GrahamH

Being a devout Georgianist, I must admit I rather like the ESB building, although its location, and what it replaced etc of course being inexcusable. Replacing the facade is not just an exercise in crooning over the past, but rather an effort to recreate the longest Georgian vista in the English speaking world. Whereas London’s and Bath’s terraces rely on uniformity and detail, Dublin’ s rely on the mass ‘cliff effect’ created, which was utterly lost in the demolition of the 16 houses.

Partly the reason previous attempts at replacing the facade failed, was because of the difference in floor levels, and their inappropriate heights, which would have to result in the demolition/remodelling of the entire front part of the building. A suggestion I have is that the facade be reinstated, and an atrium created inside, out onto which the floors could open. Hence when immediatly inside, you could look up right to the ceiling of the 4th floor. (Only if the residential proposal proves not feasible however)

I agree totally, esp relevant now on O’ Connell Street. 95% of it’s building stock is historic, using traditional materials. Whereas stark modernisim and ‘traditional’ buildings work so well together, eg the Stephens Green Hotel, the large glass building on the corner of Harcourt Street, there is no excuse for any type of modern intrusion onto O’ Connell Street. For some reason everyone seems to deem the new shoeshop bldg on the Street (formerly Burgerland) as being an outstanding success, even though it blatently breaks the attractive terrace in which it is placed with it’s modern lines.

Both the Royal Dublin and Fingal Offices, as well as the CIE bldg should be refaced in a manner sympathetic to the street, taking on the styles and materials of the late Victorians and early 20th century.

Pastiche is always laughed at today, caused by the dilution of proper classical forms into crappy suburban homes, Georgian sashes stylised into ghastly uPVC, and Victorian decorative brickwork mimicked by a singe row of bricks protruding from chimneys. There is nothing at all wrong with well executed replicas, using suitable materials and in the way they were intended. Of course progress is necessary and should be stimulated and encouraged, but also should a more mature approach to our tried and tested formulae.

Oh, that rear shot of Liberty Hall on fjp’s link shows the original glass aformentioned.

To be fair, Michael Ross’s articals on broadcasting etc are always perceptive and balanced, maybe he should stay in that area.

Funny you ask about the lighting ew, as I thought the same. So when I was up on the viewing gallery I checked it out.

There’s about 10 floodlights on the floor of the gallery, which are supposed to be directed up onto the ‘frilly roof’, but quite a few of them are just lieing on their sides, others are’nt plugged into the outdoor sockets provided, and its likely that half of the bulbs are blown as well. Indeed they are so shoddly installed that I could lift and move them around to fit my tripod in the most convinient place! But for the betterment of the city, and being the civic minded kind of person that I am, I walked around, turning the lights into their correct positions. Unfortunatly, I forgot to bring a couple of 800w bulbs along!

Hmmmm.

Interestingly, in the Destruction of Dublin, Frank Mc Donald describes how the mosaic tiles on the solid elements of Liberty Hall (under the windows) are peeling off, are dirty and overall how the building looks shoddy.

This was written in 1984!!!

If snazzy transparent, green tinted glass was used, and attractive sandstone effect panels were used to clad the building (like Iveagh Court on Adelaide Road) it would look extremely well, and become a decent landmark building, instead of the withering pile it currently is.

I’ll kill you Paul, I wanted to break this story!!!

Anyway, Mr Ross, since we know you’ll be on the site scouring for reaction, I’ll address this directly to yourself. Please excuse any mispellings and grammatical errors, as my polo neck is restricting the oxygen flow to my brain.

The reason the ‘juxtapositioning’ was continually raised was simply in reaction to the endless, mindless criticisim from the public over the project, the continual jibes that the money could be spent elsewhere, that at a time of cutbacks this amount was being spent, and that the sculpture dos’nt help Aunt Mary off her trolley in Tallaght Hospital. Of course reactionary comments are going to be made, relating to ‘the way things are’, that ‘the 4.5 million would never filter down to providing better services’ and so forth.

I would presume that most contributers to this site would fully accept that ‘the way things are’ does not have to be the case, and that such juxtapositioning comments reinforce and consolidate the culture that we’re in.

However, change is impossible, the same politics, the same beaurocracy, the same politicians handing over the reigns to their next generation, and fundamentally, the same attitudes and culture of the people. Perhaps in next week’s Comment, you could offer solutions to this ‘construct reinforced’, which would be interesting.

In relation to the Spire, you use your thesaurus well, the Oxford Dictionary descibing ‘vacous’ as ’empty, unintellegent, expressionless’. Does every sculpture demand a meaning or a purpose? Can it not just exist for it’s own sake? For it’s beauty? For it’s optimisim? For it’s renewing and regenerating properties?

The only thing that actually annoyed me about your piece however, is your deliberate ditching of the Spire’s capital S. Such pettiness speaks for itself.

Oh, and the mast on the roof was another little money spinner for John Byrne, at the expense of the city’s appearance.

John Byrne is still alive today, as fit as ever in his 80s. He was in the news recently, in court over someone he was taking a case against, can’t remember what though.