GrahamH
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
@phil wrote:
It is even more fake because it is trying to hide the reality from the viewer
Well this is it isn’t it – who says it’s trying to hide the reality? Depends what way you look at it – is it trying to look like a Victorian, i.e 19th century building, or is it simply using an architectural style? Or is it a combination of the two? Is it implied in pastiche that your’re trying to fool someone as to its age?
I like the Harry Block quote – Philip Schlesinger wrote a lot on this topic. It’s a real Liveline favourite with the cranks – tradition in a large part is indeed illusion, and peddled by those dependant upon the maintainance of the status quo.
Proper use of pastiche as I’d see it though would not be necessarily dependant upon ‘tradition’ though – but where there’s a suitable precendent for pastiche it tends to inject it with increased credibility.
It’s intersting – I’ve often pointed out that Ulster Bank people to people and they’ve always said the same things – really? that’s brand new? I never even noticed. What a decent job. how sympathetic etc.
Although yes I shouldn’t be using this as an arguement as these are also the picket-fence brigade (dare I say ‘the public’) who also favour lots of other unmentionable Archiseek-loved goodies 🙂@what? wrote:
if it doesnt undermine the originals why would you have a sick feeling knowing every second building is fake?
There is a line that must be drawn in areas where there are originals I think. Yes by definition of saying there’s a line one implies that pastiche is a negative thing. But if possible a pastiche building should try to be as ‘true’ as possible by replicating a building that was on the site before unless the context has changed and it would be inappropriate.
Otherwise I do see your point – at the same time there is a difference between building most of a street in pastiche and a single infill location.
But yes, I completely acknowledge what your’re saying what? I don’t claim to know the answers – clearly I am not educated in this field, nor am I an architect. I just get frustrated at seeing contemporary arhitecture going up in some sensitive loactions simply by default – the convention of always having to be different.
I don’t think that in all cases you are undermining the older building by pastiche, there is a big distinction to be made between affecting the ‘building’ and affecting the architecture. This is the foundation of the entire pastiche debate.I don’t refer specifically to mirror image structres Phil, rather extentions an additions to modern buildings executed the same fashion. As for O’Cll Bridge House – don’t even go there 🙂
Actually I was having a good look at it only this afternoon along the Boardwalk, those upper floors are really growing on me – noooo I’m crumbling! Being sucked into a postmodern, noughties blah blah haze of appreciation for our 60s legacy! 😮I’d largely agree – but not necessarily regarding the ‘undermining’ of the original. I think that is a matter of opinion.
Indeed to take that concept on board is to accept that previous forms of achitecture are dead – they can never be used again, just preserve them in a glass case and move on. I know what you mean though – I cannot think of anything worse than walking down a street knowing that every second building is a ‘fake’. But this will not happen. We have our ‘historic’ areas already, there’s only so many places you can put pastiche even if you wanted to litter the place with it.As I said before, I think street infill locations in particularly sensitive areas are those most suited to pastiche; corner, centre, one-off and any otherwise prominent locations, even in historic locations are generally capable of absorbing contemporary design.
@phil wrote:
I can’t see your logic there Graham. By doubling the building the focus shifts from the corner to the central piece of what I assume is now one whole building.
From the perspective of attracting attention directly to the actual corner then yes the original would have been better. But from the viewpoint of consolidating the two streetscapes as a whole I think the enlarged building does a better job.
Regarding 1930s buildings, yes there are very few such examples, let alone decent ones in this country. What I mean by the 1930s is the modern movement as a whole, and how it becomes more acceptable to replicate such architecture when necessary despite being but a handful of years away from classical/traditional architecture where it is considered taboo.
I wouldn’t agree with meddling with the Gas Building or any other landmark or high quality architecture either (not that the Gas building exactly stands up internationally anyway) but the difference in attitudes is marked.I must admit the Dundalk building is not exactly a location that ‘needs’ pastiche and certainly wouldn’t be top of my list of suitable locations. As you can see in the pics, next door there’s a 2-storey developer thrown-up scheme of shops and offices (which is a scadalous use of town centre space, esp when so many people are commuting from vast numbers of estates cropping up all round the town) that just went up before the Ulster Bank extention.
What would have been preferable would to have created a statement piece of contemprary architecture all along here right up to the original bank incorporting its extention – or second best placing it alongside in a similar style. Alas this didn’t happen – it would have created a wonderful contrast with the town’s magnificent couthouse across the way.Because of the circumstances I think the pastiche solution was at least as acceptable as a contemporary piece would have been sandwiched between the crap and the Bank.
Regarding the design of the building I think an enlarged facade here actually reinforces the corner rather than detracts from it.
I value originality as much as the next person but I do ask myself where do you draw the line? As was raised on the UK forum in the past few days – what constitutes ‘old’? How is it acceptable to extend a 1930s building in a sympathetic style but not a 1900 structure? Just raising the question – not sure I know the answer…
Yes – there is a growing perception, notable over last Christmas, that town is now too difficult to drive to with diversions, Luas and increasing one-way systems etc – some of which is true, and with good reason.
What with Dundrum about to throw open its doors it’s even being regarded where I am 60 miles away as ‘the’ event of 2005, No wonder the DCBA is a bit concerned; they’ve little reason to be though, town can hold its own.When you condider little else has been done since last summer except this southern corner and the median being finished things certianly seem slow.
Here’s the south-eastern strech today – just about finished now:
Also the Savoy – you can see the centre and left window on the 2nd floor are those that need replacing:
And finally these new banners on the lamposts – is this a message the CC really wants to be promoting?!
Interesting map – you can appreciate from it too how the proposed square for here would have worked. Still would have been a bit of a squeeze though.
What is the proposed use for the ground floor of the new building? Hopefully a public one being in such a civic space. If it has such a public use, combined with the plaza and park it could be quite successful, Just hope it turns out alright – it’ll certainly be a departure from the type of development Dame St has been used to over the years – Central Bank aside which is strikingly similar in nature…
@kefu wrote:
And if they have a feeder bus from O’Connell Street or Summerhill – what more do you need?
LOL – although I completely agree about laying on a service, I think the last thing poor old O’Connell Street needs is ‘The Prison Bus’ running from outside Clery’s lol 😀
Hasn’t the poor street suffered enough?! I’d do wonders for the image – I can just picture the signpost and timetable with the single destination marked on it – Hell and back, every 2 hours 🙂Now that you mention the Savoy, I saw some of the details of their latest planning application mentioned before.
In relation to the windows, there’s a wooden one in the centre somwhere that’s to be replaced with an original design, presumably in steel.
The tatty ticket office in the centre of the ground facade is to be replaced with a Portland stone pillar/centrepiece.
The mosic and illuminated adertisment-lad piers to each end of the facade are also to be removed and replaced with Portland stone piers ‘in character with the upper floors’.
Also it has applied for ‘maintainance in situ’ of existing silver-clad canopy. Why are they appyling for maintainace?
Finally, the basement lightwell grids are to be removed and paved over with granite when the street itself is tackled.Also as J Seerski highlighted, the Gresham are upgrading and now have 2 vast applications in their windows.
One of the primary aims is to ‘remove all non-original windows in nos 20-23’ i.e. the whole facade of the hotel.
Presumably this means bye bye aluminum – hello double glazed steel…I just got the imprssion you weren’t best pleased with what the IAA had done – don’t know why, might have been the
@Devin wrote:
big fuck off
or something, not sure…
😀
Here’s a few more WSC images (sorry if you’re on a dial-up, once you get the broadband all morals go out the window 🙂 – tried to keep them small though)
They include this lesser known feature below – the D’Olier St-Pearse St signature buildings facing each other to create a striking composition.Here’s one today, Doyle’s – a building for the render-strippers if ever you saw one. How could anyone in any age possibly view the addition of the render and later shutters as an improvement?! It’s really quite bizarre – looks like a before and after Photoshop job 🙂
Note how the lovely corner setbacks with quoins at each side are mirrored in the Pearse St building below, now of course the Garda Station (pic from Ken Finlay’s great site, what a resource):
Also the much celebrated Irish Times corner – an unusual shape too not being quite symmetrically rounded.
I love how this corner shows up the WSC terrace for what it is – a stage set, the way it wraps round the corner to cover the side view and then falls away to nothing:
The beautiful capitals of the remaining IT shopfronts – have to be one of the finest features of Georgian Dublin:
And their context with pilasters on a shopfront:
Finally the red bricks on D’Olier St – in an appalling state of repair just yards from O’Connell Bridge – wonder if the left-hand one had an oriel window too at one stage:
That’s what I’d be wary about too – that it’ll look like something of a folly or novelty building that’ll look dated too quickly.
I think one of the problems of the current park is that most of it is raised up – no one likes to have to clamber up onto a platform and be on display for everyone passing by. If the park was on the same level of the street it would become instantly more accessible and appealing.
I agree with with Jim Barrett about the street line, but in that piece he still doesn’t explain why a building is needed at all.
It’s a pity the Georgians here were demolished – the narrowness of the street would have offered a great contrast to the wider parts further up – narrow pokey streets are something of a postmodern rage now too 🙂
And in colour:
Despite them being gone – I don’t think this park is a hole that needs to be filled, unlike other sites in the city. The two signature buildings of City Hall and AIB flank the space in a manner almost as if intended. Yes the facade of City Hall isn’t anything spectacular but is more than pleasant and apt for enclosing the park in the way it does.
I’m just not sure that a building is needed here at all – a really nice park could serve the hoards of tourists accessing the Castle as well as citizens, and also act as a pleasant entrance to it. Indeed Palace St could perhaps be integrated into it too with paving and planting.oooh, we are getting narky 🙂
You do have to ask though – if a private individual bought the property for office use or for residential, would the removal of the doorcase have been allowed? Would the hackles of conservationists have been raised at the idea of stripping away part of a layer of Merrion Square’s history, the very layers that add so much to its charm?
I’d broadly agree with what has been done nonethelesss…
It was removed for security reasons wasn’t it – overlooking Govt Bldgs…
The clunky chimney pot thingey wasn’t on it originally suffice to say!On a related issue, does anyone know what this yoke is or when it dates from, to the rear of the NCH?
Kept meaning to post it for months.
So much for Neon Dublin – great pics, if you’re into that sort of thing 🙂
@Diaspora wrote:
In answer to your question, grumpy and knoweledgable because clueless usually involves bringing in grumpy so you get the double whammy.
lol – so true 🙂
Interesting that the sheet glass sashes were taken out and replaced with Georgian replicas in the restoration of the building. This is being done in a lot of places now – is it considered best conservation practice? (Presumably so if the flippin IAA has done it!)
Difficult to see from the pic how old the plate sashes were; whether they dated from the 1865 change of ownership or the 1915 state takeover – I suspect the latter.Not that I’d apply it to this case but I think it’s facinating how there appears to be swings of appreciation regarding older buildings. Whereas there’s still a very strong interest in Victoriana in the residential sector, overall there seems to be a strong favouring of Georgian architecture over Victorian at the moment, much moreso than maybe 10-15 years ago.
Maybe it’s just the nature of projects cropping up at the moment but I think it’s also got something to do with the compatibility of Georgian architecture with contemporary design, and that the whole Georgian ‘thing’ is considered ever so more sophisticated than the fusty 19th century 🙂
Don’t know, could be a complete myth…Whereas the buildings themselves are pretty standard Victorian affairs, (although perhaps elements of Arts & Crafts in there) many of the terracotta plaques and decorative friezes etc are largely Art Nouveau. They make use of a lot of interesting flowing forms like foliage which are well worth a look.
A barely noticable Art Nouveau feature, largely because it is in itself barely Art Nouveau, in central Dublin is the railings to the rear of Leinster House that abuts onto Government Buildings.
Although they look Victorian (the granite plinth may be) they actually date from around 1922, and feature some elegant foliage forms in various places that could be loosely termed Art Nouveau.
I remember Lisa Godson wrote a piece about them in the Sunday Times a few years ago and she perfectly highlighted the difference between these railings and the more formal classical design of the Govt Bldgs/College of Science screen railings, which while restrained and classical have a distinctive modern twist to them.I think these railings are exquisite – the streamlined modern details of the little oval hoops contrasts so well with the railings’ overall classical profile and the little urns atop. And from a distance the vertical rows of hoops look like an intricate lattice-work which makes them all the more beautiful. By far the best railings in Dublin I think.
What a facinating structure, really puts an alternative spin on what we consider prisons to look and operate like.
Yes a multi-storey prison at Thorntown would have one rough ride alright; two of the most contentious forms of building in Ireland bundled into one – a high-rise prison, most people could barely bring themselves to speak the term. Might as well chuck in an archeologically significant location while you’re at it 🙂Is the basic Victorian star-shape model still the preferred option today? We’ve had a number of prison upgrades around the country of late – what layouts do they use?
