ctesiphon
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
@JoePublic wrote:
Hopefully this is not the case though, but I ain’t feeling optimistic.
Nor I, but I’ll be keeping my fingers crossed. The ‘finished’ side of the top floor wouldn’t inspire confidence.
gunter-
Well put. Like many people, I knew much about the Jewish Museum before finally paying it a visit, and fortunately it didn’t disappoint when I saw it in person, but its appearance has rapidly become a house style to be applied like wallpaper, with diminishing returns each time. Given the dilution that seems to have taken place with each design revision of the Grand Canal building, one wouldn’t hold out too much hope here either, if the MAM hotel is a reliable guide.The only other building of Libeskind’s that I’ve liked as much as the Jewish Museum is the Boilerhouse Extension of the V&A (but I’ve yet to see that one in the flesh ;)). Love it, hate it, or both at the same time, at least it appears to have been thought out on its own terms, not in the context of a house style. But I’m digressing.
I agree that the finished bits look cheap, but is the top floor really finished? Isn’t there a chance there’s still some cladding to add?
Part of the advertising strategy seems to be to cycle these yokes as badly as possible, thereby ensuring that you can’t miss them, or that you do so at your peril.
If Eamon Ryan is to continue supporting the concept, he should at the very least advocate training for the drivers (I can’t think of them as cyclists).
Bingo!
Original front, now facing towards the garden (east) front of Woodbrook House.The main front of the house faces west over a rolling lawn and large pond. The house isn’t great – a bit Victorian wedding cake-y? – but the setting is spectacular. There are some other good buildings in the grounds too, including a stable block, a detached house and a walled garden. And the Tudor clubhouse, visible to the left of the arches, isn’t without merit either.
Rear view, from the golf club car park.Woodbrook House is just visible peering over the wall to the left. The building to the right was an auction room in 2003 (when these photos were taken), and had been for a while, but was originally a ballroom, built around the turn of the last century. It was served during The Season by a temporary stop on the rail line, right near one of the locations now proposed as the link between Luas and Dart (the one that’s being dropped? Again, my facts are a bit rusty).
And one of the Walled Garden too – why not.
FYI, the lands to the north of Woodbrook Golf Club had an LAP done a while ago, and a scheme (from Murray O’Laoire? Can’t recall just now) recently went for planning- mostly good stuff. As far as I know, Woodbrook House and the golf club are staying as is.
The ‘folly’ is visible from the car park, as you can see, and the car park is publicly accessible at the end of a lane. Worth the detour if you’re in the vicinity.
(I have high resolution files of these if you’re interested, Graham.)
@gunter wrote:
There’s probably an Archiseek thread on conservation that it might be better to continue this discussion on.
Maybe this one on the List of Protected Structures?
Also, I’ve referred before to the attitude you mention, gunter, but only in passing, here. (Taken from this thread.)
Looking forward to your input there, gunter.
Quick update- I have the negatives, but only the lesser of the two in print form. I’ll try to scan the negs in the next few days.
Probably thinking of our old friend Woodlawn House? 🙂
Right- leave it with me. (Pretty sure it’s in the folks’ attic- I’ll be visiting over the weekend.)
*writes indecipherable name on hand in non-waterproof ink*
@GrahamH wrote:
4/4/2008
I recently came across this photograph. Recognise anyone?
It’s the original breakfront part of the sandstone facade of the College as taken down around 1963-1964, and replaced with the current Portland facings. It now stands as a folly on the course of Woodlawn Golf Cub in Co. Wicklow!
Woodlawn, or Woodbrook? I ask because there’s a folly in the grounds of Woodbrook House that I remember being quite similar. It’ll be a day or two before I can check the photos at home, but I think it might be the same one. It’s the the east of the east facing (rear) elevation of the house, and can be seen from the golf club car park.
Either way, nice detective work.
@johnglas wrote:
I think we’re now in the position of hoping the bldg may be partly hidden! I’m sure you’ll agree that is unsatisfactory for anything claiming any kind of architectural integrity.
.shhh.!.don.’.t.tell.heneghan.peng.!. 🙂
@CC105 wrote:
No vision in ABP either – as said before poor planners in a shockingly poor system.
Devin pulled you up on your other incorrect generalisation, but this one shouldn’t go unchallenged either. What cases are you referring to here? What planners? Why ‘shockingly’ poor?
You may be right, but groundless sweeping statements like this do your case no favours.
(I get touchy at slurs on my profession. What can I say? I’m human.)
Right click the red X – you’ll see ‘Properties’ in the pop-up box, which leads to another pop-up containint the URL (minus the .).
@alonso wrote:
30 second commute?
To where? The Bridewell?
Peter- I suspect part of the reason the chosen camera angle is usually off centre is to try to minimise the intrusion of Ag House into the shots.
Devin- the other argument – a la Temple Bar and Stag/Hen parties – is that these places serve a necessary purpose across the wider city by ensuring that the valley girls and boys don’t take up the good seats in the good cafes. So Shhhhh!! What’s the other option? Simon’s Place smelling like the perfume counter in BT2? No thanks!
@the Irish Times wrote:
However, JC Decaux said the number of bicycles it would provide would not be reduced as it had based its agreement with the council on the number of panels which it was granted and were not appealed. This agreement was finalised in mid-2007.
A clarification, if you please: from the above quote, I would understand that the number of bikes to be provided has been reduced from the original number proposed (which, as has been noted before, is a figure yet to be released to the public). I know the detail isn’t in the public realm, so we can’t ever say for sure, but hear me out.
Hypothetical illustration (actual figures vary- numbers rounded for ease of comprehension [I’m looking at you, Joan]):
100 billboards = 1000 bikes (1:10 relationship)
95 granted (5 invalid/withdrawn; none were refused, remember)
25 cases appealed = (potential) further reduction of 25% in ads
Total reduction of 30% in bikes (70% of original application granted without appeal)
700 bikes will be provided (revised total)
15 appeals successful (=10 grants), but no commensurate increase in the number of bikes, i.e. why not back to 800?Unless of course there’s no direct relationship between the number of ads and the number of bikes. But, as stated by JCDecaux, “it had based its agreement with the council on the number of panels which it was granted and were not appealed”. Sounds like a pretty b&w basis right there.
Why did DCC not either fix the number of bikes to be provided from the start, or at the very least make the proportional relationship explicit?
What’s that, DCC? Oh, right. It’s ‘commercially sensitive’ information. Aah, well, in that case…
@archipimp wrote:
Also thats not a new square to the north ctesiphon just not part of the development.
I wondered about that after I posted, because there’s the footprint of a building on the site in that image above. Thanks for the clarification.
You make some good points on the novelty factor in other new developments, CM00, and on the environmental aspects of this one, but it’s the suburban office park blandness that is the weak point of this development for me, both the building style and the the ‘parkland’ setting as designed. I’d be very cautious about using the word ‘urban’ to describe this development. It’s campus architecture to these eyes.
Laugh? I nearly…
@stuarthart wrote:
“…herding a flock of sheltered housing blocks.”
Aside from the nonsense highlighted by alonso, this seemed worthy of note- all those poor Victorian terraces and handsome mid-20th century suburbs huddling in the lee of the great white hope of D4 like peasants at a Medieval cathedral. That’s poetry, that is.
This article really is the opposite end of the spectrum from that rose-tinted urban guff on the DDDA that I posted the other day.
@kefu wrote:
However its present prominence will be diminished by upcoming developments in the docklands area.
Ha! Has something happened in the docklands lately that we should know about?
I think they should stay, and I think the planner got it wrong in her assessment- on Social grounds alone, they would merit PS status.
