Devin

Originally posted by Kelly
Irish Architecture from past cultures, and how the Irish have either absorbed it into their own culture

In a word, through parody!!

This is from an article entitled ‘Protecting our Heritage’ by Ian Lumley which appeared in the April 2002 magazine of An Taisce – The National Trust for Ireland. Hpoefully it will be of some help. Good luck with your thesis Kelly:

“One of the strangest features of Ireland’s recent economic boom is the extent of our new buildings constructed in mock-18th and 19th century styles, while so much genuine heritage of the same period continues to be destroyed.

Irish public buildings now match those of anywhere in Europe in design quality, reflecting the work of a talented range of architects. Publications, such as those by the Irish Architectural Association, and the award scheme run by the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland, show the high quality of design work currently going into public buildings, schools and some public and social housing projects. In contrast, the prevailing architectural style of choice for most house designers is a range of mock-Georgian, mock-Victorian and mock-Edwardian styles. The first fifty years of the Irish State were marked by an effective policy of obliterating the land divisions and the architectural legacy of the Ascendancy, through the combination of the Land Commision and penal rates levels on country houses. The odd paradox is that now, almost everybody building in the countryside wants a minature Georgian country house. For houses in villages, towns and suburban estates, Tudor revival-style is widely prevalent. Also significant is English Home Counties neo-Edwardian, which is particularly popular in more “up market” developments.

This design nostalgia is accompanied by a lack of concern for environmental sustainability evidenced by the large-scale use of uPVC. This stiffened plastic material is the predominant one for doors, windows, fascias and soffits in Ireland. Its attraction is the result of a combination of aggressive marketing on the false premise of being maintenance free, competitive price and low skill required for fitting and installation. An Taisce is in liason with other environmental organisations at European level seeking the ban of uPVC as a building material because of its environmental unsustainability, its greenhouse gas-producing manufacturing process, its short performance life, its vulnerability to degradation through climatic conditions and ultra violet radiation and its lack of adaptability to repair and recyclability after end use performance which is projected at 15-20 years.

The symbol of triumph of mock-over-genuine in Ireland is the fake 19th century pub. Having been a McDonalds-type design package exported to cities all over Eurpoe in the 1990s, it has now rebounded across the country itself. While authentic 19th century pub and shop fronts continue to be destroyed, new fake creations full of the paraphernalia of nostalgia – farm implements and avery scales – proliferate around the country. This reflects both an overall lack of appreciation of the original and the failure to adopt a confident modern design idiom to match the economic boom. “

It’s been in the air for a while that Dick Roche was going to the Environment. His “attacks” on An Taisce, first over development at Powerscourt then over crisp bags in Tailors’ Hall, were just political strategy; a pre-emptive strike to keep the gombeens/An Taisce-haters that run rural Ireland happy (when they would hear he was going to Environment).

As Irish politicians (esp. FF) and Planning go, Roche is actually relatively enlightened.

Too right Diaspora, Cullen going to Transport is really really not funny. I can’t see the two Luas lines being linked (on-street) now, let alone the ‘figure of 8’ Luas, which i am in favour of.

“Advertising to Loop Line Bridge
Letters from the public appearing in national dailies indicate the unpopularity of the advertising billboards that adorn the Loop Line rail bridge (illustration 92, below). The project for the replacement of the 1890s bridge with a modern, transparent bridge (as featured by Frank McDonald in The Irish Times of May 21, 1998) and consequent removal of advertising would constitute a huge urban design and visual amenity improvement for the city centre.”

Sounds like a Garethace classic 🙂

Originally posted by alan d
Diaspora, my old friend. It’s you who is missing the point.

don’t mind Diaspora, he wrote that when he was pissed last night (i know cos i was talking to him earlier)

The heritage perspective is being articulated, without regard to all the physical and tangible considerations that have to be considered. An Taisce, if they are going to be taken seriously by people like me have to know this and not bury their head in the sand

At present, within the existing indigenous housing that makes up the historic footprint. it is possible to make your breakfast, turn on the light switch and stoke the fire without leaving your bed, so small are the houses.

People need to have their bins emptied and have central heating and a place to park their car. Service vehicles, fire engines, ambulances, electricity providers who need 24 hour access need to be accomodated. They need sunlight and air.

The developer needs to make money, unless An taisce can underwrite the work or public funds can be provided………. other wise they won’t do it and why should they?

Seriously though, I don’t think it is fair of you to paint anybody who would like to see that building retained as unrealistic or daft.

France and Britain are full of beautiful historic towns and villages who manage to keep AND use their historic buildings, and get on with modern life with no particular problems.

In my area (dublin city), the planning authority has just produced a study – http://www.dublincity.ie/services/building.htm – on this very subject; Comparing reuse of older buildings with their demolition and new build in environmental, economic and cultural terms. In many of the case studies taken, the report finds in favour of reuse & rehabilitation.

Originally posted by alan d
Ian Lumley probably knows Sligo like his own back yard, just maybe he has’nt cut his grass in ten years that’s all.

Again, you are simply saying anyone who doesn’t think the site should be developed to your plans is stuck in the past
– and the debate is back to square one

So just because you have a difference of opinion with somebody about a building that should be retained in a development site means you consider they don’t know the place?

That’s because I was not replying to your post, but to the previous one.

Nobody is saying commercial development is not legitimate, and that is the no. 1 myth about heritage organisations (that they are against development). On the contrary most want to see excellent development that benefits the environment & soceity. Sadly there’s only a tiny minority of that in Ireland – & most of it is featured in the pages of the yearly architectural awards journals.

As far as I remember, the An Taisce spokesperson – quoted in the paper at the time your development was refused – acknowledged that you had done good work in Scotland and elsewhere, and made it clear that this was not about architecture or development per se, but that the proposal was out of scale for a historically sensitive area of Sligo Town.

You are throwing up details here in support of your development such as: “we were depending on the adjoining development to make a connection through from one side of the town to the other and new wynd and pedestrian walkway ……….the link has been lost and now both projects have been scuppered”. What is anybody supposed to make of that who hasn’t analysed the relative planning applications, doesn’t know the site or doesn’t even know Sligo town?

Probably like most people who post on this forum, the odd time I am in Sligo I notice that the place sorely needs some good architecture and urban design. Most of that stuff that was put up along the Garavogue in the ’90s was total muck under the guise of ‘urban renewal’ – really just apartments for the young people to live in for a year or two before going off to build their bungalow.

After your development was refused by ABP, you were posting up various views of the scheme here and everybody was going ‘aw, what a shame’ and ‘aren’t an taisce evil?’ But its not just about feckin architecture – the whole thing has to be looked at! As it states in the above article posted by Vinnyfitz, appeals against the development by An Taisce and others were upheld by An Bord Pleanala because it did not respect the the architectural characteristics of conservation areas outlined in the Sligo and Environs Development Plan, and that this development plan – aimed at protecting the medieval part of Sligo – had been approved by elected members of Sligo Borough Council, and not by An Taisce.

I would love to see GM & AD do something in this town, and I hope something can be worked out for that site eventually.

Originally posted by Rory W
because of arsehole politicians interfering in the planning process and making decisions that did no-one favours in the long run.

You think it’s not happening now??

In rural Ireland the local politicians / estate agents / development interests are running the show. And they can’t bear anybody interfering with their ability to influence the outcome of planning decisions. This is why they attack an taisce all the time.

Originally posted by Paul Clerkin
New network to advise on planning

It had nothing to do with An Taisce or those opposed to one-off housing in rural Ireland. Indeed, the emphasis was on rural development within appropriate environmental and planning guidelines.

…which is exactly what an taisce have tried to promote, if anyone cared to hear (but they only hear the stopping development…)