ctesiphon

@garethace wrote:

Crap.

You should realise that we are experiencing a unique time in Ireland, from the points of view of ALL people involved in planning, construction and design. I am not going to even try to justify what I write – that is not the point. The only point is to capture something in real time, and allow the folks in time in the future, to figure out, what is important about this time we are living in right now. There is just no substitute for a real time, individual account, on the ground, as it were.

Like you can read the diary of some fellow who died in the Somme years ago, and from those brief few scribbles, much later on, an historian can extract some key points from that. It is important to capture something of these unique times here in Ireland – they will not last – but vanish as quickly as they came about. I write from the point of view of the foot soldier, the guy standing in the trench as things all played out. There are other methods of capture, of history and time, like 25 years of architectural awards for instance. But I am trying to capture things in a different kind of way. Our dumb conversation and ping-pong argument, may prove an important anecdote in years to come, you never know.

Brian O’ Hanlon.

Oh Brian. Your post made me laugh out loud, but I suspect for all the wrong reasons.

A few quick points:
This is a discussion forum, not a diary. I’m not sure what Paul sees as the point of it, but for me it’s a useful place to keep up with developments, learn from more experienced players, express opinions on subjects about which I’m knowledgeable and maybe even have an impact on current thought and debate.
Also, it’s not a holding pen for your stream of consciousness thoughts. A little self-editing might go a long way, i.e. why wait for the future folks to work out what you’re trying to say? Why not work it out first, before you post?
If you want to write a diary, then write a diary. Or a blog if you prefer (this was said to you on earlier threads, before I was a poster here [kindly linked by you]- it makes sense to me and would probably suit your style better). But impromptu monologues with an eye on the future and ignorance of the present, particularly when they hijack a debate? Take it outside.

I’m not doubting that something like this may be of value to future generations (indeed, maybe the only reason I keep posting replies to your posts is for fear that silence would indicate to future generations that we all think like you do and believe the same things), but I think they’d prefer a measure of reflection and dialogue rather than scattergun soliloquies. I know I would. But sure what value my opinion when the future is watching?

In conclusion, just let me quote this bit again as it cracks me up:
@garethace wrote:

I am not going to even try to justify what I write – that is not the point

Frank-
This post is about to drop off the front page, and if I don’t respond before it does I’ll forget about it. And it’s an interesting question.

The short answer is I don’t know what planning rules and regs have to say about basements, though they strike me as an eminently sensible idea. I’ve lived in a basement flat of a Georgian on Upper Leeson St and a house with a basement in Ranelagh- the only problems were damp in winter and slightly low ceiling heights, both of which would be easily solvable in a new build. And a friend lived in a basement on Fitzwilliam Square with ceilings higher than most modern houses- over 14 ft at a guess.

I don’t know why they haven’t been a feature of Irish houses in recent times- probably partly a case that development pressure was slight for so much of the latter part of the 20th C., It must cost a bit more to dig a basement that to simply build on the surface and developers aren’t known for wanting to spend money where they’re not obliged to- how else to explain identikit estates?

Apartment developments have belatedly begun to feature basements for storage, not to mention parking, but you seem to be asking about houses exclusively.

I can’t see how it would be out of character with an area, especially if the basement was all but invisible from the front. I’d far prefer see a house being extended down rather than out, subject of course to comfort requirements being satisfied, but that’s not much of an issue. It would preserve open space, and prevent reduction of natural surfaces and thus preserve drainage patterns, not to mention having significant character potential. As a teenager I often wished I lived in an American suburban house as seen in countless sitcoms for precisely this reason- I wanted a basement ‘den’.:)

Much of this is speculation and conjecture- I’d be curious to get an architect’s perspective on the practical realities of such development, either new-build or conversion.

Sounds like good news.
Thanks for that, publicrealm.

😀 😀 😀
That made me spill my tea on my keyboard. Thanks.

@Maskhadov wrote:

Im not sure, maybe there are parts of my character that are unique to me and no one else:cool:. But this is about irish towns up and down the country. So lets concentrate on that

The point I was making was that we should try to preserve what makes our places unique and varied rather than try to make them conform to some ideal of efficiency.
I’m not sure if, by topsy-turvy, you’re referring to the physical layout of our towns or to the process bywhich they’ve developed. If the former, I disagree as I said above; if the latter, I agree as I say below.
I think planning is moving, albeit slowly, in the direction you wish, through Local Area Plans and other devices such as Village Design Statements etc., but I agree that the current method of landowner/developer-driven progress serves only to benefit those connected to the development rather than the wider community.
Part of the problem is that, to an extent, the horse has already bolted. But that’s the nature of economic growth and progress- by the time it’s acknowledged for what it is, rather than a short burst of activity, it’s often too late to plan for it, and planning for something that might not happen is seen as a waste of precious resources in fallow times.

@Devin wrote:

Pardon me ctesiphon – when I posted that, I hadn’t yet read the poll thread where you suggested Grafton Street (but for me going underground would defeat the purpose).

No bother.:)
I agree about going underground- and to be honest I wasn’t entirely joking about Grafton Street on the Poll thread either. It’s something that bugs me about this- the most sensible route from a directness point of view is to go down Grafton St- the mess that happens at the top of Steeven’s Lane would be part of my grounds for this. It’s something I also feel about the buses that go past Molly Malone- it makes so little sense for them to go along Suffolk Street and Dame Street when they would be far better going along in front of the Provost’s House.
I understand Graham’s arguments about the visual side of College Green, and your counter-arguments about putting the works underground, and weehamster’s arguments about Pearse Street (though those pictures hardly show it at its worst- not by a long shot!). I just think it’s a pity that there doesn’t seem to be any real debate or imagination from many quarters about real options- like adhoc says, we’re allowed to dream.

But as you say, the route could well be a done deal.

Maybe Ivor C.? Even if only to say that turning up would be an admission of wrongdoing, but as no wrong was done there was no need for them to show?

(Fish in a barrel, I know I know.)

Agreed about the Sheehan & Barry scheme. I wonder if the difference is in their familiarity with conservation work and thus appreciation for historic buildings and urban fabric? The practice was responsible in the recent past for, among others, the renovation of Newman House on St Stephen’s Green and Stackallan House in Meath (and the slightly more controversial refurb of University Lodge in UCD, the President’s house- controversial because Hugh Brady decided to spend over 1 million euros doing it up at a time when the college library budgets were being slashed, journal subscriptions terminated etc. I’m not faulting S&B- they had a budget and worked with it. But don’t let me get started on President Brady and his ‘vision’…:mad: ).
Nice also to see Newmarket finally getting some tlc- it’s been a warehouse and document storage wasteland, not to mention a joyriders’ paradise, for too long now. Though I suppose if residents move in it will spell the end of 3am frisbee sessions after carousing in Grey’s pub…:(

😮

Though in my defence (ahem), I didn’t realise there was any connection between the ‘classier colleague’ and the picture below the words- I just thought it was another London picture, though not one I recognised.
(In hindsight, I should have just checked the image properties- Bath is in the title of your file!)

There’s another great view of Edinburgh that would be the next picture to the right of the one you linked, showing the back of the Bank of Scotland and other Baronial-tinged ‘skyscrapers’ directly behind the two galleries that sit above Princes Street Gardens, but I fear we’ve gone too far off topic.

I’m off to lick my wounds…:)

@Graham Hickey wrote:

ctesiphon nil do link ag obair…though yes I’ve seen Trainspotting (who hasn’t?), not the other though.
Never been to Edinburgh (oh the shame), but I’ve visited her classier collegue twice, which hopefully makes up for it 🙂

This should work (sorry)- http://www.abercrombyhouse.com/history1.html
I can’t think of anywhere classier than Edinburgh, at least in Scotland. (Except maybe Oban.:) ) Where do you mean?
Lastly, I think it’s only in Ireland that ‘tenement’ has such negative connotations. In Scotland, it simply means a multiple-occupancy building in which the floors are all the same height (unlike our old Georgain friends with the piano nobile and diminishing heights moving upwards).