refurbish the street facades. It was the non-descript facades with their plate glass, proportion-killing, two pane windows that got us into this situation in the first place. Restoring the facades of 32, 33 & 36 back to the original 18th century brickwork and reinstating what would have been the original design of multi-paned windows (with or without Graham’s shimmering crown glass) would do wonders for this stretch of Thomas Street and lift the setting of St. Catherine’s no end.

Incidentally, one grainy photograph has emerged (through the good offices of Peter Walsh)of the Frawley’s streetscape with what looks like a simple large hipped roof on no. 36, I think I’d like to see a bit more research done on that and pending the results, have the pitched roof reinstated on this significant merchant townhouse.

One other reservation I have with the scheme, an element which is unchanged from the first proposal, is the over-bearing office-block treatment of the west elevation to St. Catherine’s Lane West. This is a very narrow cobblestoned laneway that I use every couple of days going to Lidl, it’s rough for sure, but it has potential charm. The proposed elevation is very HKR and surely a small bit of modulation wouldn’t go amiss. In fact the east elevation, which no one will ever see, looks far more subtle!

Elevation to St. Catherine’s Lane West, with the de Blacam+Meagher block on the right.

The revised east elevation which largely addresses the back of adjoining buildings.

All in all, this revised scheme would be a massive step forward, it’s only a pity that they’re putting it forward so grudgingly.

The applicant’s planning consultants make abundantly clear that they want their original scheme and this is just a fall-back in case Bord Pleanála take a wobble, and again they state boldly that ”. . . the individual buildings are of no historical or architectural merit in their own right.”

If they are not authoritively dissuaded from this view by Bord Pleanála and the revised scheme permitted with stringent conditions, there is every danger that they’ll say ”OK we’ll do this, but it will be half-ass’d”.

. . . that silence Devin, was the sound of gunter biding his time 😉

here is the submission on DCC site

http://www.dublincity.ie/AnitePublicDocs/00276360.pdf

surely they would not have gone to the expense unless they expected ABP to through out the original proposal

it would be great if they reinstated the facades and the roof on fades mansion but if we can preserve these building even as they are its a good start!

Twin ‘Dutch Billy’ listing rescues department store http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6788877.ece

That proposed demolition of no. 88 Thomas St. (reg. no. 2483/08), at the corner of John St. opposite John’s Lane Church, is turning interesting.

An Taisce objected on the grounds that the existing ‘late Georgian’ house was a valuable part of the streetscape and should be retained and the Planning Office duly sought additional information in the form of an ‘assessment’ of the existing structure and a ‘justification’ for it’s demolition.

The applicants wheeled out David Slattery, a ‘Fellow’ of the RIAI and a conservation heavyweight.

Slattery and An Taisce must have history because Slattery’s report, lodged on 3 July, takes every opportunity to side-swipe An T. at the expense of actually reporting on the existing buildings in the level of detail that would demonstrate that they’ve been explored in depth and understood.

For some reason (not explained by any attempted dating) Slattery takes particular issue with An T’s casual reference to the property as ‘late Georgian’ which, on the face of it, seems perfectly justifable.

His ‘assessment’ starts off with the phrase: ”Architecturally the building has very limited significance” and then goes down hill from there. ”The two facades themselves are of no architectural interest as compositions”. ”The south facade to Thomas St. . . . . has undergone substantial alteration with the removal of window joinery and the addition of a new shopfront. Because of this, the facade could not be considered to be of architectural significance”.

Wow! a building with new windows and a dodgy shopfront! . . . . . welcome to Dublin.

Slattery’s Assessment Report doesn’t note that the original building has one of those ‘open’ shop corners formed by a square granite column, now hidden behind the dodgy shopfront. This feature was visable until quite recently (three or four years ago at most) is valuable in it’s own right, and links the structure to the slightly later Wide Streets Commissioners building near by on the corner of Thomas St. and Meath St.

For once, the Planning Dept. are having none of half-assed drivel that is passing itself off as conservation assessments, and on 4 August, they filed a new report calling for ‘Clarification of Additional Information’.

The new report is caustic on Slattery’s assessment:
some extracts:

Good work from a Planning Office and good work from a Conservation Officer, . . . . . what’s goin’ on?

gunter, there are shall we say, new people in town…

Superb report. The word ‘exemplar’ was not even correctly understood or applied in the original report. There is much else to be said, but I’ll leave that to others.

Interesting stuff there gunter, as an architect Mr. Slattery must be very busy at the mo’ that his report “overlooked” key matters such as unusual layout etc :rolleyes:

A welcome direction by DCC indeed. I wonder whether they’re looking at the recently created gaping holes on Redmond’s Hill – “Better Built By McNamara” – and also Chalemont Street on way to Rathmines, and thinking ‘we don’t want any more of those sites to emerge, that will just sit derelict’? If so, this direction by DCC, detering vacancy setting in, is most welcome 🙂

Also, to soften the blow of the impending spectacle, readers are forewarned to brace themselves for the soon-to-be-unveiled new infill building across the road. The tantalising glimpses of lemon paint and aluminium fenestration have punters salivating.

@GrahamH wrote:

gunter, there are shall we say, new people in town…

Superb report. The word ‘exemplar’ was not even correctly understood or applied in the original report. There is much else to be said, but I’ll leave that to others.

a planner that actualy gives a shit about the city strange but welcome times indeed:)

@GrahamH wrote:

Also, to soften the blow of the impending spectacle, readers are forewarned to brace themselves for the soon-to-be-unveiled new infill building across the road. The tantalising glimpses of lemon paint and aluminium fenestration have punters salivating.

It’s the kitchen extension on the roof that’s ringing my alarm bell.

One other worrying thing is that they seem to be carrying out deep excavations to the rear.
They were at it at half eight this morning with an orange digger, and they shifted a good couple of truck loads of material that seemed to include a fair amount of building stone.

This site is just four meters away from that substantial medieval wall in the Chadwicks yard and I didn’t see any obvious archaeological supervision. Usually you can tell by the presence of a sturdy female in a florescent jacket nearby.

the medieval wall is marked in red.

There was a DCC Public Notice in the paper yesterday to the effect that the Thomas Street & Environs Architectural Conservation Area designation has been ‘adopted’ as a variation to the Dublin City Development Plan 2005 – 2011. There’s some good stuff about the ‘Billy’ heritage of the area in the accompanying report, authored by the Civic Trust 🙂

Whether it should, more properly, be called the ”Half of Thomas Street ACA” is another matter.

I’m going to take the apparent slipping in of Z5 zoning (‘to consolidate and facilitate the development of the central area’) to the street surface between Bridgefoot Street and Crane Street as a graphic error!

:confused:

I thought half of the western end of Thomas Street had been included????

Did they print the wrong map?

There’s some bonkers exclusions there.

And I see ACAs proposed for Fitzwilliam Square and Chapelizod village. On display at present in DCC atrium.

Did I see all the Buddleias gone this morning?

Yep. We learned on the Open House tour that the Digital Hub ordered a clearing of all of Buddleia on their properties last week, directly on foot of the Liberties Buddleia Walking Tour!

In many ways their actions made it interesting, as like any good Dutch Billy hunt, it was all the more engaging trying to pinpoint the straggling remains of once-great urban forests hanging out of crumbling brickwork.

We also learned that the opportunity wasn’t even taken to clear gutters, valleys or downpipes, or reinstate missing slates. Purely superficial.

“Yep. We learned on the Open House tour that the Digital Hub ordered a clearing of all of Buddleia on their properties last week, directly on foot of the Liberties Buddleia Walking Tour! “

Mmmmm………I wonder will the Green Party object…given their track record, and inane ideology, they should!

Ah… I remember when they objected to the cutting down of the trees on O’ Connell St. after they had voted for the revelopment of the street and knew too well that the old trees were to go.

Just when it seemed Thomas Street was finally starting to acquire a bit of sophistication and some improved uses – stylish conversions of former bank buildings to cafes and bespoke design shops – looks like it’s wasting no time heading back to the fluorescent dumper of Morelli’s takeaway and Vincenzo’s Fries: the Living Quarters interiors shop on Cornmarket is “relocating” and there’s a planning application for change of use of it to a takeaway restaurant. The council have requested further information – Ref. 3536/09

I noticed some pictures of 22a & 23 James’s St. on this thread. Thought you might like to see this one.
There is a larger non-optimised version here

photopol, it’s interesting to note that no. 23 James St. [the green door] went from a inhabited and maintained state, in your photograph, to this state in the space of about three, or four years.

This a very fine, modest, Georgian house which probably dates to the 1770s. It has some early features, corner fireplaces/central chimney stack, and some later features, the Wyatt window on the ground floor.

The door surround is a characteristic transitional Dublin-Georgian door, common in secondary locations at this time with examples popping up on Cuffe Street and around Dorset St./Eccles St. The block and moulding uprights [from earlier Gibbsian design] is combined with a thin stone arch moulding to provide the largest possible fanlight in conformity to emerging trends.

The hipped roof is a particularly tidy exercise in symmetry, to both front and back.

. . . . and yes, this is a Protected Structure.

I should have said that my shot was taken on 1/7/2006.

a shocking level of deterioration in less than three and a half years.

I don’t know if I mentioned that this house is a . . . . . ‘Protected Structure’