GrahamH
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
The ‘sails’ at Connolly have been up for quite a few days now, difficult to see what’s going on from outsid the site though – see you manage to get in JJ!
Can’t believe this day has finally arrived, don’t think anyone else can either – and it only took 12 years!
Afraid to say Dr Quirkey’s wasn’t quite finished in the last pics – they’ve discovered kiddies poster paint…
It really is a magnificent job to date – well done to everyone involved in the City Council; whatever about the initial delay, the excecution of the job has been fast and well managed with pedestrains and traffic. And the attention to detail has been excellent, from the precision paving, to the steel studs, to those lovely bins (there was a guy there yesterday crouched on the ground taking pics of them, he even had a cloth to polish them with!)
Just one problem with the finished works that I hoped wouldn’t happen – one of the clipped limes looks decidedly dead outside Clerys – all of it’s leaves have fallen off. If it can’t be treated hopefully there are ‘spares’ that it and other damaged trees in the future can be replaced with.This one is has better exposure, and the contrast between the two pics is more pronounced.
So from shabby heritage – to cool, calm and contemporary:
Also have the first of many before and after pics here. I was going to save them till the street was finished, but sure we’ll all be dead and buried by then, so here’s just two of the plaza.
The shots are taken from the exact same postion – behind Larkin cause he’s the only thing I knew would be still there 2 years later! – and using the same lens angle etc.
Sorry about the trees getting in the way, didn’t know they’d be there at the time of the first pic (oh and of course the sun always shines on O’ Cll St now!)Deep down I always knew the CC would follow through in the end 🙂 (and with only a couple of days left till the end of the 6 month period!)
They look really good now, it would be terrible to loose them, they’re nice for weary tourists to sit on too (God knows there’s nowhere else :D), and they warm up quite nicely in the sun – apparently…And from the sublime to the ridiculous – Dr Quirkey’s new shopfront.
From a distance it looks fine, pretty good actually, as it ‘supports’ the upper floors very well, and the colouring largely matches the stone dressings of the building.
It’s only when you get up close, and observe the silliness of it all, and the underscaled plaster detail, such as pilasters, and heads of all things, that it all falls apart. There’s a kinda Grecian thing going on too which is quite scary really when combined with the new purple railings – on a cheap and inappropriate granite base – that are more suited to Cadbury World than O’ Connell Street.Overall, I think it’s an improvement on the old dour marble. The shopfront itself looks fine from a distance, it looks simple and elegant – but this should be the case up closetoo, with clean lines and some simple detail, matching the upper floors.
What’s most interesting about this is that wasn’t this building earmarked for part of the Carlton scheme? Is this confirmation that it isn’t or that any development isn’t expected for another 5 years?!Whoops – was just thinking, the ICS own the Blood Bank Building don’t they, the premises extend out into the Gothic original, so that’s what the IAP’s probably referring to.
But even then (to clutch at straws), instead of saying the refurbishment needs to be extended northwards to the ICS, it says “this refurbishment needs to be extended northwards to extend to the ICS, i.e. presumably to include it.
Just remembered from when I was in the older part before – there’s some fantastic views of O’ Cll St and Bridge from here, lovely interiors too with original fireplaces (the chimneys outside mustn’t be just ornamental then). I think there’s a couple of apartments on the top floors which must have the most dramatic views of the quays and river.On the last point I certainly agree – indeed I get the impression here that some people are sitting in the shadows here not willing to comment either way – some more opinions would be welcome!
Sorry, but I never said this proposal related to the whole of the street – indeed from the outset I stated it involved the longer stretch from the Fleet St/Fenian St axis to the river; the College St end has an wonderful atmosphere distinguished by the collection of Victorians there (Westin aside), which (when not obscured by leaves) is very grand when combined with the area around the House of Lords entrance.
Partially the thinking behind this proposal is to contrast this ostentation with the order of the remaining WSC terrace, compounded with some replica infill.One of the other primary reasons is to restore the magnificent apex formation of D’Olier St and Westmoreland, which would be achieved by recladding the Blood Bank building on both sides. I know someone’s going to say well why not knock the ICS building and reinstate the simple WSC join too – no, if there was any failing on the WSC’s part it was the lack of a central landmark building – although the Bank of Ireland immediately put forward plans for such a structure before buying College Green. The ICS is perfect for the site.
Again about the interiors – no not because it hurts the arguement do I dismiss the issue but because as I said, the arguement is for the reinstatement of the streetscape, the massing of individual properties into a unified terrace, i.e there is a point, a purpose to doing so; there is no such reason for rebuilding the interiors.
And on a practical level, if such a requirement were made, the proposal would never get off the ground – yes many shops have listed interiors, but the vast vast majority do not.Just reading the IAP – a very interesting hiding behind the parapet state of affairs prevails in the tiny section relating to D’Olier St. It states that the Irish Times have done a lovely job etc – and that “this refurbishment needs to be extended northwards to extend to the ICS building”. This can only mean one thing – replica facades to be built over the Blood Bank building; it is not in a poor state of repair, and ‘quality’ materials are used in its construction – hence refurbishment can only refer to replica facades and the completion of the original streetscape – it is specifically stated the refurbishment needs to extend right up to the ICS. Can the CC not bring themselves to say the nasty r-word either, re re re re – no it’s no use – refurbishment, yes, that’ll do.
And just a correction from earlier – I said there was only one WSC left in its original condition, I think there’s actually two, with a third one having some minor window dressing, and the Ballast Office as part of its plot has a dubious replica tacked on the side – which could do with some window tweaking.
The stretch from Fleet St isn’t a mix of styles – this is partially my point, that the quick-fix render over most of the buildings make them look decidedly mediocre, and give the impression of the street being a complete mess. And naturally if replicas were as bad as the yokes thrown up already, they would be no point whatsoever in doing it.
Craig, ok – of course I agree that other works are important, indeed I might as well throw in the dire need for social housing and hospital beds – you know, it’s kinda not the issue here.
Of course other aspects of Westmoreland St are important, believe me I could rant on about the quality of the paving and its width, the street furniture, the trees that obscure the Venetian building Phil mentions and the sandstone Dutch Billy, the lack of formal trees on the street, the lack of definition of space, the fact the street doesn’t act as a launch-pad for O’ Cll St, the amount of surface area devoted to traffic, the public lighting, the crossing at the bridge, the crappy Ballast Office, flippin Spar and all the rubbish till the cows come home – I’m just trying to raise an issue that will never be debated and find out what people think of the idea of replica infill on the street and the subject in general.Yes I would like to see the top lopped off the Westin – its woeful, but it’s not going to happen, the CC have no influence, let alone any power over such an issue, and wouldn’t even waste their breath on essentially asking a property owner to discard with 20% or whatever of their floor area, not least after all the messing around in the first place.
The owners and traders on the street however, most of whom presumably are members of the CCBA, would more than likely welcome any improvement to the street that would not adversely affect them.With regard to the Venice Charter (and thanks for the info) I get the impression from the parts quoted that it’s still largely referring to ntl monuments – Newgrange being a classic example of Article 15, where in the 60s, the central section including the roofbox was reconstructed in limestone or slate as opposed to the white stone, as no evidence existed as to what it originally looked like and so the new stone is “recognisable and its use…ensure
the conservation of [the] monument and the reinstatement of its form”If it applies to more modest buildings, then surely with regard to Leinster House – which if anything is way up there in the hierarchy of things – the OPW, on behalf of the Irish Government, is in direct contravention of the Venice Charter, as not only did their extension involve the demolition of a 19th century structure to the front of the House, not only did it involve constructing an exact replica of Castle’s Tuscan colonnade in its place, not only did it involve the building of a new-build interpreted classical blind screen wall above it, but no attempt was even made to highlight the fact that it’s not original! It’s false! It’s a mock-up! And rightly so!
Say some Bobby Molloy botch job of a single house-width office block existed slap-bang in the middle of the Georgian Mile, would it be in contravention of the Charter to rebuild a single Georgian facade over it without explicit indication of its falsehood, in a Georgian creation of 3,500 feet in length?!
And the mind boggles at the thought of the amount of historic structures all over Europe, from gate piers to royal palaces, which have had similar sympathetic alterations, and on much larger scales.I think Georgians, more so than any other buildings require the architectural support of their neighbours, Georgian neighbours, and a limited number of replicas would contribute to the street in a manner that would allow the originals to be appreciated much better and be seen in an appropriate context, not to mention their original context, not least for the benefit of the opposite terrace – all of which are originals.
About the interiors – it’s not a wider issue than the exterior streetscape; it’s about just that – the exteriors! There is no need to extend the replica logic to inside – sure were that the case every shop in the city would be a repro!You’re right to point out my use of ‘wrong’, but yes it is my opinion that the WSC buildings were very wrongly demolished – indeed the first phase of the EBS was entirely in violation of what was proposed, the reconstruction of an Edwardian, or late Victorian structure (a proposal in itself which shouldn’t have been allowed).
Similarly the Blood Bank building happened the same way – at a time when there was no vision for the street as an entity, something that I think still prevails today outside of the groundworks proposed by the IAP.But to show that the CC are aware to an extent of the issue of render and paint covering the upper floors – in the IAP it is specified that work needs to be done to restore the remaining rendered buildings on D’ Olier St to their former glory, in a manner similar to the Irish Times – and the Times job included the removal of paint or render from the whole façade of at least one of their properties, as well as paint from the window surrounds from many other of its windows.
And I’m sure that if a Brutalist lump existed in the middle of the Times terrace, the IAP would specify a faithful reproduction be built in its place, and expert guidance and incentives would be offered by the CC. And no doubt the Irish Times would be delighted at such a worthy idea and highlight the matter with great voluminosity in its pages via Himself.I don’t think it’s as simple to say what happened, happened, and lets just move on.
There is potential there that should be exploited.I’m not well versed in the minutiae of the Venice Charter – perhaps Craig you could highlight some of the areas relevant to here such as restoring a streetscape, although it seems from what you say that is limited to ntl monuments which would be a different ball game.
But personally I really wouldn’t have a problem about reconstructing between 5 and 7 simple red-bricked properties out of a streetscape of at least three times that number and where they have complete historical relevance – essentially they used to exist but were wrongly demolished to the detriment of the street.
That’s not to say that if Westmoreland was entirely modern today that I’d advocate recreating its Georgian heyday, I wouldn’t – there is a limit, a limit which has not even remotely been breached as it stands.
Any case for a replica must be vigourously made and I think any possible case to be made for them exists on Westmoreland St:. A very small amount would be built.
. They would have complete historical relevance to the sites.
. They would rectify the severe problem of the existing Georgians being diminished architecturally by existing in isolation.
. Along with the restoration of existing buildings, they would bring the Georgian heritage of the city back to its centre, helping to reinforce the identity of the city.
. Most imortantly and simply, they would unify that whole stretch of the street making it look fantastic.Of course interiors would not be rebuilt, the issue is the exterior streetscape. The matter raised before of a building’s interior reflecting the exterior I think is irrelevant – one expects to find a glittering Regency style interior to the GPO, but doesn’t get it; likewise with every other shop in the city in older buildings, we just don’t expect mahogany counters, tiled floors and decorative ceilings. One need only look at the success of the replicas on Harcourt St, despite some being of poor quality and the fact that the originals should never have been demolished, I don’t think anyone can make the case for modern structures here.
On the issue of who would decide the design of the buildings, well very simply there would be no point in even contemplating such a plan were it not decided by the CC that only WSC facades be built.
An expert advisory group could be established by the CC to advise on designs, materials to be used etc, and expert contractors could be recommended to owners – and possibly funds such as a percentage of the cost be provided as incentives, which would be a comparitively small amount.Obviously I don’t know the ins and outs of such processes but I’m sure similar collaborative effeorts such as this are carried out every day around the city and country involving municipal authorities and private individuals, and larger scale projects involving streetscapes I’m sure are carried out with ease all over Europe.
That’s a nice idea alright – where did you here it from?
The main foyer always feels very empty, the central section stretching over to the windows is a bit windswept – no changes were ever made to around here, where entrances used to be, and the magnificent wooden clock has been missing for ages from the central table.
Must see Dr Quirkey’s, was wondering what would emerge from under the hoardings…Possibly the most successful building in the city centre out of the boom years – it looks stunning, especially contrasted with the Mansion House.
I advocate building in an older style or replicating in only strictly limited areas where the character of a place is sullied by a modern intrusion. Craig you say that ‘facadism’ can be shrouded in subjective arguements – but of course it is, by definition architecture and planning is a subjective process – building while taking account of the surrounding environment. Were it not subjective and we had a blanket ban as it were on pastiche, we’d currently have a glass and stone wall sticking its nose into the set-piece of Leinster House and the institutions instead of the elegant classical addition made to the northern end of the house as part of the extension.
I remember when this issue was raised before about O’Cll St, in a fit of heated nievity I suggested that replica designs in high-Victorian or Georgian styles be used to replace the RDH, Fingal, the derelict site and Dr Quirkeys – at the time I frankly didn’t know the upper end as well as I thought, and so now in the knowledge of the myriad of architectural styles and materials that prevail and the vast tracts that require development, I genuinely would not advocate building replicas here – there’s no point building falsely where it will make little impact; by saying that, yes I imply that replicas should be used with extreme caution, we value authenticity too much to meddle about with it with abandon.Of course modern architecture works well next to older structures, of course it does, and a well-designed modern building could relate to the WSC buildings on the EBS site as well as a replica, just in a different way. The point is that it would not contribute to the street as a whole to have one single modern building on it. It takes away the character of the place, it muddles up the nature of the street, just like the Ulster Bank on College Green, that wrecks the historic nature of the setting and the vista of fine Victorians up to the Central Bank, as does Penneys on O’Cll St on that crucial corner site next to the GPO and in the same stretch of the street as its finest and most coherent terraces. These are two classic instances where replicas are entirely fitting and appropriate.
As for the issue of accuracy and attention to detail, really its a non issue – it can be done, plain and simple, faithful replicas are not difficult in expert hands. Steps etc are irrelevant too, not least because they never existed here, indeed I support the idea of uniform, entirely modern shopfronts along the street, contrasting with the upper floors.
In relation to the idea of building ‘old’ for the sake of it, well that would be just ridiculous. I don’t suggest building Georgian buildings on Westmoreland because I like ‘oldness’, but because they would ‘fill in the gaps’, complete what the originals are trying to do i.e. create a cohesive composition, and would complement them. Just as Zoe Devs’ buildings reassemble Mountjoy Square, a few replicas on Westmoreland could recreate what is almost there already.
I too enjoy the layers of contributions made to the city over the past 3 centuries, and enjoy contemporary structures just as much – but I do not like bad planning. And to indicate that I’m not totally biased in favour of ‘the olden days’ I think large areas of Nassau St are ripe for redevelopment in the modern idiom, such is the bumbling haphazard nature of the place and the extent of the poor modern buildings on it; likewise vast tracts of the older quays to the west badly need some decent modern work.
