GrahamH
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Don’t forget Westport…
I’d agree with you Boyler that there are more beautiful cathedrals and churches than Dundalk, not least St Finn Barre’s – how could you compete with that?
But Dundalk is more iconic that beautiful, perhaps it would be considered more elegant without the bell-tower, added in c1906 (athough originally planned).
Saying that, it could be argued that its interior is particularly beautiful – much more so than the dull rendered lemon walls one’s usually greeted with in even the most externally elaborate Irish churches.
It has an exquisite almost Regency-gothic interior from the 1840s that is really magnificent.Yes, it was the streets off Dorset St that were the most exclusive, with really just Henrietta St, Dominick St and Eccles St being the only exclusive ones north of Dorset.
But by contrast there were many more streets south of here that were the Beverly Downs of the 18th century, new money but grand nonetheless 🙂Well Ulster Bank has a French chateau roof too – and a nicer one at that 🙂
Although admittedly the ground floor isn’t so much Italian Gothic as West End Baroque.The NIB’s banking hall is just magnificent, though the exterior could do with a good scrub at this stage.
What’s your favourite modern building in Ireland Boyler?
And your favourite older/classical building other than the Custom House (that everyone just says by default :))Hi,
Sorry I can’t help with company listings for Dublin, I’m sure others can – there’s certainly many of them around nowadays.But do hold onto the glass – so often people go to all the expense and effort to get the sashes restored, or replaced if necessary, all with the best intentions, but then get new glass put into the sashes.
The original glass is half the charm of original windows; they literally lose their soul with flawless mirrors of modern glass inserted in the originals’ place.As for the rotting bottom rail – that’s probably the most common feature of deterioration with sash windows, and is usually not indicative of widespread rot. Normally the bottom rail is simply taken out and a new timber spliced into place.
And if the years of paint have caused a problem with causing the windows to stick, they’ve probably saved you from another by protecting the wood beneath!Hope it goes well for you 🙂
Perhaps referring to the ‘activities’ of the area would be more appropriate than generalising its people – which presumably is what was intended…
Agreed about the unfortunate nature of the area though – every time we used to pass the Wax in the car it was always ‘lock your doors’ :rolleyes: – frightened the hell out of us as kids 🙂
Pleasant enough area to walk through during the day though – lots of fading grandeur…
I think some of the buildings to the rear of the Carlton have already been demolished.
Yes it’s interesting how the backlands of buildings get completely consumed – looking at the long narrow plots of the buildings next to Dublin Bus there, it’s crazy! No natural ventilation & artificial lighting most of the way through…
It’s even more bizarre when you see entire blocks of streets enclosing around yards in a doughnut shape, that in themselves get consumed eventually. This used to happen with Georgian & Victorian houses too where it’d have a much greater impact. I know someone who used to live in a corner Victorian in Dublin where there was no rear at all – it just fitted into the other 2 buildings with no rear windows at all!
At least Upper O’Connell St has the advantage of stable lanes on both sides for access and to curb a halt to ever-extending buildings.
They’re impressive alright – here’s another fjp picture of the rear of that terrace.
Interesting to note that the copper mansard roof of the Savoy is just a charade to maintain continuity along the terrace – presumably the cinema has been extended since this was taken.
The nature of early modern construction from the 1920s is also evident to the rear of all the buildings.Also excellent at showing the extent of the Carlton site, and how all of the Georgian gardens have been consumed:
http://www.fantasyjackpalance.com/fjp/photos/kf/aerial/002/oconnell-carlton.jpg
@Thomond Park wrote:
I don’t go with Baggot St and Stephens Green was planning of the worst order as these areas have always been very much prime, you wouldn’t expect the Bank of Ireland to locate its HQ just anywhere. This runs entirely contrary to urban economic theory which suggests that slightly sub-prime areas should have been developed as a spillover to functioning districts in boom times.
But saying that – if Baggot Street was still intact, would you be in favour of the houses’ demoltion if the BoI was proposed today? There’d be feckin uproar! Likewise with Burlington Road.
Or what about Morehampton Road or Northumberland Road so close to the CBD – would you be in favour of their total redevelopment today?St. Stephen’s Green south-east could probably have done with the ‘reconditioning’ though considering the apparently insignificant jumble of buildings on that corner.
Where is Capel Building?
Absolutely – the windows are the worst element. They are far too small and bear no connection at all to the upper floors. It’s like part of a facade has been cut off a different building and stuck onto these two unfortunates.
Having the interior hidden from view is also not pleasant – something of a two-fingers mentality directed at the passer-by the second they step onto the street.
It’s interesting – if you asked most people to list the outlets on any part of the street, this would probably be the stretch they’d identify as being the least memorable – maybe along with the Hammam Buildings terrace.
Certainly this lower part still is for me – even now I couldn’t list all the occupiers along there, a jewellers, amusments, candyfloss/donut PVC cabin…..
The Ulster Bank is a major contributer to the stagnant nature of this important part of the street. Look what a difference the new Bank of Ireland along here has made alone in recent months.I mean on a broader level really – that if the city had stayed pretty much as it was from 1955 onwards, filled with ‘lovely old buildings’, many of them nothing spectacular but would probably be protected anyway today – that there’d be a frustration at the lack of modern architecture represented on our streetscapes. That at least the ‘weeding out’ of some of the older stock, including an estimated 40% of the Georgian environment, enabled areas to redevelop, to become ‘dynamic’ and ‘prime locations’ etc.
I’m thinking not so much of the iconic demolitions like Fitzwilliam St etc, but more along the lines of Baggot St, Burlington Road, St. Stephen’s Green, indeed so much of the southside including beyond the canal etc.I suppose it’s the estate-agent’s speak if nothing else that’s generating this impression – just gets annoying at times, like nothing ever happened…..then again you go through some areas and think how great they now look..
Is it just me or do people get the impression that increasingly nowadays, there’s almost something of a relief that what was knocked was actually carried out, as it has paved the way for so many shiney new buildings today – whether they be reconditioned 70s offices, or newly developed derelict sites etc?
Also, that the new space generated not only allowed contempoary architecture to line the streets, but it also allowed the city to grow in the boom years – it was able to accommodate the savage appetite for office space and other commercial & retail demands.
It just seems increasingly like this, or is it just we’ve all moved on?
Anyone else get that impression?I wouldn’t agree geraghtyg that a city needs tall buildings to look like a city – or rather, what we percieve a western city to look like – but I do agree that Dublin’s Docklands needs definition.
Most certainly not of the Spencer Dock Attempt 1 variety (to think that would be being topped out around now had it progressed 😮 ), but development of a decidedly more well-planned and aesthetically pleasing nature.Exactly what form this should take in real terms is along the lines of that DDDA article in the other tall thread; mid-rise 10ish storeys punctuated with the odd 25-30 storey building for interest.
I suppose the greatest fear that conservationists have now on the high-rise issue – if it’s even an issue anymore – is not so much the height, but the architecture. High-rise modern buildings will make Dublin just like everywhere else – high-quality or not. It’s just the nature of contemporary design and development – I suppose we ought to see at as an opportunity rather than anything else to progress contemporary design – but as a concession I would like to see the existing city centre skyline being given a definition of its own by being kept as it is, which I cannot see happening.
A comparitively low-rise skyline is just as important as one puctuated with towers; it equally as worthy and equally as distinctive.The Glucksman looks so high-maintenance that recieving a once-over with Pledge and a duster each morning wouldn’t be in the least surprising 🙂
A magnificent building though – equalled only by its setting it would seem.Problem is that you’d have to force the dignitaries and Esteemed Citizen to crawl out on their hands and knees through the lower central sash 😀
But then again it’d be an Irish solution to an Irish problem – ‘ah sure it takes them down a peg or two anyway – good enough for them, up on their high horses’…
Could still build one – wonder if it was intended and if plans are still kicking around…
The shopfront of the Ulster Bank was put in around 1980-5 I think – or glued on, whatever way you want to look at it 🙂
I love that balcony above, how utterly pompous – you’d expect the Queen to step out at any moment 🙂
Interesting to note that the panes of plate glass probably aren’t original anywhere on the facade given the multi-pane sashes in the window to the right of the balcony there…
This building could look spectacular floodlit properly – as it is it’s pretty much the only building on the street that makes a decent effort…To say the least – who the hell’s going to take that on in this office market climate, albeit improving quite fast. Any of its competition outshines it. Interesting that the state still has a semi-interest in it though….
Keep meaning to mention that Ulster Bank shopfront – if there’s one that should’ve been included in the IAP for alteration but wasn’t, it is this one.
It’s passable enough because it’s granite, but the way it crudely cuts across the individual buildings is unacceptable, not to mention its design which is as flat as a pancake compared with the upper floors; it doesn’t ‘support’ them properly either.Also these bizarre concrete units installed in the larger building must be removed – they look awful next to the elegant neo-classical motifs alongside:
The fjp image is fanatsic, it shows so much, from the intrusion of the former Burgerland, now Schuh building to the rear, to the amount of Georgians still lurking behind the neighbouring street facades (although some of the chimneys have been removed since this pic was taken in the 80s), to the vast nature of the Royal Hibernian Bank across the road who had occupied the Bread Co Building just a few years before it was destroyed – this being their landmark new branch. It originally had a large projecting portico similar to the Olympia – though I think it looks better without it 🙂
It also shows up one puzzling thing – why was a cupola never built on the top of Manfield Chambers (Clarks)? Especially when you consider how grand it it, you’d think the effort would’ve been made – perhaps costs mounted. It has impressive chimneys which can be seen from the street too.
The slightly skewed roof of the Victorian gabled building is also interesting 🙂Can just see it alright – presumably all options for extending the existing site were considered…
The allure of the Carlton site can be really appreciated when you consider the difficulties so many sites pose – it’s a ready-made package in comparison…But just on that corner building – presumably it is WSC structure given its context in the picture below, located at the exact point where the quay becomes regularised.
What I don’t understand is why the WSC layed out Lower O’Connell St with apparent disregard to the narrowness of the resulting junction with Eden Quay.
Was it layed out in this fashion because the Bachelor’s Walk junction is already very wide, and moving O’Cll St back any further to accommodate Eden Quay would result in an excessively wide Bachelor’s Walk?This FJP aerial picture highlights the nature of the quay very well – alas the building you mention Thomond Park is just out of shot, but you can just make out the plot width.
The impressive Abbey St junction corner building composition is also strikingly evident:http://fantasyjackpalance.com/fjp/photos/kf/aerial/002/oconnell-street-aerial.jpg
Ah right, I know the lane, although not the building – just down here 🙂
…never knew it went out to that archway on Beresford Place! – always looks dodgy anyway…
Presumably they couldn’t even get their hands on that building for whatever reason – although wasn’t it the cost rather than the logistics/availabitity of properties that caused the problems here?
