GrahamH
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Ah you’d have to love it all – lol
‘Decorative streetlighting is a distinguishing feature’
‘An impressive custom-made Georgian front door’
‘Unique rounded windows with plaster surrounds’
‘FIVE bathrooms’?!
And why people get away with building speculatively… – I’d hate to see the reality of what AT have to experience daily – I really don’t want to know.
Stop it! Just stop it! Haven’t we suffered enough?!
God – what can you say….the main facade of the mill house is an abomination, those windows would make you vomit.
What a loss, not least with Wyatts being so rare. There is now no character at all to the house, save the doorcase that might as well have been salvaged from elsewhere.
How can the owners not see that the windows were by far the primary architectural features of the house?! Without them it is nothing – it relied on them more so than most period buildings.And is it just me or have they rendered over the front steps? Maybe it’s just the work of the old pressure washer.
House owners are really gonna love you Devin, going round snapping their houses before and after 🙂 – though admittedly I’ve had a tendancy to be doing the same over the past couple of years 😮
Yes the Wyatt replacements on the other house aren’t great either – I’ve seen smaller horns on bulls 🙂
But not quite…
You make a good point about this type of stuff being in their interests, but the fact that it’s often not even kept off the front pages makes it quite ridiculous.
These articles just fuel demand for these developments: fanning the flames of bad architecture, bad planning and bad environmental practice.Entirely possible 🙂
Bigger most certainly does not imply a greater importance, and not necessarily more ornamentation either.
The entrance front as you say ctesiphon is the right-hand side, but what must be considered here is, well, the whole point of this part of the thread – the fact that it’s a corner building! There isn’t necessarily any primary facade!I suppose the question is best resolved when considering the architecture of great country houses, where the northern elevation was usually the principal front, while the ususally termed ‘garden front’, despite being secondary in status, was often the more elaborate, or visually pleasing of the two – more ‘playful’ if that can be said, in contrast to the severe architecture of the other side of the building.
The left-hand side of the Ulster Bank does have that slightly more relaxed element to it, in deference to the regimented order of the Clanbrassil St facade: something of a garden front appearance that aims to present a less formal front to the main square of the town.
I’d agree about the Indo’s coverage of this type of development, and this type of architecture. I don’t want to name names of journalists, but I find coverage of ‘real’ Georgian equally fawning in the Independent’s pages, not least by a person previously mentioned here – with the most fruity of vocabulary applied to the most standard of Georgian and Victorian housing. They also constantly call Victorian housing Georgian.
But the fact that the same voluptuous language used to describe these ‘modern’ developments is applied in equal measure to the most stunning or architecturally significant of period properties makes so much of their supplement all the more preposterous.
DublinLimerick you cannot change the title of a thread after noticing an error. If you want to see some real grammatical blunders, visit Phil’s link above…
It also features ‘The Moorings’:
Thank goodness the picture’s that small. Despite what has been said about the ‘luxury’ estate above, I don’t think I’d go for the high density option either…
“The Moorings are a block of luxury apartments / duplex units overlooking the River Liffey designed with the emphasis on space and full use of the panoramic views of the surrounding countryside.”
Yes views from the building, clearly not of it.
I have never seen these before – how come London’s (very similar) Millenium Bridge doesn’t need them – or any of its bridges for that matter?
@ctesiphon wrote:
the issue of pastiche is often related to the wider context rather than simply to the individual structure and the merits of pastiche extension.
Certainly I’d agree on that – all aspects must be considered. Though I think in the Dundalk case that the principal elevation of the original would be the left-hand 4-bay façade with central feature window. This is also the elevation that faces onto the Square, and is the larger of the two.
Presumably the aim in ‘pastiching’ the building was to extend this principal façade in a fashion as to reinforce this side of the building’s status, facing out into the town…(the pic is from the National Library online collection)
Agreed about St. Stephen’s Green – anyone have a picture of when the original was still green in colour?
Hmmm…
Thought you might find this picture interesting Phil. You were quite correct in your belief that the Dundalk bank acted as a signature building on that important corner site.
Though I’d argue that as the neighbouring buildings have since been redeveloped to the same height as the bank, if not taller, it no longer holds the same status (of course still being significant).Certainly it made an impressive impact in its day:
Yikes! Is a second set due to go up against the other pier, or just the one as pictured?
What exactly are they for, if that’s not too obvious a question?
Why don’t you critique it then Sue.
What’s your assessment of the architecture of these houses?
And the planning implications?Some great images – that’s interesting about the 3-bay buildings, why go for just two 3-bayers at the end of the terrace?
Also interesting to note that despite this, the regular chimney placement is still maintained over the buildings.I find the regular chimneys the most striking feature of all WSC development – they helped not only to enliven the roofscape and looked visually pleasing, they also demarcated each property from the whole. The view of O’Cll St’s rooftops from here was always impressive, esp at that raking angle.
Also nice to see the corner there with College St and the shopfront wrapping round.You can also make out the time dropping ball on the roof of what is now Ballast House 🙂
Here’s a view of D’Olier St from c1900 where you can at least see the irregular make-up of the buildings, whatever about detail, including the big stone building in the middle. Note that even the terraces on either side of it aren’t the same:
Arthur Gibney’s firm signed off the application. They’ve done a couple of pastiches in their time haven’t they?
This link was posted recently Phil. Nobody seems to know anything else about the interior other than what’s here:
Heh heh
Oh the smugness of it all…
Have to laugh at the title of this thread – the content just totally contradicts it 🙂Yes all but the panes of glass and the door of ‘Vertigo’ appears to be original.
There’s another nearly across the road that is almost identical to ‘The Wood Shop’, just a little larger. Must post it soon.
