GrahamH
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Just looking at the amount of views to this thread – surprising how many motorists tapped ‘ Stephen’s Green traffic changes’ into Google!
These bikes have to be moved, even if there’s no option other than to assemble some sort of dedicated park on the median then at least have that. I know how frustrating it can be for cyclists to park, but the current situation is not sustainable, esp with the motorbikes – the clutter generated is not nice, on a practical and visual level.
I agree about walking along the median, it’s such a pleasant experience, nice and quiet. The paving can really be appreciated here and the symmetry of the trees is very striking, but I think broad clipped limes would have been much preferable, taking the best element of the old trees – creating an air of seclusion and relaxation – while not dominating the street and concealing the building stock. Combined with shady seating it could have been extra special.
Really – perhaps it’s improved recently, admittedly I’ve only been there 2 or 3 times in the past year, but it was clean each time.
Suppose one-off visits never reveal the poor aspect of places, most people I know think Connolly’s the best thing since sliced bread.They’re terrible alright, esp how the pole continues on upward after the last light – they’re like giant fishing rods or something!
Just to confirm on O’ Cll St, the median is tapering from wide at O’ Cll Monument to narrow at Abbey St, and the side pavements are tapering the opposite way to end up narrow at the bridge?
The distinguished railings that used to encircle O’ Cll should be reinstated, the Monument gets vandalised and peed on regardless of how often it’s cleaned – the narrow strips of footpath at either side of it are where the railings used to be, on a stone plinth which is also gone.
The lack of consistancy of the paving is a shame, but pedestrians must be able to access the median here. And O’Cll Mon should certainly be lit – now here’s somewhere where something special could be carried out. Bit more difficult for the likes of John Gray & Co.Good to see soemeone’s thinking ahead in the CC, an access manhole has been provided in the middle of the plaza for the Christmas Tree electricity supply, unfortunate it happens to be slap bang in the middle lining up with the GPO but there you go.
I so shouldn’t have noticed that…Agreed, Heuston is great, especially the entrance foyer area marring ‘old with new’. And the terminal is kept spotless.
In contrast, Connolly is an absolute disaster in every sense, from the materials used, to their quality, to layout, to design, to respecting the original buildings, to maintanance.
It is a disgrace that the main entrance leads you into a manky tunnel, and the replacement stone around the entrance where the steps were removed is possibly the worst job I have ever seen. And supposedly swanky toilets are woefully inadequate, and the lack even of decent water or ventilation in there should be the concern of the Health Board.
And the dated shoddy design is spreading outside now with the new Luas canopy, the type that has adorned British supermarkets for the past decade.I think it was David Chambers who posted here before about the 4 & 5 canopy, he said there was a planning permission notice up for its partial removal – well feck it anyway, forgot all about finding out about it that after deciding to walk instead of take the DART!
It would be terrible to loose any part of this structure let alone all of it, it’s an impressive piece of engineering for Dublin, especially how it gently curves around to follow the line of the Loop Line track. And despite the plastic and poor decorative condition, the ironwork was in good order – there certainly is no reason for removal on structural grounds. Admittedly the plethora of valleys and joints in the part attached to the terrace of buildings must be in ragged order at this stage, but again, nothing that bit of maintainance cannot resolve.
I doubt any attempt will be made to replicate the 80s lump on 6 & 7, but still I can’t see why IE would want to shorten the length of the Victorian considering the whole purpose of the project is the lengthen platforms to cater for 8 carriage DARTs.
And surely the CC didn’t sanction part of its removal – would they…?If all one-offs were of high architectural quality, had waste water treatment ponds, householders used wind-generated electric cars, paid for back-up electricity connections themselves etc, and were all-round models of sustainability, would AT support such one-off scattered development?
Please don’t say but they aren’t – just, as an idea, would AT support such housing, or would it still be rejected on community grounds?
It’s just interesting cause so much of debate gets grounded on the present, ineffective septic tanks etc, but looking to the future, which is what’s important, is such scattered development deemed acceptable?Well it would be unfair to criticise the CC for the upper end at the moment in that the public domain works phase hasn’t started here yet, but yes on the properties side of things Dr Quirkey’s is terrible, although conversely I’d say the public at large would quite like it; as Devin memorably said – plastic window boxes and picket fences etc… But if this is the precedent for future development, the place is only going to go further down the tubes.
Surely there are going to be double pavements on the lower section – I haven’t been on the street for a couple of weeks now but what you describe J Seerski is worrying. This is the most congested part of the street and also features the busiest pedestrian crossing in the country, it is essential that a double width is used here, not least for the sake of conforming with the rest of the throughfare.
Indeed that’s a point that’s been irritating me for ages – seeing everything happening nearly every single day inevitably results in the novelty of the project wearing off a bit, but even so there is still something about the newly completed part that doesn’t quite click with the exciting plans first proposed. And it’s the consolidating of the street into a whole with trees as originally proposed that’s the issue. As it stands, I cannot see a grand sweep of timbers emerging from what has been planted to date. Of course the trees along the footpaths have to mature and fully form, and the IAP CGIs were a bit fanciful but even so, the effect is disapointing. Perhaps when the upper end, with few to no interruptions from sidestreets or plazas is completed, the unity will emerge.
Certainly I find the median a big let down – as delicate and architectural as the new wispy trees are, a marching terrace of limes could have looked so much better and striking, they could have defined O’ Cll St from the rest of the city. As beautiful as the new paving is and the lamposts etc, the median is very leggy and windswept, with poles and posts and trunks of trees poking up everywhere – instead of being a place of interest and a break away from the congested side pavements. Instead it feels like a big stepping stone to be used to get to the other side of the street as quickly as possible.Those brass plinths on the Irish Nationwide shop front are a lovely detail, and must be restored. This building was a jewellers when first opened, the owners took great pride in rebuilding their premises in this grand, modern manner after 1916 on such a prominent site in the city. As far as I can remember, the upper floors could do with a slap of paint too.
Eanna NÃ Lamhna was on the radio yesterday for a good 35min debate, along with the chairman of the Irish Rural Dwellers Association and someone from the RIAI, and an expert on Irish planning. It started off promising but it decended into the usual bickering towards the end – indeed the putrid hatred of AT on the part of the chair of the IRDA was really extraordinary, quite funny really – you could hear the rage in his voice & the tension between him and NÃ Lamhna could be cut with a knife, but she came over the better of the two.
Still it was the best debate on the one-off issue thus far – a few good concise points were made on the part of AT, NÃ Lamhna got a decent plug in about the organisation’s other work for once, but again there was no time to get any of AT’s policies across, neither did the IRDA. The reps of the RIAI and planning did however broadly come across in favour of AT, describing them as a symptom of the one-off issue rather than the cause, and the necessity for a body indepedent of Govt and local authorites.The contentious issue of what is a one-off dwelling and what is a dwelling that is part of a traditional scattered community also arose, and calls were made for such types of development to be defined in dev plans, and sustainable models and examples specified.
NÃ Lamhna did slip up though on the question of does AT support the principal of the one-off house, to which too general an answer was given, resulting her being asked 5 or 6 times, much to the delight of the Mr IRDA. Also the public listing of members’ names occupied a lot of time, the IRDA calling for it to happen considering they have a statutory role – regardless that they are a private organisation.On any future media outings for AT, they should definitely make a short list of main points beforehand that they wish to get across
about their policies, rather than getting bogged down in contentious issues deliberately stirred up by opponents. Overall, NÃ Lamhna proved her worth to the organisation. It was a pity though, considering the presence of the RIAI that the architectural aspect of rural development wasn’t mentioned at all.
It’s well worth a download from the RTE website.Just on the issue of Section 140s, what is their purpose – what’s the idea behind them?
Hang on – his folded arm is on the wrong side!
Either he had a transplant or it ain’t him! It’s almost identical though – weird. It’s not William M Murphy is it?What I mean about afar is not to attach spotlights etc to major classicals merely for the effect the light creates such as streams of light cast upwards between windows etc, which disregards the building as a whole, and which often make a structure look messy and cluttered. Diffused light from a relative distance, or even close up if it is distributed well, as a general rule is more sympathetic to the architecture of such major buildings – generally, which I should have said before.
Of course it is all about considering the architecture and context, something which is never done in this country, and different treatment works for different buildings. A major gripe is that little details are often lit, but look ridiculous in the context of the whole structure. I mean the Custom House is a classic example I think where simple broad diffused light works well (albeit appallingly executed), and the silly spots casting a different colour temperature onto the pediment be done away with, they are trivial and not consistant with the lighting of the building as a whole. It’s such a shame it’s not properly lit considering the magnificent job the OPW carried out. The same goes for Leinster House and others.
In contrast, the OPW job on Govt Bldgs works well because it doesn’t indulge in such inconsistancy.
Another gem is the BOI Arts centre on Foster Place with two simple floodlights behind the twin columns, that play on their bold profiles and cast menacing shadows, simple and effective.Detailed lighting using modern methods does of course work, but it’s being increasingly used just because it’s possible.
What person in their right mind decided to plant those trees where they were, likewise regarding the matching specimens on the other side of the street. They served no purpose whatsoever, indeed they concealed the finest terrace on the street, and negated the impact of the median sweep of trees which had just been finally consolidated at the same time as their planting. And they were ugly!
It’ll be interesting to see how this lower section of the street is handled during construction, notably how the new double-width pavements somehow funnel pedestrians onto the single-width bridge pavements – people will end up in the middle of the road!(indeed it happens as it is)
Thanks for John Gray Stephen, I thought the plinth looked very similar – but then most of them are! Comparing the two it becomes evident:
Always to be welcomed!
The paving on this street is the best ever – its condition has to be a joke on the part of the CC, truly unbelievably bad (not that the Luas works helped). But think it’s the parapet level of the street that’s the main problem, in that – well, there isn’t one! There’s very little definition of space. Even a few trees at street level would help no end.
About O’Connell St Morlan, I’ve always wondered about the street surface – certainly by the 1890s the street was cobbled, or at least parts of it, but in countless earlier photos the road surface is burned out in the sun and impossible to identify. And all sketches, paintings and engravings I’ve seen just depict a muddy brown suface, probably cause their creators couldn’t be bothered drawing half a million cobble stones! Perhaps someone has an early pic of some kind that does show cobbles.
Here’s one from Google depicting the bridge and street in what looks like around 1893-1900. The bridge is blatently cobbled over anyway.
Interesting to see Eddie Rockets apparently under construction over to the left – certainly there’s something going on!
Anyone know who the statue is of at the botton of the pic? Always wondered why he faces that weird angle, is it to line up with D’Olier St? Also the bollards surrounding the statue are nearly identical to those near Parnell at the top end of the street. Was there a statue up there too originally?😀 The BOI should be lit in pure white light from behind the columns instead of the nasty sodium, indeed they should consult with Trinity on matching white schemes for the benefit of College Green at large. Also those distant spots that blast the portico with white light almost to melting point should also be toned down. This is a far superior way of lighting pediments from an architectural perspective, instead of sticking equipment infront of, or on top of the very features being illuminated – another example being Gandon’s niches under the House of Lords portico which could do without a floodlight nestling in each!
There is no doubting that the Westin looks great at night, indeed it is one of the few buildings where so many spotlights work well, and its corner site is perfect for a night-time ‘set-piece’, but the shiny silver spots against the red stone facade during the day are too much, directly beneath many fine carved pieces. The floodlights on the Portland stone facades are much more discreet however, sited on cills etc.
My main concern though is the silver strips on other buildings, where they almost become part of the architecture by following string courses and mouldings, but destroying the delicacy and lightness of the carving in the process. I know I’m sounding petty, but it’s largely cause I can’t remember the terrible jobs I’ve seen about the place! Must start taking notes…That’s a good point about the layout – I dread to think what it’s like trying to cross sides from the quays or bridge onto the street layout.
Perhaps the lanes were laid out along the median as there is much less potential pedestrian conflict along here, and no side street junctions breaking the lanes.Interesting photograph of the street here from 1858 – one of the earliest photos of a street scene in the city. Must have been taken on a Sunday morning or something as the place is deserted. It’s spooky to see the ghostly shadows of the GPO lanterns – the only photo I’ve ever seen of them. The Union Jack is flying proudly above too 🙂
And the width of the roadway unobstructed by any median makes you wonder just how an impressive a space this must have been compared with all the other city streets – literally just acres of empty (and filthy) space. It does serve to demonstrate though just how important decent paving was at the time.
