Devin
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
As far as I know the stonework of Powerscourt’s facade was badly damaged in an over-zealous cleaning about 25 years ago.
All of the sash windows in the upper floors of Powerscourt are the original 1760s ones, except the central gothic-arched tripartite (‘Venetian’) one. The (presumably) gothic-arched ground floor windows were replaced at some stage with plate glass. But the basement has really great original gothic-arched sashes…….250 years thick of paint layers! It’s a treat to lean over the front balustrade and look at them 😮 .
Agreed. Buildngs that are in the situation that Corbalis House is in can actually do more harm than good to the ‘cause’ of heritage: Thousands of people are passing by here every day and seeing this attractive old building which looks like it’s been dropped into the middle of a busy modern airport; it makes it ‘ok’ in the public mind for historic buildings to exist like this, completely devoid of their original setting and context.
If Corbalis House was a particularly rare example of its type – say, with an intact panelled wood interior or something – there might be a case for keeping it (where it is), but as far as I know it is not.
Re moving historic buildings:
I think this was considered once for the former Moravian Meeting Hall on Lr. Kevin Street, when they wanted to widen Kevin Street – the Hall would be moved back. But I think it was ditched when they found out how enormously expensive it would be.I should also say that I think Corbalis House should be demolished because its setting has been wrecked, not because I agree with an increase of activity at the airport. A forecast increase in air passengers is unsustainable, because airplanes are a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions = global warming. Having said that, the proposed new roundy building looks good (if a little like an airplane showroom 😉 ) and anything that helps improve or rationalise the dogs dinner of buildings that is Dublin Airport is obviously a good thing.
@Morlan wrote:
I’ve actually given up on the whole highrise Dublin thing at this stage. NOTHING is happening….There’s absolutley no chance of a proper skyscraper in Dublin for at least another 40 years….
A bit of discrimination please, Morlan.
I wouldn’t mind seeing Corbalis House going. Its setting is so contorted as to be meaningless. It is akin to a mock-Victorian gaslamp in the airport car park or a Malton print hanging in the baggage hall: a token bit of ‘heritage’ to prettify the place. It should be taken out of its misery…
(For those who don’t know it, it’s the period house on a traffic island in the airport grounds as you approach the main terminal building)
Yeah, that’s it – you just get to know the general appearance of them (after lookin’ at so many feckin windows!). Another way of telling is if you’re inside the building, you can usually see the scars of where the glazing bars were removed (filled with the Victorian eqivalent of polyfilla!), or you might be able to see from the outside if it’s a ground floor window.
The light is crap in these photos (below) of the 1st floor windows of No. 49 (left) and Brady’s on the corner (right, slightly blurry), but you can see that it’s the same window with the glazing bars removed on the right.
Only removing the glazing bars to get the new larger panes of glass rather than replacing the whole window was a very ‘make and do’ thing to do, wasn’t it? 🙂
[align=center:2ktlozcj]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[/align:2ktlozcj]
Here’s another example of bad Georgian sash window replacement; I was passing Windsor Terrace on the Grand Canal a while ago and took a picture of this beautiful early 19th century sash window with old glass rippling in the light (top). Lo and behold, next time I passed the old windows had been replaced with these copies (above) making all the usual mistakes: crude fat glazing bars, pieces of wood used to hold the glass in instead of putty (which you can see are coming off at the bottom of the top sash), and non-Georgian ogee sash horns.
So you have the double whammy of loss of irreplaceable original fabric, and bad quality replacement 🙁 .The building is on the corner on the right, below.
I see Jimmy Page is opening an exhibition of St. Finbarr’s architect William Burges’ work tomorrow night at St. Finbarr’s. Apparently Page is a big fan of Burges’ work. I’d love to have gone to that as I’m a big Led Zeppelin fan (and St. Finbarr’s!) but can’t because I’m away 🙁 . I had an invite and all.
I suppose the corollary of stack bond not being structural is that no brick bond today is structural. Whether used in historic reproduction or new build it’s an outer skin to a cavity block or other construction. Though there may be exceptions….
The ’03 photos are from the planning file mentioned above (being a prescribed body has its perks!).
Good to know somebody else is noticing these things (I’m not the psychopath I thought I was!!!).
It wouldn’t bother me greatly whether it was 2-over-2s or another pane-pattern that was reinserted in No. 47, as the terrace has no great unity any more; – the existing ‘proper’ windows and the ground floor treatments of the buildings vary. But I wouldn’t complain if accurate copies of the original 6-over-6s were put in, which survive next door at 48 and also in Brady’s Pharmacy on the corner (but with glazing bars removed).
WINDOW REPLACEMENT – SOMETIMES THINGS JUST GO FROM BAD TO WORSE:
Nos. 46 and 47 Harrington Street in 2003, both with ’70s-type aluminium windows.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Both of these buildings are Protected Structures. A planning application was lodged in ’03 for No. 46 (Ref. 2867/03) for various changes including reinstatement of sash windows. Good. Except the new windows are clumsy double-glazed copies of Georgian sashes (see below). Bad quality copies of sash windows really annoy me, because, at least if there are clearly innapropriate windows in a building, there is a impetus to replace them, but bad sashes are not likely to be with replaced with ‘historically correct’ ones easily, are they?Then, in summer of last year, a load of work was carried out on No. 47 without planning permission, including the replacement of the aluminium windows with PVC Georgian windows. They must have known it was a good time to do unauthorised work, because I made a complaint at the time, but the enforcement officer who normally deals with the area was away and there was nobody else available to make an inspection! And a year later, the PVC is still there…
The unauthorised work also included a quite well-executed rusticated blockwork effect in render on the ground floor, to match the building next door. But why would you go and do that and then put plastic Georgian windows in the building? :confused:
Nos. 46 and 47 Harrington Street in 2005, with bad quality sash windows to 46, and PVC Georgian windows to 47.
General view (the two buildings are semi-obscured behind the tree on the left).
Look at these awful glazing bars – they bear no resemblance to a Georgian glazing bar – putty on the outside; slender moulding on the inside (Cobalt, although your windows are Victorian, this in the kind of thing to watch out for if you are having new windows made – be sure whoever is making them makes an accurate copy of the existing ones, if they are too far gone). And the common mistake of using an ogee (Victorian) sash horn on a Georgian window.
Mmm, could be an idea….the traders have been on Thomas Street a long time, but the traffic harassment they have to endure is appalling.
Graham Hickey wrote:But the apartments built further down have also established the expansive width of the street]Yeah. The first phase of the Bridgefoot Street flats redevelopment (twee townhouses replacing ferocious blocks of maisonettes) was built on the widened streetline, but this only takes up about a quarter of the flats’ street frontage – further phases could utilise some of the space in the redundant carraigeway. But no matter what happens now, there’s always going to be an element of ‘stupidity’ about the whole situation since the widening plan was only ditched after the flats redevelopment had begun.@Rusty Cogs wrote:
The Excise bar in the IFSC has a stone set in it’s facade ‘His Majesties Excise Office 1827″
(1821)
The first time I went down to the docklands and saw that, it was eerie. It was a very tangible feeling of being under British rule. I think it was because nothing had been done to that part of the docklands at that point (early ‘90s) – it was like stepping into the past. The effect probably wouldn’t be the same today because of the regeneration. Still, I’m sure it is a bit of an eyecatcher for people who see it for the first time.@jimg wrote:
It is frustrating that not even one of the iconic towers of Ballymun is being preserved – what not?
I agree absolutely – it’s quite sad. In ten years time or so people will be looking at old photos of the Ballymum towers with something akin to nostalgia or at least curiousity. Having said that, can you imagine the headlines: “An Taisce calls for the retention of Ballymun towers” – it’d be great fodder for the shrilly indignant media commentators.
I don’t think so. If you knew Ballymun Flats, they were hated on every front: the people who lived in them hated them (history of suicides, thrashed communal spaces), the people in the wider area hated them (obviously) and they were a maintenance headache for the council (temperature control problems).
No. 134 Thomas Street (approved for demolition).
View looking down Bridgefoot Street from Thomas Street.
View looking up Bridgefoot Street towards Thomas Street.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another factor that ought to have been taken into account in deciding on the demolition of 134 Thomas Street, but wasn’t, is that the western lane of the Bridgefoot Street dual carriageway is now effectively redundant. A few cars use it to get into the side streets off the street, but very few overall. Otherwise, the dual carriageway heads down towards the Liffey and suddenly goes back into a narrow, one-way city street. The council had actually planned to complete the mad 1970s widening plan down to the Liffey until quite recently, but it would have destroyed the enclosure of the best historic bridge on the Liffey, Mellowes/Queen Maeve Bridge. See here also:
https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=3296&highlight=bridgefoot
Anyway, the point is, since the west lane of Bridgefoot Street is now largely redundant, there was scope for reclaiming part of it to be developed (but not so much as to upset the great view up the street of St. Catherine’s tower). This would have allowed for a well-articulated corner in place of the existing very badly finished gable of the Georgian house where earlier houses were demolished (this is assuming the Georgian house would be kept, which it should have been any which way). To use a glib phrase, a ‘win-win’ situation.
@ctesiphon wrote:
Owen Keegan…seems to be saying “We’ve failed, and that’s that,” rather than “We’ve failed so far, but there is a solution.”
Yes, I too would like to hear more about what he thinks actually needs to be done. The section on cycling in the council’s Development Plan contains objectives to improve things as you would expect, but doesn’t, I feel, convey the gravity of the situation. It starts off with: “Cycling has the potential to transform the city’s quality of life…” (bolding added) ..hmmmmm.
The monster building looks even worse in real life
I wasn’t around when it went through planning. I was off working in another part of the country. I’d definitely have had a go at it if I was (fume!).
We’d better not scoff, though, too much at the use of copper. Architects are (often) under pressure from developers to get a big monster through, so they’re doing everything they can do to try’n break the thing up and make it look ‘attractive’…The answer to this problem is these ‘Framework Area Plans’ which the council have been producing lately. They contain objectives for specific sites that might be developed, saying what kind of a building is needed. The problem with the Coombe area was that there was no such Plan to guide these developments when they came in. So as Mob79 said, the new buildings are “totally disjointed and broken up, no flow to the street, just random buildings shouting outâ€.
Edit: Though that’s not to excuse the planner who passed the above 7-storey yoke; – he/she should be shot; as should the manager who signed the decision!
@ctesiphon wrote:
…However, as long as Eoin Keegan is in charge at DCC I think it will be an uphill battle. I get the feeling that cycling provision is too much of a headache for him- witness his Velo-City comments in May about the bike lane network having failed. No, Mr Keegan, it is you who has failed.
Maybe DCC need a cycle planning officer?Just a correction]’“we’ve turned the corner†in relation to cycling numbers'[/I]. – We have in our feckin arses! Cycling in Dublin is becoming a more minority practice every day. And the way the tired old km quantity of cycle lanes is wheeled out – as if it were in itself a measure of success – ‘300km’ – 300km of cycle lanes squeezed in at the edge of the dirty, unhealthy, unpleasant and dangerous environment that the city’s roads are.
I was also pleased with Keegan’s comments because they tallied with the findings of a recent An Taisce report which I worked on – Dublinspirations – which noted that although a fairly comprehensive network of cycle lanes had been introduced on arterial routes over the past seven years, cycling in Dublin remained an oppressive and treacherous experience compared to other European cities, and that a total rethink was necessary.
As Keegan says, cycling has not been sold to the public.
Contra Flow Cycle Lanes
Here are a few locations which – in my opinion – scream for insertion of a contra flow cycle lane. If anyone else has other suggestions, please add them. The route from the Ambassador, O’Cll St. up to Walton’s, Frederick St. as suggested by Conk earlier would I suppose be another.
In all of the cases below, there are cyclists using these ‘shortcuts’ every few minutes (though some get off and walk).
I’d like to stress, though, that by saying contra flow lanes are needed in these locations, I am in no way saying that you can make a few improvements to cycling conditions in Dublin and everything will be fine. The reality is that the overall situation for cyclists in the city is so grim as to warrant a redesign of every single street where traffic runs.
Upper Camden Street
The straight road between Rathmines and the city must have one of the highest rates of cycle-commuting in the city. But when you are going in the City-to-Rathmines direction, you have to make a daft circuitous route at the top of Lower Camden Street – or else do this (above). Even in the pissing rain yesterday, a cyclist was heading up here against the flow about every two minutes.
Parnell Street
To get from the ‘multi-plex’ area of Parnell Street to O’Connell Street / the next bit of Parnell Street, you have to go right around Parnell Square – or else make this irresistable shortcut; but with hostile traffic coming towards you.
South Leinster Street
Again, the cyclist arriving in from Ballsbridge etc. and destined for Grafton Street, Dame Street, or anywhere else in the centre is not going to make the fume-choked circuitous route around by Westland Row / Pearse Street in order to get there. (Most cylists coming into South Leinster St. like this are coming from Clare Street, but this one (above) is coming from Lincoln Place, also against the traffic flow.)
