GrahamH

Preserving ‘old’ buildings is not just about preserving heritage, history etc etc.
It is vital to appreciate that structures of Georgian and Victorian nature will never be built again. The level of craftmanship, the expertise, attention to detail and the fundamental quality of their hand produced features is highly unlikely to be ever revived.

Now one can easily counter-act that arguement by saying the buildings we’re building today will never be built to the same manner again – but the level of individualism and the use of materials that would be prohibitively expensive today in older buildings is gone forever.
Short of a social revolution we will never achieve the quality of times past in quite the same way again.
Of course the Victorians also used mass production, but only in furnishings etc, their buildings were painstakenly constructed and finished by hand.

This reason however is only part of why we should be preserving and listing, and merely serves to reinforce the other points so well articulated by Stephen C.

I agree about Farmleigh in that the construction of swimming pool in the basement is just too lavish for words, but much more importantly – the house architecturally represents little that is Irish, it is of a standard ‘British Isles Victoriana’, its facade boasting little other than symetrical fenestration, the interior simply representing international luxury.

An Irish-Georgian property should have been selected, or a modern Irish structure custom built (and for a fraction of the cost) that would promote the country to international visitors, which is the purpose of a ‘state guesthouse’.

About Markievicz House – just a jibe about Sligo earlier – but if it is not of architectural importance I agree that the house need not be saved, but the fact that it was listed in the first place would indicate it is of importance. And that it was delisted on a casting vote is utterly disgraceful.
A provision of a 2/3 or 3/4 majority be used in such delisting cases has been promoted for years and never been acted upon.

I think that the fact that the house is linked to Yeats through his grandfather, not even his father – but grandfather is taking ‘our heritage’ one step to far.
What next, preserve the pet shop where he purchased his first budgie?
Really – to preserve a house soley on this reason is just plain silly, if it is architecturally important fair enough and its minor accociations can act as an ice-breaker for its owner’s dinner parties – but thats all!

Aside from this project, to say that Dublin needs tall buildings is a terrible sweeping statement to make. No city needs tall buildings for purely asthetic purposes.

It has become a bit of a buzzword alright – or buzz-development as it were…

I was watching a repeat of a programme about the transformation of Ballymun on TG4 of all places last night (you have no idea how difficult it is to read subtitles and look at architecture at the same time!)

And some of the houses being built are truly beautiful.
Whereas the twee happy happy pasteley houses leave a lot to be desired, I was hugely impresses by the three storey houses being built.
They are very closely modelled on the tall 3 storey Edwardian townhouses that you see in the likes of Glasnevin, and indeed around the country – with the top floor having the gable facing the street.

Unlike the appalling design of private housing going up across the land, with their multitude of clashing facing materials and ludicrous architectural features that are hugely under-scaled and inappropriate like oriel windows and big porches, these houses in Ballymun are so perfectly understated, reserved and most importantly of all – well-proportioned.

They are built of a muted dark red/rust colour brick, with perfectly sized bay windows and instead of having nasty strawberries and cream pebble-dashing on the part that joins the ground floor bay with the bay upstairs, they are plastered in a sophisticated beige plaster (exactly the colour of almond icing!)

And above all, there’s not a speck of PVC in sight! All have beautiful solid wood double glazed windows in a light shade.

And instead of the little porches over the front doors being over-burdened with over-sized tiles which is so typical, they appear to be lined in lead instead which is so streamlined and modern.

The houses are a perfect blend of traditional design and contemporary styling whilst still achieving a decent density with 3 storeys.
And no land is wasted with unnecessary large front gardens, just a small dignified space is offered for individualism, like the space outside Victorian artisan villas.

I was genuinely surprised at the design of these houses, and I would aspire to live in one of these homes any day over the tat being thrown up around the country in ‘exclusive’ private schemes.

Well done to BRL, the City Council and everyone who was involved in their design – which is truly refreshing.

The Medical Hall existed until at least 1850 when a Charles Butler, ‘doctor of medicine’ ran the premises, who lived in Monkstown, (some commute even then!)

It was located at 54 Lower Sackville Street which equates (unfortunatly) to the Burger King site today, on the west side of O’ Connell St although interestingly there’s still a pharmacy next door – with Eddie Rockets on the other side.

I can’t find anything else prior to 1850, in previous research I’ve tried to undertake I experienced a near blackout of information on the works of the Wide Street Commision who developed Lower Sackville St between 1777 and roughly until 1795, and who apparently developed unified shopfronts for the project, presumably which would have included Butlers.

I don’t think there are any pictures or engravings of Lower Sackville around this time either, most were executed in the mid-late 18th century, or are late Victorian.

Perhaps the Irish Architectural Archive on Merrion Square could help with images, they’re very helpful.

One can equally turn your opening statement around Andrew and say – why does high-density always have to be centred on high-rise! (but I see where you’re coming from)

Tall buildings certainly can create a skyline, and a beautiful one at that, but a totally low-rise scape can do so equally. The difference between church spires and tall buildings is that the buildings tend to dominate, whilst spires act as architectural statements.
And of course church spires piercing a low-rise city creates an historic perspective which is on a whole different level to the standard ‘impact of tall buildings on just Merrion Square debate’.

Just because Spencer Dock is far away from the city centre dosn’t mean it dosn’t have a strong impact on the city at large.

Glad you pulled me up d d dallas, nice to know you’re paying attention – I mean that only if it is necessary to go high-rise for density purposes then the Docklands/Spencer Dock should be the only place where high-rise is allowed.

But thats only if necessary, high-rise is so often spouted as the answer to the city’s housing density problems, but high density can be achieved in modest buildings.
Ballymun, posessing the tallest housing in the country is low density (contibuted to by windswept wasteland)

I’m unsure where I stand – like a lot of people – on the high-rise issue in Dublin because we need to see images – hard evidence as to tall building’s impact on the city.
Certainly I’m strongly leaning towards the low-rise bandwagon, as I feel that Dublin, who’s historic fabric has been decimated in terms of having distinctive historic areas, must cling on to the last distinctive and unifying feature of the city – it’s low-rise character.

Indeed

No offence to anyone intended, I ment it purely in the sardonic context of the Simpsons in which case it was highly amusing.
And I’ve done my fare share of ‘blue collar work’ not to be called a snob, at least I don’t resort to crude name-calling which one could equally describe as immature.

Most of the buildings most certainly were not headed for international competition, indeed it was unlikely any of them were.

They were ‘global style, anywhere’ buildings of the lowest order, churned out for maximum floorspace to counter-act the loss making conference centre.
Indeed this is one of the reasons the scheme was rejected, as more and more office space was emerging in the form of second rate boxes to merely ‘contain’ 4 million or whatever metres of floor space.

What was originally envisaged as a high quality ‘city quater’ turned out in the end to be a 1990s version of a 1970s speculative development of monumental proportions.