DJM

Back to the topic in question: I’d no idea that An Taisce members were subject to such personal expense in the running of their organisation.

Phew! Thats a fairly in-depth summary publicrealm, much obliged.
As you said regarding their funding, it seems then that they’re on to a looser either way.
Under funding results from politically unpalatable views and thus inevitably restricts their activities, but were they to become more restrained in these views, in the hope of securing additional funding, it would defeat their raison d’etre!

The position draws some similarities with the Green Party in this respect. Do you rigidly stick to your principals, thereby isolating yourself from power & influence, or do you make a pragmatic compromise to sacrifice X to obtain Y and Z. It’s a tough call…(NO sarcasm intended)

If they were to look for a sugar daddy, as was suggested above, and break the link with political funding would they loose their status as a prescribed body and if so, would this affect their current entitlement to be informed of planning matters?

Re. the UK’s National Trust, another body, Historic Scotland is quite similar to AT in the role that they play in the planning process. They’ve got a bit of an image problem though for being a rather uncompromising hard-line bunch, Hysteric Scotland a commonly used nickname.

Again, while I do agree in principal with this type of stance, in practice, I think compromises sometimes have to be made for the greater good.

OK fair point Ctesiphon, perhaps the title was a bit biased, but I do think that the question was fairly impartial!

Sorry Devin, but you’ve got me totally wrong on this one – I gave no personal opinion in the original post, but merely posed a question for the sake of starting a debate. The majority of public opinion I’ve heard, be it from relatives, friends or the media (without reference to any particular case) has been mostly negative, not all, but mostly. Perhaps this is incorrect, but it’s my understanding of the situation.

There are clearly strong feelings on this – as can be seen in your response to the topic, which I thought was unnecessarily hostile – but maybe a reasoned arguement to disuage me from what you have perceived as my hatred of AT, would have been more constructive???

Far from hating An Taisce, I would personally subscribe to the latter part of the original question & have got a great deal of admiration for them. I’ve not got a great deal of insight into the topic however, (as I say, the latter part of the question is my basic understanding of the situation) and was hoping that a constructive debate on the matter would enlighten me.

I don’t think that AT is infallible, and just for arguements sake, should I be talking to a sceptical person at some point in the future, I would need a bit more than photos of Henrietta Street to defend them. That’s the reason for starting the topic.

Personally speaking, I think it’s the way in which they’ve been used that has caused offence – A lot of the units havn’t been properly alligned with neighbouring rows. The colour works very well in relation to the townhouses.

What’s the philosophy on using a mock Flemish bond in such circumstances? – given the existence of the townhouses, perhaps it would have been more appropriate to do so. Or would this be seen as a crass impersonation? Stretcher seems to be the accepted norm these days, but it would be interesting to hear a Conservationist’s take on this…

I havn’t been able to figure out whether the bricks are reclaimed, or simply produced to give an ‘Olde Worlde’ look – surely it’s unlikely for a salvage yard to have such a massive stockpile of bricks in such a uniform colour. But if this is so, then why so many cracks & chips ?

The brickwork facade would look ok if it was laid symmetrically and if most of the bricks had right-angled corners.

Photo 002

Photo 011

Photo 030

Photo 078

Photo 084

As a draughtsman, I spent more hours than I care to remember carrying out measured surveys of three of the houses on Henrietta Street between 2002 & 2004, so I’ve a fairly good idea of the street. I’m currently studying Building Surveying in the UK and so only get the chance to visit the street twice a year. To say that most of the houses are in good nick internally is simply incorrect, certainly from what I’ve encountered!! Even things that look ok superficially may be hiding a catalogue of problems.

Of course single family living would be the ideal solution but is probably a bit unrealistic in this day & age – the houses are massive, think of lighting, heating, maintenance. Yes there are a number of the houses being occupied by single families (3 that i am aware of) but i’d imagine it’s more of a vocation than anything else.

Back to office/residential, the city is full of examples of this set-up which does not require the installation of lifts as far as I’m aware. Disabled access regulations do not ride roughshod over Georgian buildings; regs for todays houses cannot be applied to buildings dating back to the 1730s, therefore compromises have to be made when alterations are proposed. Personally, I dont like seeing fire doors and the like being installed, but thats how it goes – the book, Numbers 8-10 Henrietta Street, published by Dublin Civic Trust is very interesting.

Originally there would have been no electricity connection, neither sanitary appliances. They aren’t museum pieces, alterations need to, have been, and will continue to be made periodically throughout the life of these building.

There are professional tradesmen who have the required knowledge, skill & sensitivity to repair spalling brickwork. The trouble is that the cost of carrying out such work would be exhorbitant and probably beyond the financial capability of most owners. Having said that though, apart from some bad examples of innappropriate pointing, the only house with serious problems in this regard is No.3 which does indeed need mass replacing of brick units.

For quiet residential feel, please replace Quiet and Residential with winos, junkies & unrulely school children. Have you spent much time up there!

Re. the new development, please revisit and take a close look at the, windows & sills, bricks, mortar pointing… any element of the facade basically! Surely the poor quality of materials & workmanship negates any positive contribution you may think the building makes to the street.

You’ll have to excuse me for the moment, I’ve two assignments due in for Friday, and I’ve spent most of the afternoon on this feckin website. Bye for now!

I don’t agree that boring is good in this case.

A building of genuine architectural credentials would not necessarily detract attention from the existing Townhouses. It could actually accentuate them – a contrast between old & new. Whats going up at the moment dominates, rather than accentuates anyway, & the resulting contrast is one between good & bad.

The street is already somewhat anonomus to passers-by on Bolton St. This new monstrosity further hides the townhouses from view from Bolton St, as it projects out beyond the townhouses’ facade, to their railing line. Although I believe this does correspond with the boundary line of the previous building on the site, perhaps it was a missed opportunity by DCC to align the facade line and open out the street, giving the townhouses some much deserved recognition.

This may be a bit over-simplistic, but I think that a landmark mixed-use office/residential development here could have sparked a demand for such accommodation in the Townhouses themselves.

The houses are suitable for converting into mixed use office/residential accommodation anyway and surely if a potential demand for this was created, with adequate funding from the LA perhaps owners would begin to upgrade the Townhouses & thereby spark the regeneration of the street.

As it stands at the moment the street is stagnant, & until a financial incentive is created, or offered to the owners to restore the houses, it will probably remain in it’s current shabby state. A sorry comparason to its former grandeur.