GrahamH

It is without doubt the loss of the High Altar that so destroyed the interior of the Pro-Cathedral.
You have the great line of Doric columns marching into the distance, building up the tension and heightening expectation, then they powerfully sweep around at the western end, terminating the vista by enclosing…….well…….nothing.
It’s such a let down.

The mind boggles how such drastic alterations could be carried out at any time, even the 1970s, and that they be permitted by so many people, not least the church’s own congregation. Was there any disquiet at the time Praxiteles do you know?
The altar rails look magnificent too – so befitting of a classically inspired church 🙁

One niggly thing that’s always annoyed me about the Pro is the little circles with gold crosses painted on them half-way up every column. They look finicky and inappropriate, an unnecessary detail so typical of Catholic churches – features that are for the most part appealing in a strange way – but here they detract from the power and drama of the columns, especially around the sanctuary.
It is the bold architecture of the Pro-Cathedral that makes it what it is – there is no need for applied decoration.

It’s supposed to be done – it was intended from the very beginning.
Maybe the CC are just waiting for the rest of O’Connell St to be finished. Hopefully – it would look spectacular.

@Devin wrote:

PDLL, I have had enough of you. You are a drama queen….so maybe if mostly pictures are put on here PDLL will shut up.

That’s unfair Devin, even if said tongue in cheek. Just because you are so immersed in conservation does not mean everyone else is or shares your opinions.
Valid points have been raised that are too often glossed over.

@lexington wrote:

For many architects

Developers you mean 😉
Ripples in the architectural world – a potential tsunami for Mr O’Callaghan and Friends.

You make many valid points PDLL, particularly regarding how attitudes towards buildings can change so radically. What is perhaps a close example to the prospect you cite of the mundane of today being valued in the future is post-war emergency pre-fabricated housing in the UK – at this rate it’s entirely possible some of these structures will become listed buildings in the not so distant future.

Everything is relative. When we consider conservation in Dublin, it is nothing compared to Bath or Edinburgh, and they in turn nothing to Venice or other similarly preserved ancient cities. They have been dealing with conserving and protecting old buildings for generations and all the issues this raises – by contrast in Dublin, and indeed Ireland has a whole we are only beginning to get to grips with the concept. It is still very immature by comparison to other places.

For me, I suppose the general rule of conservation would be that a building which is broadly considered to be worthy of protection be conserved on the condition that it does not adversely disrupt or affect ‘the greater good’, which may perhaps involve a proposed scheme of architectural merit or a development of social value etc. Of course the ‘greater good’ may well be the retention of the structure itself, so it is the juggling of these many factors that decides what is worthy of retention/protection and what is not. Admittedly this is very general, and can only be worked out, if at all (as opinions will always differ), on a case-specific basis. Inevitably it is the compromise of conservation of the subject building and the redevelopment of adjoining structures/lands that takes place and for the most part this proves more than satisfactory.

Regarding the protection of what would have been considered in previous times to be of little or no merit, at the end of the day it is what is generally considered contemporaneously of value that counts. Just as Cork County Hall may have been reviled when first built, or Bank Of Ireland HQ considered outlandish, or even more modest buildings like that concrete building that was on the corner of Pearse St and Tara St in Dublin – times change. By all accounts we may come to treasure the plastic residential development of today in 200 years time, in which case so be it, as much as it is difficult to say :).
Indeed what is currently deemd to be acceptable as just mentioned – having new next to old – may well be considered horribly inappropriate in 50 years time.

I wholly disagree with your assertion that architecture in Dublin has ‘been almost systematically stymied’ by the Georgianists – I challenge you to list the instances of architectural castration in this city as inflicted by Georgian conservationists, of which you imply there are a great many.
The lack of architectural ‘progress’ as it may be perceived has come about through a host of reasons, not least a fundamental lack of interest in design itself, and of which I would rank conservationism as such an impediment at the very very bottom.

The subject person was removed.

It is sad that all you can do is make jibes at people who disagree with you naz78. I explained that the wording used previously was not personal – I don’t see what you find so unreasonable.

It’s interesting to compare the attitude towards Georgian buildings in Ireland and the UK; 18th century stock over there is pretty much akin to how Victorian stock here is perceived – ten-a-penny and intrinsic to and characteristic of the built environment, especially urban areas – but nothing out of the ordinary.

By contrast Georgian buildings here seem to be considered so much more of value than their UK colleagues, being granted an almost servile level of respect. And with good reason in my view: they are our oldest buildings surviving on a mass scale, and the earliest stock of ‘modern’ times, that laid the foundations for how we build and live today.
Every country makes an effort to protect their oldest buildings regardless of how high they rank in the international hierarchy of ‘oldest civilisations’.

The approach to 18th century heritage here seems much more in line with the protectionist measures afforded Jacobean and Queen Anne buildings in Britain, as ought to be the case. We’ve damn all else prior to 1700, 1730 even.

I don’t like the term ‘blanket policy’ in that it suggests everything is worthy of retention which is not the case. But broadly in agreement with what jimg says, a tread-carefully approach ought to be taken, i.e. assume 18th /early 19th century buildings to be worthy of retention and protection, and work back from there taking into account the architecture of the structure in question, the amount of original fabric remaining, and context context context on a host of levels.

Whether we like it or not, there is a value in ‘oldness’ – whether it simply be the aesthetic of ‘traditional’ design, how buildings stand as reminders to how previous generations lived, or even how the process of aging itself generates a visual and often intangible allure. I think what makes your analogy to the judicial system somewhat incompatible with the built environment jimg is that unlike in criminal cases where it just may be possible for one to be found innocent with the passing time, buildings are pretty much gauranteed to be uncovered as whiter than white as time progresses 😉

Well clearly you haven’t.
Not wanting to stir things up again, but the ‘babble’ referred not to the content of your post – rather as you described bricks and mortar as not being of significance, if this was your view, whatever opinion you expressed in your post would by definition be of equal insignificance if you cared so little for the built environment.
I’m not saying this is the case as I know nothing of you – just explaining the context.

@Devin wrote:

…

What an extraordinary building! Never come across it before, though I do recall seeing it in the very place mentioned, the Airport, and wondering what building or even what city it was!

What the heck sort of columns are they under the portico?! – bizzare proportions.
When was the portico demolished – part of another road widening scheme?

To think how famous that Statoil garage is for all sorts of reasons ;), not least as being probably the only petrol station in the city centre, it is extraordinary that such a prominent building once stood on that very site with little to nothing written of it.

What is equally notable is just how cohesive this quay once was, the rubbish that lines it today, and most prominently of all just how much the garage scheme completely destroys the very nature of the Liffey quays in this area – punching a devastating hole into the riverscape. Unfortunately it is this that forms the abiding memory of the western quays for me every time I walk down there, indeed even as a child in the back of the car I remember hating this area because of sites like that – you always got the impression of the city just gradually crumbling away the further west you went 🙁