Devin
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
@ctesiphon wrote:
Wouldn’t the actual application drawings have shown precise heights etc.?
Might be worth going and having a look. But they’re probably being destroyed as we speak! 😀 Inaccurate images are quite common in development generally. But it’s a bit of a shock here because the City Council are the developer, and because of the importance of the site.
This elevation is from the same newspaper piece as the other one. No excuses …
.Well, here’s proof. The images were inaccurate; the colour one posted by GH above and this black & white one below both showed the parapet of the new building lining up with the cornice of the AIB. But in reality it’s way bigger. This is very serious.
.Excellent, phil. Could you arrange to get that scanned and put it up here. I think it’s quite serious that a deceptive image of the building was circulated.
Will put these here.
Lower Dominic Street flats are being demolished at the moment (only the east side).
A new entrance to the Ilac is being constructed there at the end of the street in the first picture
.I don’t think we should go OTT about this building. The thread won’t be very interesting if it’s just one person after the other coming in and lambasting it, will it? The building is disappointing on some levels, but it is not a tragedy on the same scale as Henrietta Street or Lavitt’s Quay.
I had hopes for this building. I’d longed to see the unsightly butchered gable wall of the Sick & Indigent house covered with an appropriate new bookmark building. It seemed reassuring that a reputable firm (MBM Architects) with long experience in European urban design were doing it.
It is slightly too big. It would probably have been better to develop a 4-storey building here. And worse, I think the images circulated prior to construction were inaccurate. I remember studying the proposed view of the building from the corner of Parliament Street, and its parapet was approximately contiguous with the cornice of the AIB. In reality the building is somewhat bigger. Inaccurate images are a big problem in development today. I might start a thread on that soon (got plenty of examples!).
The building is slightly too loud. A quieter statement was needed. Maybe creepers should be hung all over it like the ‘70s office block in the Lower Castle Yard!!!
The gantry contributes to the loudness. I think it will have to go. The images certainly never showed anything like that.
@tommyt wrote:
This granite also seems very liable to chipping. A good place to observe this is the section of Talbot st. from Marlbourough place to the junction at nth Earl St. One side of the street is old stone, still in great nick, whilst the West side of the street is the new stuff that is already in rag order, chipped and stained beyond redemption by the looks of it.
Parts of Smithfield are in bits too after only about 5 years.
[align=center:2wtb9hco]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[/align:2wtb9hco]
The correct pointing to antique paving should look something like this; a delicate tracery of whitish mortar between the stones, allowing the quality of the stonework to dominate.
Stone masonry is a craft. Repair and alteration to historic paving is a highly skilled operation. But Fas trainees are doing it in Dublin city centre. It is shocking.
Well, they’re at it again. Dublin City Council’s Roads Maintenance Division have just done their dirty raised cement pointing on the listed antique paving on the west side of Temple Lane, from Curved Street up to Dame Street.
And now they’ve moved on to the other side of the street. Here is their handiwork from this afternoon.
I am not having a go at Fas – they do a lot of good work. But, as Greg said earlier, that’s the metaphor which sums it up best: the Fas trainees being let loose unsupervised on the valuable antique pavments.
This is bloody awful. These pavements were fought for back when Temple Bar was being developed, only to have them smeared with cement in 2006. You’d think we’d have come further. Pointing is supposed to be secondary to stonework.
@alonso wrote:
their next scheme will be about 30 storeys … It’ll be granted by the Council, appealed, have a few storeys knocked off by the Bord and we’ll get another non-descript “skyscraper” down there
Or maybe not. The area is not designated for tall buildings, and that will be the bottom line for all of this speculative posturing.
Funnily, I read through EIS for the Manor Park planning application, and the strategy taken* to justify the 53-storey etc. buildings was to argue that the areas of Dublin already identified for tall buildings (in the DEGW study, which DCC have incorporated into their Development Plan) were defective and that this area (Thomas Street) would be more suitable!!
Well, too late, I’m afraid. High buildings have already been approved in the areas identified in the DEGW study (Heuston & Docklands).
Just to clear up something from earlier in the thread: the 12-storey building in School Street which Manor Park Homes’ John Moran referred to in the ‘Times article of 8/6/’06 as having “broke the glass†for height in the area does not have final approval yet. It’s with An Bord Pleanala.
* in Section 5.6.7
This is back in now. Shock – no changes following archiseek condemnation!!
New Ref is: 4616/06. Last day for 3rd party submissions is 20th of Sept.
Another view. It’s very monolithic looking:
I think the join between it and the Sick & Indigent house is unfinished.
Here is the new white granite being put down. As Stephen and Greg said, it’s going to sit uncomfortably next to the golden historic paving that runs around the perimeter of the site. St. Mary’s Church/Keating’s Pub managed to get a slightly yellowey granite for their paved area outside the pub, which looks good. Maybe something like that would have been more suitable here …
@corcaighboy wrote:
Not too many other examples left … although West Cork still has quite a few (although quickly disappearing).
I know somebody who is doing a nationwide study of vitrolite shopfronts, rounding up all the surviving examples. A most worthwhile project. I think she will make it available to the public as well, when it’s done.
The original proposal was for an extra three storeys above the parapet level (an eight storey building altogether). But it was reduced to what you see now after 3rd party objections.
<a href="http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=4867/04&theTabNo=2&backURL=Search%20Criteria%20>%20Dept. of Justice redevevelopment application
I’d assumed it was going to meet the parapet height of the two remaining adjoining buildings on Palace Street, so as to reinforce the scale of this short street, but it’s rather bigger than that. Still, it is generally within the scale of the area, and it’s refreshing to see a new building that’s not trying to do the 7 storey trick in a 4 storey area!
I’m not sure about the external finishes – they seem to be taken from the atrium of the Civic Offices.
Here is an example of what was mentioned earlier about the piecemeal, haphazard replacement of antique golden kerbstones with modern white granite that you see on so many city centre streets. The example street is Lower Leeson Street – the east side – from the Grand Canal down to St. Stephen’s Green:
So, starting at the top, antique kerbs are present & correct.
Down to the junction with Pembroke Street – fine so far …
Then here we go – far side of the Pembroke Street junction and the white granite kerbs begin …
50 paces later, across a laneway, and it’s back into the antique kerbs …
Another little bit on and the white granite begins again, this time a lengthy stretch …
Finally, just before reaching St. Stephen’s Green, you cross a laneway and the last little bit to the Green still has the original kerbs.
Can you imagine seeing this in Paris, or even London?
Maybe the invalidation will give them time to cop on to how dire it is, and come back with something a bit more elegant!
The silos only look good because they are silos. It doesn’t follow that you can model apartments on them and it will look good. Form not following function in this case!
[align=center:1e2dwy38]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[/align:1e2dwy38]
BTW, only the structure of the Bolands Bakery was retained, as the Archiseek entry says. The exteriors, including the curved wall, were totally demolished and rebuilt. Some original stonework – plinth courses, door surrounds et. – was reused. Check out the naff brick used, with deliberate ye olde marks.
The curved wall a terrible loss. I vaguely remember it – it was wine coloured and deeply atmospheric. The huge lettering looked amazing. It made you go ‘Wow, look at that’, when passing.
