GrahamH
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
One can never vouch for individuals goneill, but below is a good starting point. Testimony is everything.
So works are well underway at Leinster House. A deceptively large hoarding in the Kildare Street forecourt conceals relatively minor works to the entrance podium – designed by Raymond McGrath in 1948, with its rather odd maritime-like copper mushroom lamps – enabling universal access. The wheelchair ramp to the front of Leinster House is also being modified.
Around on Merrion Square the €250,000 lawn is coming along nicely. It’d want to be.
Rather crude detailing presents itself to the passerby, but what more can one expect in these times.
The rare breeds of the hallowed grounds of the national parliament complex appear bemused.
Albert stoical as ever.
An impressive scaffold has also been erected against the garden front of Leinster House, apparently enabling the central attic window to be used as a rubbish chute.
I was going to post the above attic window as the final pretty token pretty shot, but we can’t let that unpainted putty go without comment! Unfortunately, the setting time required for putty often results in owners never getting around to actually finishing the job. It’s a common problem.
Another good job has been done nearby on Marlborough Street, on an innocuous rendered late Georgian facing the Abbey.
Again, being on the northside, and Marlborough Street at that, the restoration catches the attention immediately. Very nice indeed.
Here, it appears timber beading was thankfully used. A more palatable soft white paint was also employed, in contrast to the brilliant white of Upper Gardiner Street. Alas the brass window hooks are historically inappropriate and visually vulgar. Otherwise, an exceptional job.
Both of the above pictures’ windows appear to be original, the first pair being late 18th century and the single above c. 1830. The attic floor windows appear to be late 18th century style reproduction.
But as soon as you think you are getting anywhere in this city, along comes more rubbish to cancel it out. Further up on dismally neglected Parnell Street east – a street one often feels city authorities have forgotten even exists – No. 162, an on the face of it Victorian-but-could-be-earlier pile has been mauled with the most appallingly detailed double-glazed sashes.
There are cricket bats with thinner profiles than those glazing bars.
Woeful stuff. This is the new face of ‘conservation’ in Ireland, and it’s spreading faster that swine flu.
Another freshly desecrated property is Focus Ireland’s premises on historic Eustace Street in Temple Bar.
Apparently a Protected Structure (the Record as vague as ever), all windows – which I seem to recall as original – have been ripped out and replaced by horrendously detailed Georgian-cum-Victoriana double-glazed sashes with sticky-on glazing bars.
Even the horns are stuck on, while the sashes appear to slide up and down on tracks. Classy.
One really cannot blame property owners for this muck – though questions must be raised when a Protected Structure – but rather the manufacturers of this awful stuff, who know only too well what they’re at, and the legal obligations of owners. At least PVC peddlers can bask in their own cesspit of ignorance, but these ‘skilled joiners’, as they no doubt market themselves, should know better. They bring shame to their profession with such appalling products. Indeed, like the surgeons of old, one can separate the master craftsmen from the barbers with increasing ease at this stage. Given there’s only a handful of the latter in the State, their work stands out mile when you encounter it.
It is encouraging to see the occasional positive development in period window restoration and manufacture, especially when it occurs on the northside of Dublin.
Two cases in point are recent restoration jobs on late Georgian buildings on Upper Gardiner Street and Marlborough Street respectively.
On Upper Gardiner Street, this charming little yellow brick house has been injected with a new lease of life with impeccably detailed Georgian windows – such a rarity in the area.
It is difficult to know if they are reproduction or just vigorously restored, but if the latter, they were certainly stripped right back. I suspect they are reproduction though.
Exceptional detailing.
If there is sadly one fault that lets the entire job down, it is the use of nasty proprietary plastic parting beads. A real shame.
The original beading on the adjacent house, which retains original window fabric in its entirety. The above profile was well matched, but ultimately the plastic won’t last, and as highlighted before here, will probably split the frame.
Beautiful glass next door too. So incredibly rare you encounter original windows in any of these smaller houses on the northside in gorgeous decaying grandeur.
Original versus restored.
If we could just get rid of the new dish now, we’d be getting somewhere.
Agreed Stephen re the shopfront. One of the better convenience store frontages in the city. But the postering is illegal. The Lotto unit illegal. The postcard rack illegal. The projecting signs illegal. The blanket obstruction of the window illegal. The lack of maintenance of a window display illegal. And one would have to wonder if they have a licence for the seating (though desirable).
Also these hideous canvas banner units surrounding seating are another manifestation of our ridiculous levels of over-regulation (ironic in the context that we don’t use our other extensive regulations where they are needed). Other European countries get by just fine with gracious, leisurely placed seating outside shops and cafés. But here we have to shield them with hideous fencing units, which both host advertising and get thoroughly shabby, thus degrading the street. They should be outlawed everywhere, unless architect-designed as part of a planning application. But again, not even a mention in the SPCA, never mind anywhere else.
Hmm, DCC’s response appears a lot more muted this time arouind after the slap on the wrist from ABP.
Wish they’d give them the same treatment over operators such as this. The new Spar on Upper O’Connell Street, open barely a few weeks, and look at the state of the joint, in spite of a raft of planning conditions outlawing all manner of signage, clutter and window obstruction. Nearly all you can see below is illegal.
Rather than SPCA powers being reduced, they need to be rigorously beefed up. It is critical that enforcement orders in SPCAs be made financially time-dependent, where fines for specified unauthorised works such as banners and posters start clocking up from the moment enforcement proceedings begin. This would clear out all SPCAs of their rubbish in the morning.
But alas at present, a property owner has up to eight weeks from the issuing of a notice to comply with it. This is entirely unsatisfactory in respect of banners and postering, where an entire building can become a public billboard for that length of time. An Post could drape the entire GPO in advertising and it would take eight weeks to get rid of it before court proceedings could be inititated. Indeed right across the road facing the GPO at present is a full-facade banner advertisment to Carrolls tat merchants at the height of the visitor season. Enforcement proceedings landed on their doorstep nearly three weeks sgo, yet it is still there, as is incidentially, a raft of illegal banners on every one of their stores in the city centre as erected a few weeks ago. This outrageous behaviour by this culturally bereft selfish shower is going both unchallenged, and where challenged, is giving the two fingers to the State and civil society.
Yep it’s a street that now looks fabulous in the sun. It makes all the difference when there’s no traffic, or to be more precise, no buses. A real joy post-morning rush hour.
Ah fergal’s off on his 1920s-bashing again ;). What did they ever do to you? They brought us such useful innovations as the morning suit, outrageously dodgy electrics, facisim, and er, depression. What’s not to like?
The mishmash of O’Connell Street’s building stock is what makes it interesting. An Irish solution to an Irish problem one might say – an unabashed physical manifestation of the complete inability of the Irish to come to any sort of collective decision. Bearing in mind that Regent Street, as the most obvious equivalent across the water, was being gradually rebuilt to a unified plan over the course of 1895-1925 or so – not to mention large tracts of Whitehall – it makes sense that O’Connell Street would aspire to a similar design concept in its dual bouts of reconstruction.
The failure of city authorities, property owners and arguably central government to realise the above vision has resulted in the charming, if underwhelming, collective of varied terraces that comprises modern-day O’Connell Street, ranging from pompous neoclassicism, swaggering (if watery) Art Deco, stripped classicism, neo-Georgian and everything in between.
The simple fact is that even if those ‘incomplete’ parts as survived destruction were torn down today to attempt some level of unification, the 1910s and 1920s buildings themselves are still so varied in style as to make such a scheme near-impossible. Likewise, the latter’s grandeur and general aura of old-fashioned civic dutifulness, even if dubious in parts, collectively often makes for a surprisingly monumental streetscape. Many of these buildings are of merit, with a refreshing clarity of design; they simply require closer inspection.
The problem with the Upper O’Connell Street west and part of Lower O’Connell Street west is not so much their modest architectural style, as their buildings’ standard of presentation. Were efforts made to ensure quality maintenance of upper floors, the removal of myriad inappropriate accretions, and some attempts undertaken to return coherence to the last surviving Wide Streets Commission buildings at the lower end of the street, real progress could be made. And yes, that even includes Burger King in all its arch-windowed glory. Far better to retain what remains of the original Sackville Mall townhouse and WSC commercial buildings’ footprints, keeping that connection with the origins and later development of the street, while making real commitment to improving its appearance.
(I knew this Carlton/O’Connell Street thread divide would get messy eventually!)
Extraordinarily, nothing has changed under the review of the Special Planning Control Scheme. Aside from a tightening of the language, the SPCS now has LESS rather than more power than before. All references to postering on windows – the greatest scourge on the area – have been deleted. Criteria for the placement and size of internal signage has been deleted. The banning of external loudspeakers has been deleted. Limits on projecting signage and the type of information they can display has also been ditched. This is nothing short of baffling – it’s as if anything that was deemed too much effort to enforce has just been choicely dispensed with! The only improvement is the reduction of the maximum surface area of lettering on first floor windows from 40% to 25%. The list of non-exempt change of uses has also been extended to include mobile phone shop, catalogue shop, discount shop and launderette/dry cleaners.
Likewise, no account has been made of newer forms of advertising such as illuminated projectors, or types of floodlighting units, light displays and light colouring, which can so degrade a building during the day and after dark. Also no criteria for on-street advertising hoardings surrounding seating (which should be banned outright in the city), or indeed any guidelines for seating for that matter. No reference to smoking areas is made, or criteria for ash units and similar paraphernalia at the entrances to buildings. Also no reference to railing structures which are beginning to emerge at roofline level, or flagpoles and similar projections. What on earth was the point of this review at all?
If there is any consolation, all above deleted elements remain in the ACA policy, which does not require a review, so we still have them to cling on to. The new SPAC policy on removing advertising hoardings is hilarious, stating: “Following a review of the area, it is evident that some progress has been made in relation to the removal of poor quality advertising structures. The following advertising signs are now designated for removal:” Suggesting that a much-reduced ‘revised’ record of advertising structures is now being published, it goes on to list precisely the same array of structures as mentioned in the last plan. Indeed the sole advertisement that was removed over the lifetime of the last plan occurred under tragic circumstances, when a window cleaner fell to his death from above Ann Summers, pulling with him the 1950s Chas F. Ryan sign that was attached to the upper facade. There isn’t even the faintest whiff of a firm commitment to remove any of the designated signage under the lifetime of the new plan, including the disgraceful Baileys ensemble blighting the image of the entire city, even though the planning authority has sweeping powers under the 2000 Act to get rid of it, and its ilk, first thing in the morning.
Section 60: [condensed]
A planning authority may serve a notice on each person who is the owner or occupier of a structure situated within its functional area, if—
(a) the structure is a protected structure and, in the opinion of the planning authority, the character of the structure or of any of its elements ought to be restored, or
(b) the structure is in an architectural conservation area and, in the opinion of the planning authority, it is necessary, in order to preserve the character of the area, that the structure be restored.‘Works’ include “the removal, alteration or replacement of any specified part of the structure or element, and the removal or alteration of any advertisement structure.”
Now, the planning authority must pay for the cost of the works that are reasonably incurred by the owner, in dialogue with them, but this is tiny money relative to the improvement effected. It beggars belief that no effort has been made on this front to date. Even the carrot of standard grant aid alone, perhaps boosted a little to get rid of signage, may be sufficient to get the ball rolling on property. The time of ‘market force-led change’ is well and truly over – not that it was ever there in the first place – but pro-active measures must now be taken.
And all of this in the context of the newly completed Ulster Bank at 2-4 O’Connell Street Lower. One wouldn’t want in any way to detract from the marvellous reinstatement job done on the main 1920s shopfront, but really and truly, is the below type of dead frontage really permissable in an ACA, SPAC, on a Protected Structure, at the entrance to the capital’s main street? Effectively a permanently vacant unit. It gives an appalling first impression.
I mean really and truly, are these proposals even looked at? This new shopfront, however fancypants conservation-led, has the same effect on the street as the previous barracks-like ensemble. Indeed the original planning application stipulated that a shop display be maintained at all times, before a new application was granted that allowed for the ATM and screening. This opaque film was merely referenced in passing in the application and not even referenced in the planner’s report. And this all in spite of the fact that the bank originally stated that two ATMs would have to be mounted in the granite building next door, in spite of design concerns, as placing one in the window of the shopfront above would be impossible “due to security considerations”. Yet when structural issues prevented them from installing one in the shopfront next door, suddenly these ‘security considerations’ vanished into thin air, and the second ATM was installed as seen above. All that’s needed is a dingy net curtain to complement the nasty aluminium window (again why on earth this was granted permission…) and a flickering seedy neon sign inside. A shame. You’d think Ulster Bank would have more style.
Even if you put that point to people, you’d get the answer ‘well why should I have to pay for other generations’ windows?’! It’s a fair enough point, purely on the basis of personal economics.
Also, it’s incredibly difficult to get people to implement a net loss in insulation, heat and sound, by removing old PVC windows (a growing isssue) and replacing them with single-glazed sashes according to historic detail. And as Rusty observes, the explosion in poor double-glazed reproduction sashes is having an adverse impact on the survival of a design record on a street, where single-pane units are now commonly replacing two-over-twos and Georgian sashes. Indeed, I know of a prominent public building that for years I thought once had one-over-ones on the basis of its (good) repro sashes, until I happened upon an old photograph showing two-over-twos. As a rural building, it took on an entirely different character and style – even the date shifted by a couple of decades. At least PVC glazing rarely lied about the former glazing pattern. And of course, this issue pales into insignificance when considering the rubbish detailing of the majority of repro sashes.
I’m not sure what I would do if I was in Rusty’s position. I wouldn’t care about the heat loss, as it’s meagre, but sound insulation is important. Especially as none of these streets were originally built with motorised traffic in mind. Buses in particular are a killer for sound pollution. I’d suffer for style I suppose.
Yep was reading this a few weeks ago. Good to see DCC requesting additional info on precisely what historic material would be lost when knocking the two units together. A very good conservation report and design proposals by Cathal O’Neill, intending to arcade the interior in a European food hall style if recall (with some degree of embellishment on the part of Centra no doubt).
Work has already started, with the owner of the properties agreeing to ‘clean up’ the upper elevations. Musgraves have also stated they’d be willing to use this shop as a model as to what can be achieved with convenience stores in terms of design, layout and signage. Their commitment to that ideal five years down the road remains to be proven.
The status of ACAs in Dublin city has thus far proven to be greatly diminished by the manner of their implementation and their selective application. So far we have seen ACA designation being avoided entirely in areas where it is deemed to ‘interfere’ with proposed development, or the provisions of an active designation simply not being enforced, as seen right across the O’Connell Street ACA – in effect the ‘City Centre ACA’ given the extensive area that it covers, both north and south of the Liffey. Both of these practices run completely counter to the legal intention, proper planning objective, and civic spirit of the instrument, and make a mockery of the planning process.
The lack of precedent of a firm hand by the planning authority with the Carlton case resulted in such incredible proposals by the applicant as the demolition the elegant Garda station building at the upper end of the street – one of the most handsome post-destruction buildings on the thoroughfare and comprising the very essence of what austere 1920s O’Connell Street is all about. For a developer to think that a proposal which so patently runs counter to stated policy has a chance of getting passed, there must be something seriously wrong with the authority’s standards of policy implementation. Likewise, the precedent for whacking a whole section of 1910s terrace on Henry Street was neatly set by Dunnes’ new mega-store further down the road. In any sane city, where a planning authority sets the standards, not developers, these proposals would never be made, let alone get a look-in, never mind be granted with flying colours as in the case of Henry Street.
There are two other ABP precedents for refusal in this area. The previously mentioned Dunnes scheme, which isn’t even in the ACA, was rejected by the Board’s inspector on the basis of its destructive and invasive character. The only reason it got through is that the single objector to the scheme mysteriously withdrew their objection to ABP. The whole case collapsed, and thus so too did the gracious character of one of the city’s best commercial terraces. Secondly, in a recent move that received no publicity whatsoever, the Board resoundingly rejected the proposed re-facading of Penneys next door to the GPO, submitted as part of the Arnotts redevelopment. Sailing through the DCC process with its vulgar projecting canopies, hanging ‘veils’, vast television screen glazing, myriad top-up storeys and brazen vertical signage, all directly next door to the GPO, the Board described it as not only inappropriate, but contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. Even on this, one of the most sensitive sites in the city, in an ACA, sitting beside one of the most significant buildings in the State, where design excellence is demanded, there was a willingness by the city authority to whore out O’Connell Street’s stated ‘civic design character’ for a tawdry trinket of commercial trash, so incongruous as to make the current building appear the model of elegant restraint. The applicants even had the audacity to cite the wedding cake of the former Metropole Hotel as precedent for an arrogant architectural expression on the site.
Meanwhile, the view of the Wide Streets Commission terrace on D’Olier Street from across the river is, as we speak, being grossly undermined by a nasty overly-tall development looming over its roofscape, its two missing original shopfronts are not reinstated even though it was recommended in a DCC document on shopfront design for the area, and all surrounding streets in the ACA drown in a sea of unauthorised development. The recent over-scaled Gresham Hotel redevelopment also had nearly four metres, or over a storey, lopped of its height by ABP to protect the rooflines of the ACA.
Over in the new Capel Street ACA, a similar sea of unauthorised development and dubious changes of use are taking place on a weekly basis, with the entire upper end already commandeered by Chinese restaurants, parlours and goodness knows what else. The uses within an ACA are just as important as the buildings, yet if the current pace of change on Capel Street is to be sustained, within a matter of three to four years this traditional shopping street will be unrecognisable. Even Grafton Street is worse now in terms of illegal signage, displays, postering and windows that it was when its ACA was introduced two years ago.
Aside from the fact that most of the provisions of an ACA merely promote good planning practice which should be standard across the board in an historic city centre, there remains a swath of streets still requiring designation. This includes Parliament Street, Dame Street, Lord Edward Street, College Green, Nassau Street, Dawson Street, Molesworth Street, Kildare Street, arguably St. Stephen’s Green, South William Street, the ‘red quarter’ of South Great George’s Street, Aungier Street and others. There is an extreme reluctance on the part of DCC to adopt ACAs because of the perceived drain on resources they effect. But if good planning standards existed in the first place, and swift procedures were implemented to streamline the system, this issue would not arise.
ACA as an instrument is by and large sound. It is the implementation of it by authorities that is the issue, and it is up to them to take the matter in hand, show commitment to understanding the legislation, making known stakeholders’ obligations, and deal with it. It has been around for close to a decade now – there are no excuses anymore.
And alas, whatever about the problems in Dublin, ACAs outside the big smoke are truly in a different league…
Okay, so a little back-tracking is in order here. Information I received from a well-informed source turns out to be not so much incorrect, as incorrectly placed. I hadn’t a chance to follow it up in the meantime. Slap on the hand for taking architects at face value…
This person’s surprise upon happening ‘original interiors’ behind the Dublin Bus facade on reflection must relate to the neighbouring house with Victorian facade at No. 60, which interconnects, and makes a heck of a lot more sense. Certainly the ground floor has an historic interior. What made the initial story credible is that the gable walls of the original townhouse on the site of the modern Dublin Bus building do appear to survive behind the giant proscenium arch of stone cladding. What made me so surprised to think that interiors still existed is that a) this would surely be common knowledge, and b) this plot was occupied by one of the largest mansions on Sackville Mall, the interiors of which, had they survived, would surely be of some significance.
So no mystery townhouse alas – unless someone can tell us otherwise?
Listen, this is symptomatic of planning the length and breadth of the state, where planning authorities contort and wriggle around their own polices and development plans to suit the majority of applications, especially major ones, that come up for assessment.
Aside from the myriad of other matters which may be deemed subjective with this case, on the simple matter of the Architectural Conservation Area alone, what was allowed through by DCC just defies reason. An ACA is a legally-binding statutory instrument, akin to Protected Structure or National Monument designations. Unlike policies of a development plan to which a planning authority need only have regard, an ACA is enforceable in the courts in terms of what is deemed to materially alter the character of the designated area. It is outrageous in this case that a whole chunk of a handsome terrace in the ACA be swept away (on Henry Street), that an historic, near grid-like street pattern be gouged out, and the readability of that area should be altered in order to cater for a short-term commercial gimmick of a monolith sloping structure with roof garden which displays absolutely no connection with that area. This is not to say that the area must be preserved in amber; it simply means that the existing context must be accounted for in the design, layout and architecture of the new quarter. The ‘feature’ garden building was simply rammed in as a token glitter ball with no relevance to its environs. The new entrance to O’Connell Street was similarly lacking in an appropriate interpretation of the urban street pattern. I fully agree with what has been ordered in respect of this junction, not just because a Henry Street-scaled opening it is a more sensitive solution in this historic environment, but moreover because it affords the opportunity to build something that we have been unable to do over the past two decades – namely a new street. To follow the established street pattern not only better integrates the new scheme, it also helps to avoid Ilac Round II, whereby a new city quarter is created which will end up isolated and detached in terms of character and fashionability in years to come. The proposed wide columnar screen was a complete affront to that concept, never mind its existing environment.
I’d like to see the Bord’s order too, if anyone has it…
Everything that was required of this scheme has been achieved. The Bord delivers yet again.
PLANS FOR a 13-storey building topped by a “park in the sky” at the heart of the proposed Carlton Cinema development on O’Connell Street have been rejected by An Bord Pleanála.
OLIVIA KELLY
The board has directed developers Chartered Land to significantly scale back the overall plans for the development of the 5.5-acre site in the centre of Dublin city, and omit the 13-storey building, before it makes a final decision on permission.
The scheme pays “insufficient respect” to the classical form of O’Connell Street, involves too much demolition, and conflicts with several statutory plans for the area, the board has said.
Chartered Land, which is controlled by shopping centre developer Joe O’Reilly, was granted permission for the commercial and residential development, centred on the site of the former Carlton Cinema, by Dublin City Council last December.
This was subject to a large number of appeals to An Bord Pleanála, including several from groups seeking to protect the National Monument at number 16 Moore Street which was used by the leaders of the 1916 Rising. A public hearing on the development was held last April.
The board has this week written to Chartered Land seeking 16 significant modifications, which must be submitted before November 2nd. Chief among these is the omission of the “iconic building” – a 35-metre structure topped by a sloping public park, which was to be the focal point of the scheme. This element should be removed from the plans and the redesigned buildings should not exceed the height of the Arnott’s scheme – a neighbouring development for which the board has approved a seven-storey scale.
Despite having been granted permission from Dublin City Council, the board notes that the development is in conflict with several of the council’s statutory plans including the Architectural Conservation Area designation. The proposed scheme would disrupt the historic street pattern and was “over-scaled” in relation to the historic buildings around it.
The revised development should retain the original street pattern of the area, the extent of demolition should be reduced, and the existing buildings on Henry Street and Moore Street should be substantially retained.
The board also wants a redesign of the entrance to the development from O’Connell Street. The current proposals are for a 35-metre wide entrance partially fronted by a screen of thin, paired columns topped by a flat canopy, with the entrance buildings cut on a diagonal representing a funnel shape.
This entrance should be reduced to the width of Henry Street and set at right angles to O’Connell Street following “a traditional format” the board said. The entrance buildings should also use more traditional materials it said. Parking for the development should be reduced from 1,100 spaces to not more than 500.
While the letter imposes huge changes, it does state that the site is “general suitable for the type of development proposed”, suggesting that permission would be granted if the necessary modifications are made.
© The Irish Times
So the interim revamp of Arnotts’ interior is well underway. It is remarkable the difference a dash of new flooring, cheap slab ceilings and a lick of paint makes in updating a store.
All of the trademark cast-iron columns have been beautifully painted in charcoal grey, to distinguished effect. Not only do they now look fashionable and elegant (grey very much being ‘the’ colour of the late 000s), the dark shade also highlights the columns as a prominent feature of the store, where their previous white glossy coating made them dissolve into the background. Smart grey carpets also feature on the stairs, as is a growing trend in retailing at the moment. The beechy counters are, however, a bit dodge…
The crisp, glossy new tiled flooring is modern and durable. It really shows up the tattiness of the previous manky beech coloured timber-effect covering which has yet to be covered over alongside it. Indeed, that whole interior scheme of beech surfaces and oval forms dated remarkably quickly, just as the fit-out of Debenhams in Jervis did, of identical date. By contrast, the sharper lines and better palatte of materials of the Jervis Centre itself have actually held up very well (even if they have been tweaked since). An interesting contrast.
Arnotts’ new slab ceilings could have been a little more inventive than the rather humdrum plain coffers on offer, but the glittering array of simple new halogen spots prove extremely effective in generating a sense of warmth and elegance. The glossy floor tiles pick them up beautifully. A very encouraging upgrade thus far, with the major interventions to the front of the store in cutting back the mezzanine to expose the full-height windows yet to come.
And vista of a different kind…
August 10th, 1859: A modest proposal to keep the dismal Liffey swamp out of sight
JOE JOYCE
The stench of the River Liffey was a regular feature of summer in Dublin until comparatively recent times. In its first summer in existence in 1859, The Irish Times described what it was like then and offered a modest proposal to solve the problems:
TEN MILES from the city, Anna Liffey flows through the richest and most tranquil scenery in Ireland. Now it lies a sheet of silver, under drooping trees, undisturbed and smooth as a mirror, except when stirred by the sudden splash of the trout, the leap of the salmon, or the wake of the kingfisher skimming along the surface to its nest.
Now it expands into goodly reaches plashing along the inland bays of gravel; and now dashes its foam over milldams and salmon wiers, sending a column of spray upwards to dance in the sunbeams. No poet ever yet sang of a river flowing through a town. The emblems of all that is bright,
clear and tranquil in life are taken from the open fields under green trees. No one, to look up the Anna Liffey from Essex Bridge , would think she had ever been beautiful, or that so hideous an age had succeeded to so attractive a youth.
Every sewer in the city empties its grey or brackish stream of defilement into the river. The white scum settles in thick lines on either side of the mud and sludge. The river itself is strong-smelling and inky, charged with every species of animate or inanimate impurity. Down the stream are carried carcases of domestic animals until they reach the returning tideway; then they are borne backwards slowly, knocking about among the barges, sailing heavily under archways, until at last a burst of rain swells the river, and, carrying away these bloated masses of corruption, lands them at last upon the Bull or the bathing sheds of Clontarf. For 12 hours out of the 24 a large portion of the bottom of the Liffey is exposed. The sun plays upon the festering mass by day; the malaria hangs about it like a cloud by night. It is black, noisome, pestilential; more like a gigantic sewer than that sparkling river which glitters among the trees 10 miles away. Every summer sends abroad the fever-laded breath of the river; every summer our corporate magnates meet and solemnly discuss the evil and the remedy. All sorts of proposals are made, but never a one accepted. Yet, year by year, this river of concentrated sewage is becoming more fetid and more deadly . . .
If our energetic corporation is alarmed at an expenditure of £40,000 to purify and beautify our city, cannot something be done? We have the noblest line of quays of any city in Europe. Can we not enclose something within them better than a polluted mass of putrefying matter? A very simple plan, we think, would rend the quays a favourite and
pleasant promenade for our citizens, until the corporation screws up courage to spend this £40,000. What is to prevent our erecting three strong flood gates at Carlisle Bridge , under the three arches? By these the fresh tidal water could be kept in at half ebb, until the succeeding half flow. The river would always appear full, and not a particle of the dismal swamp be uncovered. The occasional opening of these gates at low tide would flush the river, and carry down all impurities. We do not see anything against this plan but its simplicity and cheapness. These, we know, are formidable objections in the eyes of the corporation who, having no bowels, have we suppose, no noses. We venture to say that five weeks’ work and £500 would free our city from a standing disgrace, and our people from danger. What will our worthy Aldermen say to this?
© The Irish Times
Where even the trams pull up symmetrically… And just think what a wirescape would do to that scene.
Aesthetics will always play second fiddle here – I suppose we must just live with it.
Yep, just incredible. It defies reason.
Should anybody hold the slightest doubt that the recent cack-handed treatment of College Green may just be an irrelevant conservation or heritage issue for those who get upset about such matters, amongst the many other developments yet to feature here include this brand new stretch of paving outside Trinity College on College Street. A previously near-straight run of antique granite sweeping around from College Green to the junction with the concrete paving after the pedestrian crossing at the top of the picture, an expanse of historic paving, probably along with the original pedestrian crossing tiles, has since been removed and replaced with modern granite. Why on earth was historic granite not put back?
A miserable scrap of antique granite paving is now left stranded further up. Baffling.
If there is the faintest virtue to this particular mess, it is that the granite chosen here is vaguely rust-toned in the Dublin tradition, if still whiter. I wonder where it was sourced. It could be very attractive used on a large scale such as around the Green or Dawson Street.
But absolutely incredibly, this too, even as good quality modern granite (not that it should be here at all) has been utterly mauled. This was it the evening it was laid with fine, elegant, crisp joints.
This is what was done to it a day later!
I kid you not. Cement strap pointing across the board, including over some of the historic granite.
This is an absolute scandal that public money, invested in expensive public assets, is being completely wasted with the most appalling standards of workmanship. Is this what DCC claims: The quality of the work was monitored and checked and we’re satisfied with the finish on it?
Shocking, shocking stuff. And of course a classic instance of where the visually-impaired’s mobility is, very simply, impaired.
‘Disability improvements’ indeed.
Precisely Frank. One of a number of papers on the matter. Frankly, this is a non-issue. It’s been resolved elsewhere; there’s no reason to reinvent the wheel or start getting hackles up at this stage in the game. The solutions are old news and should be standard procedure across the board.
In any event, the area outside the Bank of Ireland is not even a crossing point – it’s a pavement intersected by two minor driveways where the pedestrian has right of way. Equally, one cannot imagine a greater change in texture and contrast that a sharp transition from smooth granite to staggered, broadly spaced setts.
