Thomas Street & James Street, Dublin!
- This topic has 645 replies, 75 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
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.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
