GrahamH
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
That happened quite a few times over the years didn’t it?!
Yes the Savoy windows are just drool-worthy :), the finest on the street:
(hope to get a better pic soon)
Interesting how the three most prominent ‘steeled’ buildings are all about to get conservation/reinstatement work carried out – the Savoy, the Gresham and of course the Ann Summers building:
An impressive set 😉
Where are all of these places (and on a wider basis too) getting their work carried out? Does anyone make steel windows anymore? And even more difficult again who specialises in steel restoration?
Is it possible to splice in new pieces into old windows or do whole frames have to be replaced?Walking into Capel St past the ‘Malton Building’ it’s that building’s equivilant on the corner site of the next junction – the corner of Strand St.
Another view that might put it in context:
Hmmm – and as can be seen even more clearly in this fjp picture, the Hammam Buildings’ urns have already been removed – in the 1950s!
http://fantasyjackpalance.com/fjp/photos/kf/history/002/pcd-oconnell-st-north.jpg
It seems that this ‘question’ has arisen because the building was designed by Michael Scott, and not because of the design of the structure itself.
If it was the hand of a less well known practice it would be bulldozed in the morning – and I’d be pulling the levers 🙂
It’s a terribly ugly structure now; what little austerity it had has been lost with the addition of the finiky yoke to the front, and even then it was still too much for a traditional city centre street.If the Abbey was to be rebuilt on the site it would disappear anyway, so is it more the cultural associations, i.e. what has happened inside over the past 30 years that is making people think twice?
All the same it would be a shame to lose such a large public amenity to an office development and more retail.
I like the interior too.Is it this building?
Have to say I like it 🙂
The elevations are very flat alright, and the brick too expansive in some places – but the material is kinda cool I think in that colour…
Saying that the red brick book-ends are a ridiculous contrivance – ‘oh how amusing, brick comes in this colour too’ :rolleyes:Is this the site that I think Stephen C described before as having a decent collection of ‘no nonsense Victorians’ ?
Yes a fantastic collection – as important as its vast size.
Here’s that close-up of one of the Gresham’s urns in glorious technicolour 🙂
(Had to splice two frames together hence the dodgy join)
It holds a remarkable similarity to those pots I think you’ll agree 😀
Annnyway – as was mentioned before the Gresham seem intent on replacing all of the aluminium windows in their facade with steel frames as when built, as outlined in their planning application – wonderful news.
Here they are in the 1950s – inward opening casements mostly, even including the ground floor which today of course are fixed frames.http://fantasyjackpalance.com/fjp/photos/kf/history/002/pcd-gresham-hotel.jpg
@ihateawake wrote:
but it will stop [sprawling] growth if there is a continued trend of building high.
Allowing tall buildings to be erected in Dublin City, even on a vast scale, is not going to prevent so much as a blade of grass in Meath or Kildare or Longford or even as far as Cavan from being rezoned for sprawling housing estates.
Or even within the boundaries of Dublin county itself, it seems very likely it wouldn’t change things in the slightest, from Balbriggan in the north to the outskirsts of north Bray in the south, we’d still get the same old low-density model, and compromise our capital’s core in the process.
It is a shift in mindset on a much broader level that is needed in Ireland.An interesting point was made earlier here or on the other thread about Irish not being able to build down either, whatever about up. It was made in the context of public transport but the notion is equally applicable to residential development – we can’t even build houses with basements any more!
As usual, like a herd of sheep we adopted the UK model in the 1930s – one of the few features of American suburban development we could do well to actively consider.Ugggh, shudder. Suppose when it went up in the 80s that ‘classic’ yellow roof was the only ray of sunshine in the area, if it’s any excuse…
Where/what is this notorious Capel St building everyone always mentions – I’ve even gone out of way on two occasions while in the area to have a look! Where is it?!
Wow, fantastic images Devin *mutters*…and he decides to post them only now …*mutters* 😀
Yes the urns are an extraordinary revelation – they just leap off the page as the first thing you see!
I’d often wondered if these were originally here as the Hammam Buildings (building) looks so much more austere than the Gresham without them.
These must be the first element to be tackled in this terrace when private works start being proposed!The Gresham’s urns are very fine – there’s a close-up of them in some archive footage from the 60s that shows them as being carved in a swirled manner (like the pattern on a cheap 80s porcelain teapot :D)
That’s very spooky how the modern day picture was taken on virtually exactly the same spot! – makes it easy to compare the two.
Interesting to see nasty modern top-hung windows in-situ in much of the terrace – not all is perfect! The casements of the Gresham were so much more attractive. It is ironic in a way that for once modern movement windows were removed in the 1970s in much of the terrace and replaced with the traditional sash model, allbethey in aluminium and mirror glass :rolleyes:
It is questionable as to what should replace these in the near future…The last overhead view posted is interesting in showing the previously mentioned corner building under construction out on its own – spot on in 1925! It’s always fascinating to see buildings we now percieve to be old in their infancy, but especially while under construction, often quite humbling to see like the photo of the Palace of Westminster in the ST last week if anyone saw it.
It has often been said that Horace O’Rourke wasn’t in the least bit pleased with the nature post-1916 redevelopment – I can only deduce from this that he wanted palatial facades and uniform parapet levels for the whole Lower St, considering what was built is overall a pretty decent standard (though one can imagine his rage over the mini-terrace next to Clery’s :)).
By and large he got his way with the Upper Street, though as has been said the terrace isn’t completely symmetrical, but in the context of this being Dublin where the architectural or visual culture has never been strong (the crumbling of the WSC designs anyone?), and the financially difficult times of the 1920s, what O’Rourke did achieve was no mean feat.
Just some dates regarding the terrace – the northern corner building was built in 1925, the Gresham was finished in 1927, and the Savoy in November of 1929. Hammam Building is probably similar to the Gresham: c1927.
I think the destruction of half of the north inner city should be ranking that bit higher than some flaky damage to six columns 🙂
As for the Upper end being finished, if one considers Christmas in terms of city centre retail, i.e. December 1st onwards, it’s highly unlikely.
There’s so much to be done with the side pavements thats it does seem like it won’t happen. Think how long it took to do the Lower end: 18 months-2 years?
Hopefully the busier west pavement will be finished in time though.Some (dull) images here of the newly exposed views of Upper O’Connell St – you can much more easily make out the pattern of the townhouses that formerly lined this stretch:
And for all of the fenestration faults of the Royal Dublin, it does fit in very well to the Upper St, brick colour aside of course (though I must admit a secret liking for 60s sand and 70s brown brick :o).
There’s a nice vertical emphasis at work on the facade, perfectly suited to the terrace, and the brick as a material is quite effective.
The proposed facade is very disappointing in this respect – it makes no effort to reflect the vertical nature of all the units making up Upper O’Cll St West, despite the architects’ babble about ‘references’ to Georgian Dublin’s ‘fenestration courses’ or whatever.Another ‘interesting’ detail revealed by the trees’ removal is this replica Victorian chimney re-erected as part of the construction of the RDH!
What a strange looking yoke executed in such brick, especilly with the apparently orginal pots! Hmmm, so more demolished than just the Aer Lingus buildings…
Completely as an aside – what is that secuirty camera on the Garda Staion doing pointed across the road towards the Gresham bedroom windows?!!! 😮
The grandeur of O’Rourke’s c1924-29 terrace is now wonderfully evident – a surprisingly symmetrical composition, you could only barely make this out before with the opposing elements like the balconies etc dropping hints. Much clearer now.
This previously concealed corner building built in 1925 is now one of my favourites on the street – what a fine chunky piece 🙂
Do the Gresham own this too or do they just lease the ground floor? The forbidding looking terrace on Cathal Brugha St is in dire need of cleaning (though it would make a great film location) – if the Gresham own this too hopefully it will be tackled in the upcoming refurbishment of the hotel.
Some great images there. Any chance of some present day streetscape images that might give a bit of context to all these new developments being discussed? – thanks.
@lexington wrote:
I do think that sometimes we may forget that the investment taken by developers is positive for jobs, renewal, the economy etc. We shouldn’t forget the importance of that, and in our on-going criticisms of developers etc, we should remember that the willingness of such to take an investment risk in this country all those years ago was generally a issue of welcome.
Lexington, your little piece reminds me of Pat Gallagher’s famous spiel in c1980 – “Building a better Ireland…better” 😀
Yes a sorry sorry place – it hasn’t changed one iota since 1990, one of the few (but still fairly widespread) enclaves of 1980s dismal Dublin.
Yes it is a place where a higher density ought to be achievable, but it would be crucial that open spaces and parks are provided for here. What’s partly causing the depressing nature of the place is the rows of three storey red brick 80s housing and acres of concrete and roadway. There would be a risk, especially given the history of the area, of 7-8 storey apartment blocks going up lining nothing but a bare motorway.
There’s some fascinating remnants of Georgain Dublin about the place that offer a wonderful introduction to the character and feel of the city – always loved them coming into the city as a child, just they’re all in bits and look terrible in their current state.
Does anyone know what’s happening with the old garage site opposite the Wax Museum? A prime candidate if ever there was one for some decent residential development. These stock brick chimeys lining the site are most unusual – anyone know anything about them?
And these new walls outside the flats on Dorset St (I know, how incredibly two-faced and snobby to call Docklands dev apartments and these ‘the flats’, but if you described these as such you’d be laughed out of it :o) – the blue bricks and curves are pretty cool.
Well when I saw it during the day only the base was left, so he seems to have been embellishing somewhat 🙂
Hi Conor – I agree with you about the bullet holes, without a doubt there is firing damage to the columns in particular other than the many drill holes also there. As far as I know, none of the Portland stone of the columns was replaced for obvious reasons – very minor, almost unnoticable damage, and the structural difficulties in replacing it anyway.
But on the first picture you posted – here’s a modern comparison with your picture. Where is that damage today?!
If it has been repaired, it was exceedingly well done!
I heard that too about Park Street parkstreet :). It’s a nice idea (in a restricted fashion) considering it is already a strongly pedestrian area. I’d like to see it happen along the stretch from Dunnes up Earl St, it could generate a really lovely atmosphere here. The traffic implications could be difficult though, it being such a major artery with two roads linking from the Ramparts also to consider.
This Imperial area only feels cramped though because of all the on-street parking. If this was removed and the pavements widened it would help no end.
At least further south there’s lots of space for both traffic and pedestrians to mingle quite happily.Here’s a lovely Victorian on Park Street beside the old distiguished Bank of Ireland – the famous incorrectly spelled ‘Pheonix Bar’ 🙂
It’s got a fine set of original sashes with fantastic shimmering cylinder/sheet glass – wonderful survivors.
The development featured before for Market Square is underway already – the site has been cleared of all that junk!
Well you do have to take certain ‘risks’ in building tall – but to blankly refuse to build a ‘landmark’ building because of the ‘risk’ is very unambitious don’t you think? Though saying that, given the record thus far I certainly see what you mean Jimg.
Hi Rjajc, sorry but again it seems you’re advocating height for height’s sake – that height is ‘better’ whilst low-rise is mediocre.
I can deduce little else from what you’re saying.I can vaguely see where you’re coming from though, from the perspective that most cities that are low-rise and have protected skylines like Prague or Tallinn etc have very good reasons to be so with their spires and crenellations and all the rest of it – whilst Dublin is well – yeah….:a modernised, westernised, bland-from-a-distance provincial British city by design.
From that perspective yes it is capable of aborbing tall buildings, but still in a designated area, and in a restricted manner.
If one thing makes Dublin so different (and lucky) in comparision with its UK neighbours, or even up the road in Belfast, is the lack of nasty inappropriate towers from the 1970s, and not just in it’s core, but anywhere around its centre.
We’re very lucky that we have something of a blank canvas to work with.An eight-ish story density is a very satisfying type of development to see, especally what limited examples there are at the moment in the Docklands. Low-rise does not equal bland: low quality certainly does.
I noted the belated April Fools’ joke of a bus stop on O’Connell Bridge was hastily removed the other week 😉
Thanks for that Veronnex – I recongise the distinction now. The Head Office is definitely the worse of the two, and is much larger I think. Truly one of the worst buildings ever built in the State – and for the national airline of all institutions :rolleyes:
That wouldn’t have been tolerated in the 1930s.Some very interesting points and comparisons raised. The greatest ‘fear’ that there seems to be about building tall in Dublin is that you are automatically stripping the city of its identity rather than adding to it, as high-rise buildings are an international phenomenon; by definition you are globalising, internationalising Dublin.
Frankly Dublin city does not have much to play on as a collective whole – it has neither an impressive semi-universal style of architecture nor a distinctive layout. But what it DOES have is a low-rise urban form. This above all is the strongest element (if not the only element) that holds the city together, that makes it distinctive, both for us living here, and on an international level.
One may argue that this makes the city nondescript – it doesn’t, it makes it unique, and increasingly more so with the ever-growing development pressures on Eastern European cities in particular.It is a great shame that not even the low-rise character of the immediate city centre is being protected, with George’s Quay having gone up, and Tara St proposed (even if now dead). The fact that not even the Custom House/Matt Talbot Bridge line can be respected by planning authorities in what is a crucial area, whilst scandalously low-rise development is promoted for an area entirely suited to high density and in the process endangering the social and aesthetic heath of the city at large into the future is deeply unsettling and unfortunate.
As for the workability of tall buildings as a concept, I have no experience of them so cannot comment, with the exception of London which on an aesthetic level is most certainly not a route to be taken.
