Devin
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Just when you thought everything was going well with the works to the historic perimeter paving at the new plaza, they seem have run short of original granite and the last 12 feet or so at the City Hall end is being re-laid in non-matching white granite. Brilliant!
If they ran short, why can’t historic granite be got to finish it properly? They have taken up vast quantities of this granite from all over the city in the past 20 years. They used to have a huge mound of it piled up in their Marrowbone Lane paving depot. Why must things always be like this in Dublin?
Or maybe it’s being done deliberately, to be consistent with the paving inconsistency that you see so much around the city?
Some nice lighting in the new plaza.
Still, the bumping up of the size of the building has left a bad taste in the mouth.
.
The message seems to have gotten through. The Dame Street paving is being put down again and pointed in a – wait for it – slightly sunken finish!
And while you’re working on this stretch of paving DCC, you could take the opportunity to undo some earlier horror-alterations, like this dish at the Palace Street corner, where the historic paving fabric was simply cut away to make room for new white granite.
If you sourced stones of appropriate shape and dimension from your paving depot on Marrowbone Lane, you could restore the integrity of the pavement here. How about it, huh?
Surprise – An Bord Pleanala has overturned its Inspector’s recommendation and granted permission for this penthouse storey, although they have stipulated that the swoopy bit at the front is flattened out.
Details: http://www.pleanala.ie/data1/searchdetails.asp?id=4795348&caseno=217779
The decision says:
In deciding not to accept the Inspector’s recommendation to refuse permission for the proposed roof level extension, the Board considered that a modestly scaled penthouse structure would be acceptable at this prominent street corner location.
Condition 2 says:
The design of the proposed penthouse extension shall be modified by omitting the curved roof profile and replacing it with a continuation of the flat profile of the remaining part of the roof. Revised drawings showing compliance with this requirement … shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the planning authority prior to commencement of development.
Reason: In the interest of civic design and orderly development. It is considered that the curved roof profile, as proposed, would be unduly prominent in the streetscape and visually incongruous in this conservation area.
I think this probably mitigates the worst of it, although they should have restricted the projection of the canopy as well, as these projecting canopies can be very jarring on or next to historic buildings.
In fairness to the people who own this building, they opened a nice caf
Here’s one for the list hutton.
In Ranelagh you start to see the vernacular architecture of a country town. But it has also just recieved a standard country-town new building … an engineer-designed, white PVC-guttered, brown PVC-windowed, arseways-roofed ‘traditional’ building 🙁 :
.@CologneMike wrote:
Devin hello, great to hear from a Dublin poster as you have in Dublin a very large stock of Georgian terraced buildings. I take it that you would take the purist view on preserving our Georgian heritage?
If an area has an intrinsic quality and an overall design character – as the two Georgian cores of Dublin do – it deserves protection. And I did notice these qualities in Limerick also last time I was there. I’m surprised alterations like that are being let go ahead. It’s not because you’re “purist”. It’s just bad design.
I would be curious to hear how Georgian terraced houses are used, renovated, modernized, preserved or at worst demolished in Dublin?
The south Georgian core of Dublin is a model of sustainable, high density development which has been preserved and adapted to modern use without damage to its character (aside from the terrible loss of almost all of its rear gardens and coach houses for surface car parking).
What would be their ideal use today and how adequate do these buildings fulfil their function in their present state?
How would you modernize and/or preserve these buildings so that they will last another 250 years?
Interior redesign?
Need for Lifts? (elderly people etc)
Need for Fire escapes or replace the wooden stairs with a concrete one?
Toilets / Bathrooms? (original building did not have them!)
Wooden floors or replace with concrete ones?
Insulation?
Windows, Doors?
Decorative ceilings?
Convert roofs?The DoEHLG’S Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelinesgive detailed guidance on all of the above. I’m not trying to get out of answering your question, but I would end up typing a load of stuff that’s along the same lines as what’s here already.
@CologneMike wrote:
Good God!! 😮 There’s a place for that type of thing & it’s not on top of Georgian hses. Do the Georgian areas of Limerick not have some kind of general protection – Conservation Area or somesuch?
Isn’t it amazing what a few terse headlines can do?!
E.g. – Dublin Housing Sprawl is Lashed as Worst in Europe (Evening Herald, 4 October 2006)
Uugh! Irish workmen are obsessed with cement … trowel it on … the more the better. Fine jointing is a foreign concept.
I went down to the very end of the Heuston lands to take those – it’s very serene down there. Got chased out again by security though!
Clancy Barracks was in an unusual situation in that it was a little treasure trove historic buildings closed off to the public eye, and no one knew about it before this huge quantum of development was proposed …. kinda sad.
True about the inevitability of political pressure on planning – the likes of Ken McDonald is only waiting to jump out and cite how many Local Authority-approved units were overturned by An Bord Pleanala in 2006, on behalf of his industry. And all the young people needing homes (as if he cares personally!).
What I meant by ‘precedent’ is that the principle of development has been approved, so ABP may feel under pressure not to remove too much. But to be fair, they are in general not slow to remove / refuse any amount of inappropriate Local Authority-approved development if needs be.
[align=center:3rjnny86]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[/align:3rjnny86]
@KerryBog2 wrote:
Could not agree more, but it never would happen, the prof. bodies of any group would never do that, too cosy and incestuous.
@jdivision wrote:
The unfortunate problem with that is that if you could show that the value of the building was adversely affected then the developer/apartment owners/investors could sue you for diminishing the value of their property.
I know it would never happen – that’s what the internet is for, I suppose. Ciaran Cuffe recently likened blogging (and, by extension, discussion forum postings) to ‘canvassing down the pub’.
But it would not be difficult to prove that the integrity of the protected structures had been compromised in this case, as the legislation is quite strong there.
@jdivision wrote:
I agree with HKR comments,
Here is another example of what I’]http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/9751/copyofdscn2467rq0.jpg[/IMG]
As you are pulling out of Heuston Station on the Cork train, you see these three very fine parallel cut-stone 2-storey ranges at the back of the site. Up close, the quality of the stonework – window dressings, quoins etc. – is very good. They are protected structures.
As part of the Barracks redevelopment, HKR architects proposed placing modern 5-storey blocks in the spaces between and adjoining the ends of the three ranges – at both ends! Can you think of a more ignorant and insensitive way to add to the protected structures??
Dublin City Council put it all through (a trend in the Dublin 8 area). Problem then is, a development precedent is created, so that when it’s appealed, An Bord Pleanala’s job in protecting the character and setting of the protected structures is made that much harder; – where really, all six blocks should be removed by the Bord, half of them are left in – and that’s what happened.
You know those yearly award publications by the AAI and RIAI that feature lots of delicate modern extensions onto period houses, and the panel of assessors rave about the lightness and transcendence of the design? Well for balance they should give examples of bad development next to historic buildings as well, because this would qualify.
It’s still open I think, but under a different name – the George Bernard Shaw. But I heard it’s recently been bought by the people who run the Red Box / Harcourt St. Station venue.
Re: The two buildings at start of the thread:
Parnell Street has been refused (by condition).
Thomas Street has been appealed.
[align=center:296wifvm]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[/align:296wifvm]
Current planning application for new development on Richmond Street, Dublin 2, including two (!) additional setback storeys on top of a protected structure, the former Bambrick’s pub. Dublin City Council has (rightly) slapped down the proposal with this further information request:
“3. The planning authority will not look favourably on the provision of an additional two stories on the existing public house on site. The applicant is requested to provide a revised proposal which omits the additional floors and provides a thorough assessment of the remaining roof and a plan for its conservation.â€
<a href="http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=3828/06&theTabNo=2&backURL=Search%20Criteria%20>%20Richmond St app
I’m getting a bit tired of HKR architects (who are responsible for this proposal) lately. They’re doing a lot of the big stuff around town at the moment, and they’re usually trying to cram too much development in, especially when historic buildings / settings are involved.
Their proposed new Penney’s building of the Arnotts redevelopment speaks for itself ….
But it is O’Connell Street. I can’t see this being given easily.
The council planners and architects who sweated for years over every detail of the remaking will see this like red wine being spilt over their new cream dinner jacket.
Besides, wasn’t the final traffic management phase of the O’Connell Street IAP to remove all private traffic from the street?
Stephen, yes, they’re aware of the problem. They know that practice for protected stone paving needs to be brought into line with practice for protected buildings. Resources need to be allocated for it …… this is the big step.
[align=center:15zzt7xx]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[/align:15zzt7xx]
As work approaches completion on the new plaza beside City Hall, a large section the historic granite paving running along the Dame Street edge has been lifted (above). It will need to be put down again in accordance with best conservation practice – observing the coursing and bonding integrity of stone paving, and neatly pointed in the recommended flush or slightly sunken finish.
The Council’s recent record in this respect is not good. But this is not a side street like Temple Lane or St. Patrick’s Close where you might get away with a bit of nasty work. You’re in the full glare of Dame Street now, DCC Roads Maintenance.
An email has been sent to the Council in advance so there’s no excuse.
It was a terrible proposal on many levels and deserved refusal.
As well as the criticisms made earlier about the poor quality of the main buildings, I’d like to add that, on the strength of this proposal, STW architects don’t know how to treat historic buildings either. The proposals for the protected stone mill buildings were insensitive, to say the least.
For the double-gabled mill building at the corner of the canal-basin and Ringsend Road (‘Block B’), they wanted to demolish its pitched roof and add our old friend, the glass penthouse setback storey – the double gables facing the canal were to be left standing like a Hollywood set with nothing behind them.
For the mill building to the south of that, running along the canal basin (‘Block C’), they wanted to demolish one entire facade (the north facade) and replace it with a glass screen!! This is something you would normally only consider in a protected structure if the fa
That new Penneys building is one of the most problematic parts of the proposal – especially its glass, canopied setback roof storeys. There are several montage views of it in the planning application, but, tellingly, there is no proper view of it seen with the GPO from the north – i.e. from the Nth. Earl Street junction area.
The 12-storey tower at the corner of Abbey Street & Liffey Street is probably ok – an example of somewhere that could take such an addition.
The jury is still out on the proposal for the main Henry Street Arnotts building (though the emoticon: 😮 is appropriate)
