GrahamH

It is not wrong to ‘go back’ when you’re talking about an overwhelming minority of bldgs, literally five out of the whole thoughfare, that if changed appropriatly, they restore the ENTIRE architectural unity to the street.
This is the fundamental argument.
Its only five/six buildings.
How can you possibly disagree with that?

To be frank, my arguement against replica infill is quite the polar opposite of what is suggested. I didn’t make any comments with so much as the slightest rose-tint or romantic inference. You back up your weak arguements with changing the subject, bringing in the usual suggestions of Georgian snobbery and conservationism, there is one Georgian building on O’ Connell St, the vast majority of it’s building stock dates from the 1880s through to the 1930s.

The ‘degree of pragmatism’ you speak of
d d dallas, is exactly the 80s red brick and cheap granite clad crap I speak of, its what we inevitably end up with, or watered-down modernism, aka the schuh building.

Just what is the point of steadfastly sticking to modern infill, the schuh bldg being a case in point, located slap-bang in the middle of an entirely Victorian/Edwardian terrace.
If you set out to build a grand thoughfare, you most certainly wouldn’tbuild the vast majority of it’s bldgs in a certain style, and then toss in a couple of utterly out of place structures for good measure. This is infill we’re talking about here, not individual historic and new structures existing in their own right beside each other.

Many of the modern buildings on the street will soon be lodging planning permissions for redevelopment, and will be proposing to lash vast sums into structural glass and polished granite etc. Why not ensure NOW that this money goes into proper cut stone pilasters, appropriate brickwork and wooden joinery by the CC committing themselves to restoring
O’ Connell St to a dignified state.
I’m not talking of ‘restoring it to its former glories’ in the 19th century, but restoring it to it’s former glories of the mid-60s before all the present crap moved in!

I don’t propose to turn the street into a time warp, the proposed granite paving and starkly modern street furniture & lighting would contrast spectacularly with a historic and diverse streetscape as a backdrop.

It is so not the case of fixating on times past, or anything like that.
Stephens Court works well because of the lack of uniformity on the Green, the site layouts and parapets of buildings are all erratic, in which case Stephens Court can exist purely for it’s own sake in the midst of the jumble of surrounding buildings.

O’ Connell St is entirely different, where the maintance of a standard parapet level, similar facing materials and styles are crucial to the effect created. It is not the case of harking back and all that crap, at least 95% of it’s architectural stock is of an historic nature, and to have a tainting 5% minority of modern infill is simply unaccepable, particularly destroying the north western side/end of the street (RDH end)

I can never get over how so many people and architects just flatly refuse to even consider thinking about appropriate replicas in areas where a complete sense of character could be restored with a single building being redeveloped in this manner.
Instead we end up with either pastiche or some watered-down modernist rubbish ‘reflecting the proportions and materials of surrounding buildings, being midful of this historic area’, some have hearted 80s-influenced pile of tat morelike.

Development in the way I suggest is moving forward, not backward.

Oh of course, how could I forget the exquisite concrete slabs. Sure they’ll change the perspective entirely!

I know yes, the concrete is only temporary and yes, granite will be laid, but nothing, nothing can change this part of the project which has gone horribly wrong.

It is essential that you see it in ‘real life’ to see how proposterous it is in relation to the overall sculpture.

I brought a friend to see it today and all he could do was laugh and laugh and laugh.

WHAT! Thats it?! What happened to it? Why does it stop so suddenly? What the hell is that supposed to represent?! And you say that change in colour is a deliberate feature?! It just looks manky! That ‘pattern’ ruins the whole thing! Auggh its terrible now!

Many unrepeatable remarks were also audible from passers-by (although thats hardly a first)

Oh and don’t forget Supermacs, Burger King & Mc Donalds.

I agree about the inconsistency in the presence of the pattern. Whereas the helix would have been far superior, it does’nt make any sense to have any pattern on the sculpture.
Whats the point in having a mere 10 metres out of 120 adorned?
It looks utterly ludicrous from a distance – in relation to the scale of the Spire its a silly folly at it’s base that abruptly & crudly stops in a fashion that blatently destroys the whole vertical emphasis of the Spire.

I looked at it again this morning, thinking perhaps I’d think differently about it after a second viewing.

No, its still terrible, in fact it looks even worse. Of course the idea of mirrored parts is very attractive but to be used in this way?!

It looks a terrible mess, like something has gone badly, badly wrong, and makes the whole street look untidy (more so)

What the hell happened to Ritchie’s cris-cross double helix DNA pattern which he described as ‘a late 20th century spiral’. Where the patterns overlapped the surface was to be left mirrior finished, where they did’nt, shot peened. It was an elegant, restrained and graceful design befitting of the Spire.
Ritchie was describing this barely 4 months ago at the finishing stages of its manufacture.

Is this his revenge on the people of Dublin for their decending remarks?
I most certainly cannot construe it as being anything else.

This ‘pattern’ is disgraceful in my view and has cast a dark cloud on this entire project.

What an insult to O’ Connell Street.

Ritchie should be ashamed of himself.