Forum Replies Created

Viewing 20 posts - 21 through 40 (of 41 total)
  • Author
  • in reply to: I want to build a new house – what are my options? #775885

    Hi Prome.

    One option for walls could be Insulated Concrete Formwork (ICF), whereby a polystyrene Lego-like cavity structure is constructed. Steel reinforcement is placed within the cavity between the two leafs and concrete is poured in. Once set, you’ve got a structural wall, insulated on both sides, onto which render/cladding can be directly applied.

    It’s a quick form of construction, but I don’t think it’s commonly used?? and is most definitely not the Greenest!

    Now, to send you in a completely different direction… is a very good source of info for sustainable design. A lot of these systems will have a high initial cost (although this will probably be reduced if going for a new-build) but will eventually pay for themselves. Any savings made on such systems during the build will most likely turn out to be a false economy.

    Underfloor heating, like a boyle said, is a very efficient means of heating a house.

    Best of luck with the project! ๐Ÿ™‚

    in reply to: O’ Connell Street, Dublin #730024

    Here’s a few images of BHS, Princess Street in Edinburgh…

    Bloody awful building – like a lot of stuff on the street.

    in reply to: Ambitious personal project…. #775656

    Hi Grif. Have you got a copy of Homebond’s ‘House Building Manual’? Drop what you’re doing and go and get one. ๐Ÿ˜€ It’d be a very useful resource for your project. Easons and the like should stock it.

    The standard floor to ceiling height for domestic dwellings is 2.4m, so 2.6 is more than adequate. 2.4 is a standardised size that plasterboard panels come in. Breaking from these standardised dimensions will inevitably involve more materials, manpower & therefore cost as plasterboard panels will need to be cut to fill the 200mm gap. Hopefully someone will advise on the likely cost implications – I’ve no idea.

    Having said all that though, higher ceilings will give a much greater sense of space – well worth it in my opinion, if finances allow.

    Standardisation of sizes is common practice throughout the construction industry, as it simplifies the construction process for the builder, enabling them to construct things quicker & therefore cheaper for the client.

    It’s common to find components that share sizes, or can easily relate to others, for eg, 100, 225, 300, 500, 600, 1000mm etc. In this example, (are you using blockwork internal walls?) the height of 11 blocks including mortar joints works out to be 2465mm which allows a 2.4m plasterboard panel to be installed (with a margin allowed for tolerance). This is something to bear in mind during the design stage!!

    Floor thickness can vary, but you’re in and around the right mark. Typical joist sizes (is it a suspended timber floor?) taken from Homebond are 175, 200, 225mm. Your choice will depend on the relationship between the distance that the joists are required to span and the distance between joists.

    I’d agree with henry that the East Elevation does look very imposing – are you trying to frighten away the local kids? I’d be terrified! ๐Ÿ˜‰ I once stayed in a spooky old converted monastery in Mayo that had a monk’s graveyard below my bedroom window and it reminds me of its projecting gable ends on the front elevation. ๐Ÿ™‚ (Lighthearted reminiscing on my part, not to be taken as criticism!)



    in reply to: Ambitious personal project…. #775653

    Nice touch Frank ๐Ÿ˜€

    I think it’s a great scheme (the 3D drawings look fantastic – what the CAD package?) I like the simple shapes and sharp lines. The broad range of materials gel together particularly well.

    You seem to have cut back drastically on the timber cladding in East Elevation Rev A (outline) drawing. ๐Ÿ™ That’s a pity – it really did look fab, but you can’t have everything I suppose!

    in reply to: Underneath Dublin? #716435

    What is it with stuck-on advertising hoardings and that building on the right? ๐Ÿ˜‰

    in reply to: An Taisce…Villified for vigilance? #775618

    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.

    in reply to: Henrietta Street #775261

    Point taken Devin. ๐Ÿ™‚

    More resources??? Master of the bleedin obvious or what ๐Ÿ˜ฎ

    in reply to: An Taisce…Villified for vigilance? #775615

    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.

    in reply to: Henrietta Street #775259

    Publicrealm you git! You’ve nicked my plan to start a thread on An Taisce ๐Ÿ˜ก Get cracking or I’ll have one up in the next few days ๐Ÿ˜‰

    I think what you’ve said in the above post is a very fair and balanced view on the role of all parties involved in the planning process. More man power up in Wood Quay, and indeed throughout the country would seem to be a starting point to rectifying the situation.

    in reply to: Henrietta Street #775258

    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.

    in reply to: O’ Connell Street, Dublin #729992

    Wow!! GPO looks absolutely stunning. ๐Ÿ™‚ Great photos and a great job done.

    Was the debate over the ‘marks’ on the columns ever concluded? Were they caused by bullets or corrosion?

    I couldn’t help but notice that the two gentlemen chipping away at the frieze, dressed in period costume, both appear to be left handed! Up the ciotรƒยณgs ๐Ÿ˜€

    in reply to: Henrietta Street #775249

    Photo 002

    Photo 011

    Photo 030

    Photo 078

    Photo 084

    in reply to: Henrietta Street #775248

    Here are a few more pics. Some may be a little bit dated by now (taken in January 06) but I think they further illustrate some of the points made above. Apologies for the poor picture quality of some – smudged lense due to pesky little cousins ๐Ÿ™‚

    Incidentally, I’ve heard that Hidden Dublin on Newstalk 106 have recorded an episode on Henrietta Street that is due to be aired in the very near future. I think the shows go out on Mondays/Tuesdays at about 12pm, but it’ll be available on the web via Podcasting in any event.

    Photo 001

    Photo 003

    Photo 005

    Photo 007

    Photo 004

    in reply to: Parnell Square redevelopment #751102

    Yeah sorry I couldn’t manage to shrink it myself – i did try!! :confused:

    I seem to remember visiting a thread that dealt with how to submit & modify photos, I had a load of pics for the Henrietta St thread, but their capacity was way too big, so I could’nt post them.

    Could someone please re-direct me, as I can no longer find my way ๐Ÿ˜ฎ

    in reply to: Parnell Square redevelopment #751098

    Pity to see this extension tacked on I think. The glass wall does look well if considered on its own, but is not particularly well suited as an addition to such a stand-alone building. Symmetry was an essential element of Georgian design & the building has now been thrown off balance, which is a shame. ๐Ÿ™

    Here’s a picture – pre modification – taken in early 2005.

    in reply to: Dublin Historic Stone Paving disbelief #764063

    Devon, thanks very much for such an interesting thread! It’s not something I’ve ever consciously thought about in great detail before, but it does highlight an issue that has very obviously (from the contributions) been overlooked by the relevant authorities.

    Here in Edinburgh, the place is full of cobbled streets – original ones – that are indeed very pleasant to walk on.

    Modern examples are quite sharp & uncomfortable to walk on though. Would this have been the case with todays ‘original/historical’ cobbles when first they were laid, or would they have been polished/smoothed to some degree?

    Not much demand for second-hand taxis over here!! ๐Ÿ˜‰

    in reply to: I need help….(swimming pool plans) #775565

    Is it specific sets of dwgs you’re looking for, or just guidelines on the layout, dims etc?

    A very limited amount of info on the latter can be found in the “Metric Handbook – Planning & Design Data” published by the Architectural Press.

    It doesn’t sound like what you’re after, but check it out just to be sure.

    Have you tried contacting any Local Authoritys? They may have drawings of pool complexes if they’re responsible for their running / maintenance, but they ain’t gonna be Olympic sized!

    Best of luck in your quest…:)

    in reply to: Henrietta Street #775240

    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!

    in reply to: Henrietta Street #775239

    The Brickwork bond of the Townhouses is Flemish Bond i think, whereas the new development is Stretcher Bond. The mortar in the Townhouses would not have been as dominant as that of the new development either – it would have appeared as a very thin line. Check out the refurbished houses on the corner of Stephens Green & Dawson St (or is it possibly Kildare St? I really can’t remember)

    It’s as if the designer went down the road of Pastiche architecture, promptly did a U turn and designed something else, but forgot to clear up the remnants of the original plan.

    The Lego building opposite is also cac and is an unfortunate addition to the street. To justify one against the other is not a great way of looking at the situation.

    in reply to: Henrietta Street #775237

    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.

Viewing 20 posts - 21 through 40 (of 41 total)

Latest News