Devin
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Are you saying that because these equally terrible proposals were made earlier on for the Lavitt’s Quay area, that the current situation – with an existing overscaled building on the quayfront and an overscaled proposal behind the quayfront – is somehow justified?? – That is complete nonsense.
At the end of the day, the only thing that should be considered is the proper planning and development of the area, and in no way could any of these proposals or the existing building at 21 Lavitt’s Quay be construed to be proper planning and development.
For those who don’t know Cork & are presuming that Lavitt’s Quay is in an outer area where bland montrosities and discontinuity of scale might happen, the arrow on the map shows where it is; right in the central core with a dense fabric of older buildings all around and the incredibly historic Paul Street area just behind:
And the existing yoke – euphemistically named “No. 21 Lavitt’s Quay” .…….serious, serious integration problem………:
@lexington wrote:
That thing is absolutely woeful!! It is bland, overscaled and makes monkeys of the remaining older buildings on the quayfront. I suppose it’s following the precedent of the oversized lump that’s already built on Lavitt’s Quay? This is the problem – once one mistake occurs it’s easier for more to be made…
For those who don’t know Cork, this is not in a remote area where there are just scraps of historic buildings left and you could go taller]right in the centre[/I], where there is an established scale.
The 3-storey, 4-bay building on the quayfront is a Protected Structure, right? Well under the Planning & Dev Act 2000 (Part IV), the setting of a P. S. is protected as well as the structure itself. So the impact of new development proposals on the integrity of a P. S. has to be taken into account. You can’t just shove a load of rubbish up behind a P. S. once the building itself has been secured.
This image is misleading anyway. A wider image is needed that properly shows the proposal in its location, with the Quays & Emmet Place etc.
This is an entry from a ‘Buildings at Risk’ publication for Cork* for the Parnell Place/South Mall buldings (also pic here posted by d_d_dallas on Page 1: https://archiseek.com/content/attachment.php?attachmentid=812 ) :
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Camden Quay houses mentioned on Page1 were for the chop at one point too 😮 :
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Also, a rear view – from ‘Citi Car Park’ – of the slate-hung bow-fronted houses on Grand Parade….remains of funny rear site building with vaulting :
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* Cork’s Built Heritage by C.P. Hunter & S. Hunter, 2001Well Graham we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one. While I am only too aware of the chronic mess of signage, poles and other clutter in the city centre, the main problem for me is that it is uncoordinated. Having seen trams in operation in central squares/spaces of various European cities, I find that their dedicated pole/wirescape is not nearly as obtrusive as you imagine it would be.
As everyone knows, College Green at present is disgusting; left in a “1970s timewarp†as you rightly put it recently – the heavy traffic, narrow pavements and horrible street furniture. To put Luas through there is to do right by the city.Well said jimg.
Delighted to see the ghastly error of not linking the Luas lines is finally going to be righted.
In good European cities trams go through the heart, through civic spaces. I am baffled that people are worried about visual effects.
@dave123 wrote:
my spelling isnt to bad, its the very same when your speaking to someone , when you get so annoyed about someting , as it comes out like 300 words evey minute
Try typing your post in Word, before pasting into Archiseek. That way you’ll get a red line under a misspelling, and a green line under a sentence when you’re not making sense.
Sorry about the language, but sometimes this pathetic current government would bring it out in you.
It was the “highly independent” bit I was refering to: The planning applications, oral hearings, planning / archaeology reports and decisions for the roads end of transport infrastructure are all a big charade; as is well known the last dozen or so major roads projects were simply rubber-stamped by the otherwise highly independent An Bord Pleanala.
Whatya think of this? – from our Minister for Transport:
Minister hits out at motorway protesters
30/06/2005 – 16:24:38People who take court actions against state infrastructural projects are stealing from their fellow taxpayers, a Government minister claimed today.
Transport chief Martin Cullen launched a stinging attack on those who mount legal challenges to block major road projects as he opened the final sectin of the much delayed M50 motorway around Dublin.
A number of proposed projects have been delayed by court proceedings taken by conservationists and historians because of their proximity to sensitive sites such as the Hill of Tara and Carrickmines Castle.
But Mr Cullen said campaigners should accept the decision of the planning authorities and stop resorting to courtroom battles.
“When independent assessments are made and projects are given the green light, I am not accepting of people then using the court systems to delay, delay and cost the state a fortune,†he said.
“My point is they are robbing money out of the taxpayers’ pockets of this country unfairly.
“This is a democracy, when the decisions are taken by fair institutions and different bodies, we should accept them.â€
Mr Cullen said only a small number of people opposed most projects.
“We have a highly independent, transparent statutory process in this country where all of these projects go to, everybody gets a fair hearing, everybody gets a chance to make their point,†he said.
This bit is bollocks for a start ↑“When the decisions are taken, they should be accepted.
“The vast majority of the people on all of these projects are fully behind them, it is time that the very few, and it is the very few, causing massive hold-ups and robbing money out of taxpayers’ pockets in this country that could be well invested in other transport areas or indeed, many other areas of the economy, and it is time that it stopped.â€
Mr Cullen said a democracy was about going through the proper processes and having a majority coming to a conclusion.
“Abuse of democracy is what goes on beyond that with people using every element of the court system to block up and freeze up and stop investment in this country,†he told RTE radio.
“I won’t stand for it and it’s time that this sort of carry-on was stopped.â€
@ctesiphon wrote:
There’s also that one at the top of Dawson Street- used to be the sewing shop, now the tourist whiskey shop (and if that ain’t a metaphor for our culture…), with those elegant shallow bows above ground floor level.
That’s a lovely facade…..very provincial English. A girl was asking about it a while ago, if anyone can help – https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=2551&highlight=Dawson – (when she says windows, I presume she means the bows)
Cork is great for bow-fronts & curving buildings.
They are practically non-existent in Dublin – unless you count that one that curves from Lincoln Place into Merrion St., beside the Ullyses chemist.The high GPO roof I’m thinking of may have been quite late, perhaps added just before 1916, because I know the building had had a lot of refurbisment work just before its destruction (!). Then again, maybe it was just the picture I saw (of the above left roof) made it look big. I will have a look out for it.
Precedent could be the reason alright for the Eason roof. I remermber you noting a while back that the Dublin Bread Company’s destruction gave rise to a slightly higher building in its replacement.
The shop area at the O’C St. front of Eason’s has been the same for as long as I can remember, certainly before 1990 anyway, so they must have that plain one longer (perhaps from the beginning?).
I know the Abbey St. roof as well – it’s pretty poor; but at least it’s off the important thoroughfare.
The slate-clad one must be quite early or original, since it’s in the circa 1960 pic – bit of a slip up if it is original! Is it possible that it was built on the basis of a precedent set by the higher roof of the gabled building in roundabout the same position seen in the Laurence pic of the Metropole Hotel?
Speaking of mansard roofs, it’s quite surprising to see a fairly prominent roof storey in pictures of the GPO before its 1916 thrashing, much bigger than its current roof. Graham, have you one to hand (I would have to go looking)?
It’s true, Eason’s mansard roof does look bloody awful! I think it’s because the adjoining buildings are flat roofed. The awful Abbey Street view:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
@Thomond Park wrote:That is a fantastic image
It’s from a great book of photos called Dublin and Cork (the majority of pics are of Dublin) by R. S. Magowan, published in 1961. The photos are of very high quality & catch Dublin at an interesting point just before the ‘60s boom. Paul (administrator) posted some photos of neon signs from this book before. The National Photographic Archive would do well to try’n get their hands on this collection – would make great material for exhibitions.
[align=center:3o6vqluq]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[/align:3o6vqluq]
There’s some more info, a front-on pic & an original elevation drawing of the Metropole Cinema in F. O’Dwyer’s book, Lost Dublin (1981).
Getting the right replacement there for BHS/Pennys would be a treacherous job!
The brutalist ’70s predecessor to Schuh was identified in the 1998 O’Connell St. IAP plan for replacement, and now there is a contemporary building there. But reactions to it, on this board anyway, have been mixed.@Graham Hickey wrote:
Thanks for the succession of pictures of the building pre & post 1916, Graham.
Isn’t it amazing how much mileage you can get out of four brick facades?!
I’m fairly certain it is the four original WSCs buildings underneath all that frilliness. All the positioning & sizes of the windows are the same (and line up with the other original buildings on the extreme left), except that the top floor windows have been heightened, and of course a roof storey has been added.It was a seriously elaborate remodelling from head to toe, and fitting for Dublin’s “boulevard”. I’m salivating at the thought of walking up O’Connell Street from the bridge and the buildings gradually becoming posher as you approach the GPO!! 😮
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another picture of the Metropole Cinema (as it became), taken in about 1960 from the top of the Pillar. It had a nice stepped feature in the centre of the parapet. Disgraceful demolition! :
Presumably if the building was completely rebuilt it was in danger of collapse
So it seems. I hadn’t realised it yesterday when I posted those pictures, but I’ve made further inquiries & it’s true what bunch says; the building was taken down and rebuilt. Apparently it had a lot of structural timber which had deteriorated, and was generally past the point of being repaired and stabilised.
But the bit about the sashes is true; they’ve been reused in the new building…I have to go down to Waterford now and see that….
@ctesiphon wrote:
Devin…Is the bow-fronted building in Waterford the one a few doors down from the Tower Hotel?
Yes. I have also heard it’s been refurbished & that the magnificent windows with their slender doric-columed mullions have been repaired and retained 🙂 .
Here it was in a sorry state in 2002 – it had sat vacant like this for many years, I understand:
The overhang in the sashes was still very lucid after 200 years:
Re: O’C St. Width
D’Olier Street is also narrower than Westmoreland Street by about 15 feet (this may also be seen in the IAP map posted above (though the map is inaccurate with the position of the (pre-1882) O’Connell Bridge, which should be shown more or less on axis with the apex of D’Olier/Westmoreland Sts.))~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whao, if you take your eye off this thread for a few days, it races ahead!
If I might just reply to a post from Thursday:@Graham Hickey wrote:
Another detail here about Upper O’Connell Street.
The largest and grandest house ever to be built on the street was that evident in the middle pictured below (now the site of Burger King :rolleyes: on the corner with Cathedral St – one would wonder if the lane was put in place just to allow direct access to the house’s stables. It’d be interesting if Cathedral St has its origins in this)
Six bays wide, it featured the original and best glowering birds up on the parapet – no PVC here 🙂
[Perhaps they should have featured on every parapet in the country!!]
So we’ve Gardiner to blame for setting the trend…
Well maybe not Gardiner, beacause he leased the site to a banker who built the house, who in turn sold it to none other than the Earl of Drogheda himself – so he ended up living in a house built on what would have been his street but a few years previously!
Here’s a great image of it in 1922 in all its forbidding burnt out glory:
It’s very easy to make out how early the house is in terms of Georgian design – the house was six bays wide so the entrance was placed off centre, a big no no later on. Also the doorcase itself still has a heavy baroque influence with that arched pediment. The window surrounds to the sides appear to be later.
It’s a great pity the house had survived 1916 up to 1922, but was obviously destroyed beyond repair in the conflict on Upper O’Connell St.Not that it hadn’t been altered earlier though: here it is in the late 19th century where the right-hand two bays have been chopped off and replaced with that fun Victorian turreted building J. Seerski mentioned before:
If you hadn’t seen this picture, the later 1922 image would have led you to believe the whole house was still intact!
At least some of the fine buildings of this end were replaced with equally if not more distinguished structures in the reconstruction, and a unified scheme at that.
I also find it interesting that this six-bay house had already been divided (as Nos. 9 and 10) before the Victorian replacement: The southern two bays where the turreted building was later constructed appear separately in this 1853 watercolour (the brickwork may have been stained a different colour to show the division, or even rendered). The 1847 OS map also shows a party wall dividing this portion from the rest of it.
Yet it was definitely one big six-bay house to begin with, as seen in the Tudor drawing and also on John Rocque’s great map of 1756, which is known to be very accurate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The 1866 turreted building which replaced the two southern bays was for my money one of the saddest losses of the troubles. It was an absolute delight, as good, if not better, than the ICS building at the D’Olier/ Westm. Sts. apex (though the ICS had the better site).
All in all an appalling loss!! 🙁
Incidentally, although the building is officially by T. N. Deane, it could have been by J. J. O’callaghan, the designer the ICS (in 1894), as he was working in Deane’s office at the time.
ctesiphon, your story about the guy in the church seems pertinent to the thread; the city retains a humanity that Dublin had until, say, the ‘80s, but doesn’t have anymore.
I’m glad to hear Cork has been recorded – it must have been some undertaking, with the density of older fabric in areas like Shandon. Wonder why it has not been published / uploaded? – I worked for the NIAH myself too, on the Kildare survey in 2002 (it’s been published).
That group of slate-hung bow-fronts on Gnd. Parade are great alright (Graham, no, I don’t have a picture) – but a slight disappointment is that their sash windows are recent remakes with incorrect sash horns. There’s a really great bow-front in Waterford with all of its original window joinery – I might post it soon.
@jungle wrote:
My own view on development in Cork is that there should be a line drawn through the city centre at Parnell Place. There are few old buildings of merit east of that line – perhaps the harbour commissioners offices and a few warehouses. It can support larger developments along the lines of Lapp’s Quay. West of it is a more sensitive area that should be reserved for refurbishments and infills with the exception of a few sites that are suitable for development – Guys, anything that hides the North Main St multi-storey.
I have no doubt this is true, Jungle. I would just worry about certain views on the LADSOCL thread. I can’t obviously comment on individual streets / developments because I don’t know what’s going on there on a daily basis and don’t have the same intimate knowledge of the city that the Cork contributors have. But I know that An Taisce Cork have been very good and have carefully monitored development in Cork over the past number of years, and prevented some over scaled and/or poor quality proposals, which, if permitted, would have damaged the historic character of the city centre. Naturally if you want anything and everything to fly through the planning system you’re going to have a problem with this.
Buckley Bros.
It is disgraceful that Buckley Bros is going to be removed. I know the owner has to get on with their business, but could he/she not leave the current one in situ underneath a new front at least?This is the other one on Oliver Plunkett Street. A real gem & a great example of the indigenous shops that survive so well in Cork:
(I’ve got some existing / disappearing vitrolite fronts from around the country which I might stick on the other thread)
