GrahamH
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Indeed you’d really have to question the proliferation of telephone facilites here, given the largest telephone room in the state is located on the same street! Surely a double provision at either end is more than enough. Yes it’s good to see the tress going back in
As for the bollards Morlan, no they weren’t moved with Smith O’Brien was because: 1) they’re not the same ones 🙂 (his ones were narrower), 2) they appear in 1870s photographs at the top end of the street which are contemporaneous to the erection of WSO’B, and 3) WSO’B was only moved to O’Connell Street in 1929, so quite late.
Just on the monuments of the street, there’s a new publication out hot off the presses from DCC’s Heritage Office all about the enormous conservation project conducted over the summer of 2005. The foresight for such a publication is most impressive, with many beautiful before and after photographs by Donnacha O’Dulaing and Jason Ellis. The text is highly detailed, focusing on the proceedures adopted for each monument, and really brings home how shockingly badly they were treated in the past. In one instance a stone conservator remembers working on O’Connell in the 1980s (presumably when the railings were also removed), where silica sand was blasted at the stonework of the monument at a pressure of 100 pounds per sq inch! Today glass powder is used at 20psi! It had also been coated in a layer of coppery-orange paint, followed by a layer of black paint!
But the real heros without question are the bronze conservators of Conserve Europe. Here’s some information about the project as seen from their perspective:
http://www.conserve-europe.org/exam_mon.html
‘From O’Connell to Parnell’ is in pamphlet-like format, and only costs a fiver in most bookshops. I suspect they’ll be snapped up fast.
Also, clearly it was decided to leave damaged parts as they were. This model for example has many decorative features missing entirely, and other parts cracked off. The studs around the base also indicate what once was.
Interesting to note some parts have been missing since at least the 1960s if you compare with the above pictures.
They’ve also been positioned further apart than they used to be.
Of course the central question remains: what they heck are they?! Well as far as can be made out, they were simply part of a ‘suite’ of furniture introduced to the street roughly around the 1870s. Not only was this design used in protecting William Smith O’Brien at the entrance to D’Olier Street…
…but also used in the base of certain lamp standards in the centre of Sackville Street.
(image a bit squashed at the bottom above)
Our friends at the northern end appear to have been used simply as a protective feature around a three-arm lamp standard (as featured here before), long since disappeared, located in the vast untamed environment of Upper Sackville/Great Britain streets.
From what can be made out, this part of O’Connell Street has been used for generations as a taxi point, reaching back to the mid-19th century. The bollards and lamp would have been a safe point for patrons to wait after dark.
Perhaps the holes in two of the bollards were used as a convenient venting point of a gas/sewer main? Not that that quite explains the mysterious later trapdoor…
And for what it’s worth, once again those fantastic National Library photographs from 1969 🙂
Indeed they have returned, though not in the same position, on account of the sprawling new pedestrian crossing created at this northernmost tip of the median. They’ve been shifted southwards.
2003
2007
It was a concern that they hadn’t returned so long after the completion of works; it looked as though they were going to be quietly removed, hoping nobody would notice. Though they are protected structures, however this raises the question as to the correctness of their removal from site, and also their reinstatement in an alternative location. Surely their ‘merit’ is derived not only from their aesthetic, but also their positioning untouched on the original site for the past 140 odd years? What’s the point in roughly throwing them down again ’round about here’, if the connection with their historical purpose is lost? Sure why not shift O’Connell Monument to the centre of College Green while we’re at it?
I appreciate there can be practical concerns regarding pedestrian movement, and one must be pragmatic, but in this case they simply did not need to be moved given the skewed angle of the crossing. As seen below, the right-hand median crossing need only have been moved a couple of feet southwards (if even), while the Parnell crossing left as it was (it was orginally straighter and the bollards closer together).
Indeed this whole crossing has been treated with the finesse of a sledgehammer. Just relish the City Council’s appreciation of the urban vista and sense of aesthetic.
I mean you really would wonder. That pole is entirely unnecessary, the signals being easily hosted on other existing poles to either side. And especially if the Parnell crossing was straighter on account of correctly positioned bollards, which would line it head-on with the left-hand poles. You see this all over O’Connell Street: seperate poles being used for single signal units, and multiple hosting almost non-existant.
Anyway, the bollards themselves have been beautifully restored, with layers of thick black gloss paint chipped off to reveal crisp relief.
They’ve also been painted matt grey which generates a higher contrast, better showcasing the decorative detail. The black originally concealed much of this.
They all still need to be wiped down!
Whatever of the ridiculously over-scaled vista as generated from the above vantage point, you really do have to see the proposed head-on view from across the canal to truly appreciate it in all its glory. The ‘extension’ looms over the original building so audaciously as to make one wonder if it’s all some sort of joke; they’ve even added a stumpy tower thingy (a very rough comparison would be the Dental Hospital’s glass cylinder) to further detract from the primacy of the original cupola and wider front elevation.
Agreed that the street elevation is hardly criminal, but the projecting boxes seriously detract from the original building as a whole and the potential for it to blend seamlessly round the corner into the streetscape. And even though the original is only painted green and can be changed, the red sandstone cladding of the extension looks cheap and jarring next to it, as well as the red brick terrace on the other side. The blank expanse at the steps is also ugly.
In fairness to A.R. Associates, the height is hardly their fault, it clearly being the demand of the client. And glazed setbacks are getting through the system, so they’re only trying their luck in appeasing the client with a barely credible attempt. But really, isn’t it ridiculous how even new-build buildings like these are succumbing to this presposterous concept of architecture essentially ending at the third or fourth floor parapet, plonking generic greenhouses with sun screens on top of it all. It’s as if only two-thirds of a building actually needs to be designed any more, as the Setback Reference Guide Vol III will furnish a proposal for the remaining 30% for minimal cost and effort.
I only just happened upon this Ringsend debate – seem to have missed it first time round. I fully echo the arguments supporting the retention of these flats (or aportments loike) and more importantly the community they house. On both counts, why would you want to replace this area? Even if the whole community was simply lifted elsewhere, whatever attendant problems it has will be transferred with it – so that’s hardly an argument. Similarly why would you want to replace architecturally interesting, if not entirely distinguished in places, Amsterdam housing with more of Dockland’s sameness?
It is odd how people can have such different opinions, but for me this housing is one of the best assets of the south docklands. It presents the most intriguing vista of reassuring, glowering hulks of houses, with that imposing skyline of grand chimney stacks piercing the cityscape. And even if this community isn’t to ‘one’s taste’:rolleyes:, it could in any event be argued that this enclave of housing looks its best when seen from a distance, especially from the north bank where it appears rather suddenly and incongruously in view, with ranks of red brick blocks huddled together, the colouring nicely contrasting with the water and greenery all about.
Quote of the Month 😀
@ctesiphon wrote:
Are you putting up the money to buy the residents out? Are you going to find them alternative accommodation? Are you going to go house to house and say ‘I think your building is ugly – and everyone’s entitled to their opinion – so if you don’t mind, please move along. You really are dragging down the tone of the place. I know your sort have been treated badly down through the years, but if you don’t mind just one more punch in the guts… See, you’re spoiling my view.’
Jeez, but SimCity has a lot to answer for. Or was it those old black and white war movies where generals shunted tanks around on a big map while hidden safely in an underground bunker?
A closer shot of the medallion/frieze detail:
The brickwork looks like it was all replaced in the 70s along with those dodgy windows – yet the brickwork has an oddly old quality to it too… Clearly something was done given only part of the frieze has been cleaned. It’s probably just the contrast of this uncleaned old brick with the cleaned house next door.
And just as a minor aside, the lamppost across the road at the entrance to Hardwicke Street has the original green paint exposing itself 🙂
Yes fantastic news about No. 1 Synnott Place, or perhaps more commmonly known as the red ‘Golf Corner’. Saw it there a few weeks ago and the newly exposed stock brick looks great; it changes the entire tone of this part of Dorset Street and junction here. The brickwork’s a bit patchy, but hey it adds to the charm. I hope to get pics soon.
Was it ever envisaged that the M50 would get as bad as it has? Were the volumes of traffic using it expected, and was the type of traffic predicted?
Particularly the latter question, as whatever about future economic expansion pushing up volumes, the type of traffic using the motorway, largely comprised of short-haul commuters, surely should have been expected given settlement patterns generally don’t change?From an aesthetic point of view, I find it remarkable how quickly the M50 has matured as a motorway, by virtue of the constant streams of traffic 24/7 clogging up its lanes. The Celtic Tiger sheen has long worn off and it is now more comparable to a 1970s UK motorway. Not having been on certain parts of it in a while, upon revisiting it’s quite marked in places how much it has also degenerated in terms of road surface, bridge cleanliness, railing maintenance, signage and lighting. Even the great N3 interchange, the symbol of 1990s Ireland, has become rather shabby looking, though the greenery all around is pleasantly mature. Some excellent specimen choices were made here too: the shrubs and trees have a delicate wispy quality that stands in marked contrast to the great bulks of concrete all about. One of the few scenic parts of this motorway.
Also, how is it that permission can be granted by a LA for the demolition of a Protected Structure without it being formally delisted? Whatever about alterations to a PS being included in a general application, surely the wholescale demolition of such a structure ought to be subject to a separate delisting application, and not merely a throwaway element of a broader development proposal?
Some of the conditions to the demolition include:
12. A copy of the survey drawings of the existing building and Conservation Report shall be submitted to the Irish Architectural Archive, prior to the commencement of development. Reason: In the interest of historical recording and research. [what about photographs?]
7. A plaque, of appropriate size and design, shall be erected on the front elevation of the proposed structure at ground floor level, reflecting the historical significance of the site as the birthplace of Richard Sheridan, dramatist. The applicants shall consult with the Conservation Officer in this regard, prior to the commencement of any works on site. Reason: In the interests of historical recording.
Presumably this is going to be appealed.
As with all of O’Connell Street’s arches, the entrance to a cinema, lostexpectation.
Hope to have more on this building shortly – it’s had a chequered history.Disappointing news about Irish Nationwide, Stephen. It was a prime opportunity…
Ahhh :). Where and when?
It’s a big centre spread just with pictures and captions, claimed to be part of an online poll :confused:
I only saw it cause someone’s collecting coupons. Honest!
:
Buildings featured (in no particular order) are:O’Connell Bridge House
One George’s Quay Plaza
Ilac Centre
Dunlin Airport 1960s Terminal
Trinity Arts Block
Regency Airport Hotel
American Embassy
Central Bank
Phibsboro Centre
Civic Offices
Oisin House
Irish Life Centre
Stephen’s Green Centre
Bord FHeheh – a double spread of pictures of Dublin’s ‘ugliest’ buildings. It’s quite witty, and oddly well informed…
Ironically O’Connell Bridge House has a decidely flattering photograph, while Robocop or Hawkins don’t feature at all. Some astute observations include the Recency Airport Hotel (now pasted in salmon purIt could be very reasonably argued that this building should be retained in its current format, with mall entrance below, and open out into the new development to the rear. The new street entrance could be made much more inviting than the current mall one is, with the narrow building acting as a ‘bridge’ of sorts across the entrance.
This is after all only going to be a narrow pedestrian street (and a decidedly dark one too going on the height of the proposed building) – it doesn’t need a landmark entrance forcing its way onto Francis Street.
While the Development Plan notes that any new buildings here ought to be contemporary, it also states “development should to be of a scale and form that respects the nature and form of the town centre, particularly the Francis Street frontage.” The proposed tall building couldn’t possibly be described as such, and even the smaller one oversails the parapet height of the neighbouring building.
Why aren’t these views being expressed in a planning submission it could be asked? Well, why other than in typical developer form, it was lodged 3 days before Christmas Eve – I didn’t even hear about it until it was too late to get a half decent one together in time.
And it is of great concern that it will get through, given this monster was thrown up on Earl Street directly around the corner in the past while – replacing another vernacular early 1800s building that was burnt out in a disastrous accidental fire.
The original fa
This proposed development is great news on a number of levels, but of concern on others, particularly the impact on the existing historic streetscape.
For a town centre location, 151 apartments will be a fantastic boost to the area, and a significant nod in the right direction with regards sustainability, though the number of one and two beds is as usual disproportionate and ought to be addressed. The associated creche is also good planning in action. It is proposed to create a new street and small square as part of the development, demolishing a building on Francis Street and linking through to The Marshes shopping centre at the rear of the site – on paper at least another bonus for the town centre which is severely lacking in integration with the new centre. Here is the currently ugly and wasteful rear of Williamson’s Mall, with concealed Ramparts River along the roadside which will be opened up again.
Furthermore, the new street’s 10 retail units, restaurant and substantial office space will be a great addition to the historic centre of the town, consolidating the retail core. And to cap it all off, the apartment elevation to Ramparts Road (above) is superb – an elegant, well proportioned composition that does justice to the riverscape and essentially what will be a new street created along here.
However, there are more than just a few downsides to this scheme. For a start, parts of it rise to a questionable seven stories in what is a three storey area, slap bang next to the ‘Cathedral’ which holds pride of place in this part of the town. It would appear the excessive height of the Imperial Hotel is being used as an excuse to squeeze that bit extra out of the site. Whereas I’d welcome a substantial increase in density and an element of extra height, from the planning application it would appear the effect on the Cathedral’s primacy hasn’t been fully demonstrated – particularly on the wider townscape where St. Patrick’s generates the charming impression of a college or cathedral town in various approaches to the Cooley Peninsula/Dundalk Bay. This glowing white box will be located right next to it.
Of even greater concern is the bulldozing of a completely inappropriately scaled pair of buildings into Francis Street, as pictured by eamoss earlier.
While of good design, the taller is audacious in the extreme in this highly sensitive Architectural Conservation Area, to be sited directly beside the tall building at the extreme right.
It imposes on this delightful vernacular streetscape of late Georgian structures, exceeding the height of even the tallest existing building!
Here’s a rough mock-up of the impact.
The height is completely inappropriate: the extra storey ought to be struck out outright.
Also of questionable merit is the proposal to demolish Williamson’s Mall in its entirety, a charming 1840s traditional structure with unusual stucco dentil course and many original windows remarkably intact.
Obviously it’s been messed around with over the years with the usual nasty signage and cheap shopfronts, but it could be smartened up quite easily to make an even better contribution to this historic streetscape. Curiously the building is not protected, though as mentioned is located in an ACA.
Indeed it could, but it must be noted that should a retention be made, it would involve much more than the meagre substance that the term ‘facade retention’ implies – in this case, from what can be gathered, all four walls of the building still stand, not just a remnant of the front elevation. We also don’t know the extent of original fabric to interior, but it’s fair to assume that given it’s roofed over, there’s at least something of merit inside.
There are quite a few examples of attic storey rebuilds about the city (I can’t think of them offhand), a method that has saved many townhouses from demolition or at best from botched restoration jobs. Whilst a 1.5 storey rebuild is probably in order in this case, it’s largely fair to assume these upper floors to be the least architecturally and historically significant parts of the house. Indeed even if the building had been habitable, one would have to question just how much original fabric would have been retained organically up there as bedsits or studio flats; the reality is that even most of the houses of Merrion Square have virtually nothing of interest or indeed probably of original fabric in their uppermost floors. Please feel free to pick holes in this strain of argument.
This is also not a case of a low-rise rebuild preventing the ‘densifying’ of the inner city: a four storey over basement house of substantial floorplates along with neighbouring new-build infill is more than an acceptable outcome.
I genuinely agree that if little other than a low front elevation remains, in most cases it ought not impede on the wider improvement of an area, but with the substantial fabric still intact here, along with the strong historical and literary connections, a valid case can be made for structural retention – a more apt term I think.
Dear oh dear – from Dundalk’s ‘The Argus’ newspaper. Offers over €775,000 please.
Online version here: http://www.mallonbest.com/house_details.asp?house_id=372&house_type=3
Yes this poor little remnant is in a dismal state, with little other than a doorcase, a flanking window and part of the first floor still intact – the rear structure covered over with an enormous corrugated roof. The same has very recently been stuffed into the ground floor window, while the doorcase is filled from head to toe with breeze blocks: the sight of them squeezed up against the delicate capitals with splodges of cement would make you weep. Most of the railings and granite steps also survive. I hope we may have some pictures shortly.
A similar application was also made in 2003 to demolish the house for apartments etc, but nothing seems to have come of it. I sure Mr Norris put up an eloquent defence 😉
Yes – and even as late as 1978 they were still stained dark, dressed with classy 70s smoked nets 🙂
I think this property definitely looks better with dark frames. Also, I can’t find the appropriate picture, but even as recent as the late 1980s it’s very notable just how sparklingly bright and clean this corner building was. Either it was cleaned at the time, or the enormous increase in passing heavy goods vehicles in the intervening 20 years has sullied the facade substantially. Either way we can look forward to a bright new pin on the corner of the bridge by the end of February :). Here’s hoping the signage designation in the IAP will have the desired impact too.
A probably little-noted building on Lower O’Connell Street that is sorely in need of urgent works is No 8, next to the Bank of Ireland premises. It has a delightful facade with a sunken upper floor treatment unusual for this street.
The resulting void, albeit oddly proportioned, is filled with a lovely two-tier bow window with original stained glass intact, so typical of the early 20th century: this building completed around 1918.
As can be seen however, the bow is in an appalling condition, with most of the upper casements replaced with horrible white aluminium or early PVC, and the frames unpainted for so long they’re in danger of decay. Also as can be seen, the orginal stucco or timber swags have long-disappeared, their shadows left to tell the tale. What an ugly setting for the mellow granite framing it all.
The state of this property creates an appalling impression at the entrance to the street, and yet no enforcement proceedings have been initiated in spite of it being both a protected structure and sited in an ACA. No amount of public domain improvements are going to have the oft-touted ‘knock-on effect’ with a small property like this. Meanwhile, the original timber fabric is slowly rotting away up there, even though a local authority can step in at any point to protect the integrity of a PS.
Hee’s a (poor) wider view from a while ago.
And enough said about the ground floor…
The neighbouring property is interesting in having two-over-two sashes – almost an historicist approach taken by the architect, something that usually resulted in Georgian sashes rather than this type.
The building on this site prior to 1916 was the founding place of Conradh na Gaeilge in 1893 – they moved up to near the Savoy in the late 1890s.🙂
Just to clarify about Site Notices Ireland, it wasn’t the intention to snub them. They do offer a great service, especially for heavily trafficked areas, or for notices erected in the middle of the public domain like these advert ones are. And the display product they offer is robust and of good quality. As mentioned above, they also can prove invaluable to architects and developers – I imagine especially where updated apps are constantly being erected on large sites.
The basic weekly monitoring product (over the five weeks) as previously stated is still €410 – but yes, erection alone is €135.
