GrahamH

How much of the interior is original on Grafton St – I rarely go in there so don’t know it well enough. Was it the refurbishment of the Westmoreland St branch that everyone gave out about in the mid-90s? I’ve never been in that one at all – did it have an original 1900s interior? I’ve always loved the brown bow window separating the entrances here, got a charming late Georgian and Edwardian character to it. There should be cakes on display rather than bags of coffee though 🙂

It is a sad day to see them close, whatever about standards etc.
Indeed if you stand back from it all, it seems extraordinary that such an institution is shutting down – you’d never have believed it possible 2 or 3 years ago before the tide began to turn.
To retain the name in some way for what ever replaces it would be nice.

Just on that application for Westmoreland, considering this property is PVCed up to the hilt, presumably the ‘period windows’ refers to the insertion of Victorian plates or Georgian sashes, rather than reassembling the WSC features.
There was a more detailed app in the adjoining building as I passed this evening, someone was standing in front of it though, couldn’t very well ask them to move!

Here’s a direct comparison pic – whereas wexfordplanner’s one benefits from flattering sunlight, the ‘today’ pic benefits much more from striking symmetry while not taking into account the impact of tree planting on the rest of the street. There is no question about the beautiful paving though:

Flattering sun aside, that elegance has not been recaptured.

Arrrgh – it can be so difficult at times to get a clear arguement across.
I mentioned the case for retention of the older trees simply to register my dissatisfaction with what has gone in to date on the median – the fact that the CC were saying what was proposed would be superior to to the existing trees.
I still genuinely think the trees should be chopped – as exactly as I said before, and as you say Devin, to axe them is difficult but necessary.
I did indeed laud the arrival of the limes (as I recall it was the upper plaza trees) and still think they look great. That is the plaza trees, not the median ones.

I also agree with every word Paul says about the lower trees, they were ridculously large, and not only were they planted in parallel rows, they were actually tripled over, with the 40/50s trees in the middle, and a row of spindlies from the 80s job either side! And their size not only blocked nearly all views of the other half of the street, they also began to loom over the street like a dark cloud.

However, what they did contribute was an identity for O’ Cll St. From a distance, and on the street itself, you could see them stretching into the distance, you could appreciate the grand length of the thoroughfare. And developing your point Devin, every child in the city knew these trees from the effect generated and the ‘importance’ of the median, with facinating glances of stone statues hidden amongst the foliage.

I viewed the plans for the street as an opportunity to remove the existing mess, and start from scratch, reinserting the boulevard effect on a managable scale and in a more effective way, not to mention in a contemporary fashion – involving replanting trees in line of what was once there, ie along the median.
We do not have this now by any means, and the idea of the grand effect of the upper trees being replaced with a couple of clusters of 6 trees and bike parks I think is terrible.

One need only look at the area outside Easons, where the plaza simply runs into the rest of the median, save two limes. There are no new trees here, it is just a bland plazafied area now, similar to other areas.
Either way the upper trees have to go, they can’t be left stranded, further contributing to the lack of the ‘boulevard effect’.

I just think what is going to replace these 101 year old trees is a slap in the face to their age and history.

Have to say I’ve always liked the Deloitte & Touche building – not the windows, but the brickwork is interesting and the brown I think is not only a welcome departure from red (Conrad & Co) but looks good in its own right. One of the better buildings that went up around that time, not least in the Earlsfort area I think. Just unfashionable now though.

The Guardian report was inaccurate in a few places, including saying that 50 historic trees have already been chopped.
Right up to the GPO from the river there were around 6 trees that dated from approx the 50s, the rest were later still.

Saying all that has been said, I think the case for the retention of the trees has grown substantially considering what has since replaced their Lower O’ Cll St counterparts.
Whereas it is difficult to argue from the concealment of buildings point of view, and I still agree on that front, the tree planting thus far has been very disappointing. This creation of ‘rooms’ concept should not be applied to the median. There should be regular tree planting here, whether it be limes, native species or even those varieties that have been planted – anything that reflects the grand sweep of the street, and that of the trees that are being chopped.
I cannot think of anything more horrendous than for the magnificent row of planes at the top end being replaced with feckity clusters of trees. What a wasted opportunity that would be. Fair enough, those that have been planted are hardly mature or established, but that’s not the issue, I think the concept chosen is completely wrong.

That is an interesting proposal alright, helping to rejuvinate what is still a rundown part of the city and linking the area to any development on College Green. It would also be extraordinary that it would then be located on a mirror image site on the opposite side of the river!
As attractive as a river setting would be at Spencer Dock or Grand Canal, I’d still prefer that the Abbey remained in the heart of the ‘old’ city.