ctesiphon
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
@Graham Hickey wrote:
Are these tenement buildings you speak of ctesiphon what they call ‘mansion blocks’ over there? (in London at least).
What class of people would have lived in these in the 19th and early 20th centuries when they were built?
I suspect even then a house with front and back garden was still more desirable, even if these blocks were built to a very high standard.They’re pretty much the same thing, afaik, though I get the impression that the flats in the mansions might be smaller- maybe just the ones I know. Our flat (such a term doesn’t really do it justice) had four bedrooms, two reception rooms, two bathrooms and a kitchen, and a great view of Calton Hill. It was in a four storey over basement block in which the ground floor and basement were actually more like terraced houses with back gardens. Very few of the tenements are as spectacular as the one in Morlan’s pic (which is Old Town rather than New Town).
If you really haven’t been to Edinburgh, may I suggest you drop what you’re doing right now and get on the next flight out of town? I’ll give you a week before I start oiling my gun.:) If you can’t make it, rent ‘The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie’ (or Trainspotting, for that matter, but TPOMJB is a far better film) to see what we mean.The city imposed strict controls on its feuars . Although internally the houses were built to individual tastes and requirements, externally they had to conform in a uniform manner to the general plan as to both height and site. While uniformity was the prime requisite,* variations were allowed in decoration and in the design of doors and windows.
Tempted?:)
EDIT: Broken URL removed. See message below for replacement.
@Paul Clerkin wrote:
I would like one of these please.too cstephion….
If I get lucky on the Lotto I’ll be opening one of them up as a B&B, with one room reserved for free stays for archiseek members.:)
Devin et al-
Agreed about the setts. Though not visible in any of the pics above, there are some lovely details such as the way the setts frame the utility hatches in the ground. The metal covers aren’t just randomly rammed in; the setts are arranged in very decorative ways. an attention to detail rarely seen in the city any more.That one with the ‘Georgian’ glazing and balustraded parapet is almost funny. Almost.
Does the one second from the left still have its steels in the side elevation? Hard to tell…
The thrice-launched Living Over The Shop (LOTS) scheme? Worthy, but owners remain to be convinced.
Tenement buildings are one of the main reasons why I love Edinburgh (and Glasgow) so much, and one of the main reasons why they feel like cities. My guess is that the reason we don’t really have them is that they were just arriving as a type around the time of the Act of Union.
And the apartments we’re building now are not the same thing at all. Entirely the other end of the spectrum. Embarrassingly so.@Graham Hickey wrote:
it can be slippy on frosty mornings, as it was the other day
Agreed. We have decking in the back garden and it’s lethal when wet or frosty. Same goes for the Mespil stretch- I’ve nearly gone arse-over-tit there more than once. I imagine the surface would have to be roughed up a bit for traction.
Having said that, I’ve had slips on the bloody mish mash of stone on Patrick Street in Cork City, the white tiles of Grafton Street, the paving stones of South Great George’s Street in Dublin, Meeting House Square…
Maybe it’s my shoes?
I can understand DCC’s reluctance from an insurance point of view, and a maintenance one too.Much of the ‘Greater Glasgow settlement Area’ includes those awful 1960s towers, though, which must surely increase the density quite considerably, whereas in Dublin the suburbs start as soon as you cross the canals. Dublin City, according to those figures, is actually more dense than Glasgow, which I find surprising (c.4300/sq.km vs c.3500/sq.km), but which further illustrates just how dispersed Dublin’s suburbs are. (I’m not trying to restart the whole pro- vs anti-height debate- just making an observation.)
I’ve always found Edinburgh to be more of a city than Dublin despite its smaller size (haven’t checked areas or population- I’m talking about my perception)- more fully urbanised in the centre and with a more concentrated and defined footprint. I could walk from work in Morningside to home in the east end of the New Town in about 35 minutes- that’s about 2/3 of the whole city footprint. And the city edge really felt like the city edge- forests and mountains were just beyond the notional ‘boundary’. Any journey to the end of a bus line would show the fairly abrupt transition.
Edinburgh seems like a city in miniature, while Dublin seems like a very big town. (Don’t get me wrong – I like Dublin – like I said I’m talking about perception.)@KerryBog2 wrote:
These guys are architects, they do not debase themselves discussing filthy lucre, it is much more artistic to run down one-off houses and talk about high-rises.
Who’s an architect now? Not sure about PDLL, but I go under the broad category of planner and citizen.
The reason I didn’t answer Munsterman’s question is that I don’t know the answer, simple as that.
Without being facetious, I’d say that you can get a pattern house for the price of a Bungalow Bliss book, which I’ve seen for as little as €5 second hand. The other end of the scale is up to you/your architect- the sky’s the limit really, as has been covered by KB2 above.@PDLL wrote:
Ah, nothing like personal invective to further a discussion.
Are you saying that I should ignore petty me feinism where I see it and concentrate on the issues that are germane to the argument here? Interesting, when petty me feinism and avoidance of the bigger picture is the bread and butter of the pro-one-off brigade. So it appears (yet again in this tiresome debate) that there is one set of rules for one side and another set for the other.
Also, I would hardly say that cherry-picking points, truncating quotes and ignoring the awkward arguments is a way to further a discussion.Urbanism (I presume you mean urbanisation?) causes rural depopulation? No. Urbanisation and rural depopulation are caused by the same thing- economic policy. Yes, people leave the countryside to live in cities, but many would rather not move at all. Isn’t the desire for one-offs evidence of this?
Your point re the NSS is… eh… is the same as the one I made. Except for this:
@PDLL wrote:I do not see decentralization as undermining the potential of the NSS, as the plan for decentralization is as theoretical and unlikely to happen as the NSS is.
Let me get this straight- you are saying:
a) ‘Decentralisation’ is theoretical]I was also referring to Dublin-based individuals who criticise rural dwellers for wishing to build on their own land for not designing houses that are somehow visionary architectural constructs that are designed to specifically mould themselves to the landscape in which they will be sited.[/QUOTE]
See, this is an example of a point I answered before, an answer you chose to ignore in order ot make your point again. It’s not purely aesthetic, it’s economic and it’s environmental. Also, it’s not just Dubliners (or even ‘Dublin based individuals’) who are against one-offs. More enlightened rural dwellers also see the rationale. But that doesn’t support your argument so neatly.
@PDLL wrote:Equally so, people should not be so short-sighted as to assume that all people can live near DART lines or bus-services.
Perhaps everyone can’t live near the DART (or the LUAS), but everyone can live near a bus route. It’s called a road. It mightn’t have a bus on it at the moment, but it has the potential.
@PDLL wrote:If that means they cost the state a few more euros than someone else living in an estate on the outskirts of a rural town, so be it – those living in Tallaght cost the State quite a lot too in terms of providing the LUAS and so on.
‘So be it’, as long as they don’t mind paying for the extra cost. Tallaght residents pay a LUAS fare, though the better point here is that the LUAS is available to everyone, not just residents of the areas along its length. Or are you now going to argue that rural dwellers who come to Dublin aren’t going to use the LUAS to get from Heuston into town as some form of protest?
@PDLL wrote:If the definition of rural re-population is to move people out of Dublin so they can be corralled once more in non-descript housing estates around our Gateway cities and towns, the we will go down the road of Britain where we have nothing but urban centres separated by green wastelands. What a model to follow. Oh, I forgot, we would also have a few thousand plush environmentally and architect-friendly homes in between.
Again, No. We have a hierarchy of settlements from cities down to modest villages. Your black-and-white way of making points undermines any validity your argument might have.
@PDLL wrote:agriculture still accounts for 7% of our GDP and 10% of our employment and those people and their families do need to live somewhere
Agriculture has been in decline for some time now and will continue to go that way. Whether you like it or not, we can no longer characterise ourselves as an agricultural society, and it’s disingenuous of you to suggest that all or most of the rural houses are desired by farmers who want to be on their land.
In addition, agriculture is one of the economic areas most heavily subsidised by the EU- though I presume that you are as against other EU countries subsidising our agricultural economy as you are against rural people subsidising the growth of Dublin? Or perhaps you think that the EU should subsidise Irish agriculture in the same way that city dwellers should bear the slightly higher cost of rural people wanting to live in one-offs? Y’see, PDLL, I’m confused now by your lack of consistency. Confused I am.
@PDLL wrote:why should 2.9 million citizens outside of Dublin pay for the LUAS line for those selfish gits who chose to live way out in Stillorgan
We’ve been over this before, but in essence:
a) Levies were imposed on developers building in the vicinity of the LUAS to cover much of the cost.
b) It makes economic sense to provide public transport to areas of large population density.
c) City dwellers pay more tax per capita than rural dwellers.
d) It is more cost-effective to develop urban public transport systems than it is to build new roads to the four corners (not that they aren’t needed- I’m simply making a cost-effectiveness point).
e) So if anything, urban taxpayers are subsidising their country cousins (a position you in effect endorsed above- remember?) rather than the other way around.In conclusion:
Most cases of ‘need’ in the countryside are just desire masquerading as need.
There are economic and environmental cases against one-offs as well as visual ones (while the visual one is subjective, the others are not).
The alternatives need to be made more attractive, i.e. more than just identikit three-bed semis and shoebox apartments.
Most of the tools for this exist already- the NSS, the PDA 2000 (Local Area Plans, Village Design Statements etc.)
The main problem is the unwillingness of the Government to implement a worthwhile proposal (the NSS), at root caused by our shambolic political system.
We need a wholesale re-evaluation of the way we live today in cities, in towns and in the countryside, unencumbered by notions of personal freedom.
We need to focus on responsibilities more than on rights.
We need to collaborate rather than plough our lonely personal furrows.I think I’m spent on this one. I doubt I’ve changed your mind, nor have you changed mine.
@Morlan wrote:
Now, the lower facade isn’t to bad. If only they’d used the same render on the upper floors, I think it would look much better.
The ‘render’ on the ground floor is in fact stone, the same stone as was used in the BoI and channelled in the same manner.
Agreed though that as a 70s ‘infill’ it’s one of the best in the city.I never knew that the pair in the corner was for sale recently. (Not that I’d have been in a position… 🙁 ) It’s been an ambition to call one of them home for a long time now. I wonder do they need a caretaker…?
@PDLL wrote:
If the infrastructure in the capital is improved at an exponential rate compared to that in the regions, then inevitably Dublin becomes the centre of the Irish world (this is just nineteenth century urban history repeating itself). The better the infrastructure in Dublin gets, the more employment there is, then more people move there, then the infrastructure needs more investment, then it gets more investment and the cycle goes on and on. While this cycle is progressing, another cycle is taking place in parallel. The better the infrastructure in Dublin gets, the more employment there is, then more people move there, then the countryside is depopulated, then there is no justification to improve infrastructure in the country areas, then the country becomes further depopulated as people don’t want to live there and so it goes on. The intelligensia sits and mulls over the urban overflow in Dublin -‘what can be done – we know, invest more in the city and attract more people – wonderful’ and occasionally they bemoan the depopulation of the countryside which is progressively becoming a green desert ideal for tourist snaps devoid of interfering pesky humans.
So it’s Dublin and/or the ‘intelligentsia’ that’s responsible for rural depopulation and the blight of three-bed semis across the nation?
We had a little thing called the National Spatial Strategy that came out in 2002, designed to last until 2020, the purpose of which was to redistribute development away from Dublin to a hierarchy of centres around the country. These centres were selected for a variety of reasons, chief among them being growth potential and transport connectivity. Then so-called Decentralisation came along and undermined the potential of the NSS (I’d say ‘undermined the good work’, but the NSS hardly had time to tie its laces before it was shunted aside), all because of political interference and the lowest, most shameless sort of vote grabbing nonsense by the existing Government (this is not an anti-FF rant, but they were the main party in power at the time).
It has been acknowledged for some time that the unchecked growth of Dublin is actually counter-productive in economic terms, but it’s difficult to fault Dublin City Council and the others in the GDA for trying to maximise their incomes. These decisions have to be taken at a higher level- at precisely the level at which such a mess has been made of the process until now, so there’s little hope it will improve. It’s not enough to publish the NSS (flawed and all as it might have been, it’s still the best we’ve got at this point), there must be the political will and the necessary resources to implement it.
So to say that ‘the intelligentsia’ (presumably you mean the planning mavens of the DEHLG?) decided to increase investment in Dublin is patently nonsense.How does this tie into the one-off debate? The NSS recommended limitations on single rural dwellings and investment in the selected towns for economic reasons. It’s not, as you think, simply a matter of aesthetics, taste and visual intrusion, though there’s an element of that too.
I don’t dispute that there have been some pure muck estates built around the country, but where do you see the local landowners fitting into this? The builders? The ‘designers’ (I use the word in its broadest sense)? If the local authorities turned down every application for a field of three-bed semis, no doubt you’d be up in arms decrying the interference of the bloody planners in a landowner’s right to make a few quid off the land that’s been in his family since his ancestor drove Cromwell out of town with only a big stick and a purposeful gait.There is rarely ‘bravery’ in wanting to build in the countryside.
It’s selfish in the extreme to expect the rest of us to pick up the tab.
Many (most?) people would like a patch of land to call their own, but some of us see beyond the ends of our noses.We have experienced unprecedented population growth in this country in the last 10 or so years, and we have signally failed to deal with it. the days of living remote from the plebs are past for all but the richest few, but we’ve not yet realised this and less still have we developed the means to deal with it. If you don’t agree, just go to Co. Laois. We need a wholesale re-evaluation of what it means to live in both city and country and a dose of real imagination to come up with solutions, rather than petty chip-on-my-shoulder whining about poor little me and the big bad man who won’t let me get my way.
I’ve often thought that Foster Place had a certain ring to it, but I wasn’t aware of the activity of Mr Foster. Certainly changes things. Would that mean that Foster Avenue in Mount Merrion is also named after him?
Having said that, I’m not often in favour of airbrushing history, though there might be a case here.It could always revert to the name it had before FP- Turnstile Alley? How’s that for prosaic? 🙂
Or something to do with one of the architects involved on the Parliament/BoI? I don’t think Edward Lovett Pearce is commemorated anywhere in the city, which is a great shame.Howley Harrington’s revised Temple Bar plan included mention of Foster Place. As far as I remember, there was talk of opening it up to plug into the rest of TB, but just how this would be achieved is unclear to me. All of the buildings are of merit and part of the charm of FP is its enclosed nature- I’d be cautious about any measure that diluted this characteristic.
The document might be available on the DCC website, or maybe on HH’s own site?
I’ve heard that in South Korea there are television screens on the street that show Baduk games in real time, such is the country’s passion for the game (called Wei-chi in China, Igo in Japan, and Go internationally). Can’t think of an Irish equivalent. Maybe one of those reality tv shows?
I’m pretty sure that’s the former AIB building that adhoc refers to- it has a grand double-height hall with a coved, barrel-vaulted ceiling that would make a fine restaurant.
Also, I’m pretty sure it’s DCC rather than BoI that is responsible here, as you guess. Despite appearances, it’s still a public street.
Can’t say I agree that it should be closed off. More city centre public toilets would answer the call of nature, and partaking of a spliff (however illegal) I would hardly categorise as anti-social behaviour. It might go hand in hand with asb in some cases, but it’s neither a cause nor an example of it. Increased activity levels would prevent both of these from happening- I’ve thought that the AIB should be a hotel for some time now, which would be one answer.If by ‘do’ you mean package, privatise and commodify, then you’re spot on.
But Foster Place was a place of urban distinction and beauty for me long before Starbucks – or Treasury, for that matter – came along. Parhaps Starbucks did galvanise Treasury, but that’s not to say that either party is responsible for the quality of the urban realm in this location.
You are presuming I would bring the same attitude to driving as I do to cycling, which in fact is both true and is not (though they are two sides of the same coin).
It is true because I would respect the rules of the road as I do the rules of a bike lane- the rules of the road as you know accommodating all modes of transport.
It is not true because I would never as a motorist presume ‘dominion’ over other road users as you seem to be implying, because of the aforementioned rules of the road.I think you hit the nail on the head, garethace, when you said Foster Place was “a small urban space with real potential”- which is why it can’t be compared to, say, Quartier Bloom (or whatever it’s called), which was created from nothing. Also, I disagree about the quality of the latter- you mightn’t like it, but the bums-on-seats every time I pass through there would suggest it is one of the more successful recent attempts at designing an outdoor space from scratch.
In Foster Place, the setts were in place, the trees were in place, the buildings were in place, even the planning application for change of use to cafe-restaurant was in place, all before Starbucks arrived, so I don’t think they are as deserving of praise as you seem to think. This is not to take away from the quality, but I’d think the quality is nothing to do with Starbucks and everything to do with the place itself, i.e. all the necessary constituents were present and all Starbucks had to do was start serving. So I disagree with your assertion that we “‘cannot yet do’ urban space”. It’s very clear to me that we already did it, though I’d agree that this is one of the few exceptions.
Also, I was a fan of the street (as many others on this forum were) long before Starbucks opened your eyes to its greatness, and I do think that something of its former quality has been lost in such a transformation. I know we can’t have both a quiet oasis and a bustling coffee corner, but I mention this as an illustration that there is more than one way to enjoy an urban space.
PS You say “We have nothing like a course to train young urban designers.” There is in fact a masters in Urban Design in UCD, not to mention a focus on UD in the UCD MRUP course. I can’t speak for other colleges, but even one example suffices here.
The logic (which you misinterpret) is that a cycle lane is provided for cyclists, a footpath is provided for pedestrians (in case you missed it, I was as hard on footpath-using cyclists earlier in the thread as I am on bike lane-using pedestrians here). A road (to clarify your ‘counter-argument’) is provided for all vehicular traffic, bikes included. It’s only pedestrians who shouldn’t use a carriageway. So my logic is sound, thanks.
The basis for your empathy is flawed- as by ’empathy’ I understand identification with the plight of another. Nowhere do you mention having been a cyclist on a bike path with a meandering pedestrian in front of you. Sympathise by all means, but empathy is a step further on.
So please keep off the bike path and I’ll keep off the footpath. Your justifications for your continued use are pretty weak: your chances of being killed are further reduced if you use the footpath (to say nothing of the chances of you endangering the cyclists); and if a bike path is provided for the exclusive use of cyclists, please respect that (regardless of whether it is wide enough for you), and if it’s a dual cyclist/pedestrian path, keep to your side.
I agree that more dual paths should be provided, despite my reservations about users encroaching on each others’ territory, but until such time as they are provided keep off the bike-only ones- cyclists do have “dominion over others” in that case, despite what you might wish. And if it bothers you, by all means start lobbying your councillors/TDs.
I do not claim to speak for road users, less still do I claim to speak for motorists. I speak for myself, a cyclist who uses bike paths, a pedestrian who uses footpaths, and a road user who uses roads for cycling and for public transport.
@PDLL wrote:
As a pedestrian who frequently uses a cylce-track for walking with a stroller, I empathise with the frustration of cyclists.
You empathise? But you are the enemy. If you want to use the bike lane, get a bike.
