GrahamH
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
The phrase referring to Father Jack ‘oh he won’t like that at all’ springs to mind…
Yes it’s a lovely door, and nothing like a bit of sombre stock brick to set it off too – none of your fancy claret facades thank you very much π
In compulsory acquisitions is it not conventional for the state to offer market value plus 15% or so, or is that just with roads?
Would the ACA status ever even allow these shrouds?
Not so much surprised as just disappointed about property owners. Suppose you can have Celtic Tiger glitzy office blocks and flagship urban projects coming out your ears, but the good aul Dublin landlord is still living in 1973.
Sure why not do the whole of upper O’Connell St at once?! Transform it into Times Square for six months, and then the whole place will be sparkling upon removal of the shrouds π
Is that view taken from the second turn off after the canal on the Ranelagh Road?
There’s some great views of the dome to be had about the south city, including from Camden St and various glimpses along the canal.
Always remember Frank McDonald’s mourning of the loss of the view from as far away as Earlsort terrace until that brown brick office building went up.Yes it is a sad reality that so few owners do not see it fit that their buildings be restored, or even properly maintain them, and less again that they should be the ones to pay for this fundamental element of property management!
In the case of the Joe Walsh building, it is a shame that from what you have said the owner sees it fit that this strategically important building, in the very heart of the city, framing the GPO and the Spire, and linking two of the busiest streets in the country, be restored as long as someone else pays for it. That’s at least the impression one gets, not least considering the building hasn’t even seen a paintbrush since about 1985.
I accept your point though that tax-incentives are not everything they can be made out to be – just a pity they’re not more appealing to owners. It seems they act as a mere added benefit for those who are intending to carry out works anyway, rather than encouraging the very worst cases to get their act together.
Certainly one use for them – though if they were just slipped over into the Liffey when no one was looking that’d be good enough either…
Meant to ask before Plug if you’re around – what would you do to light the Liffey’s bridges?
What methods and colour palette would you use?Sob – yes π
And what is this huge building on what looks like Abbey St?!
The scale really isn’t evident unless you enlarge the whole image…
Oooh your estate agent can use ‘Regency’ – your house is worth 20% more now π
Lovely door, with what appears to be original glass?
The colours work well too.Ever wondered how the beast that is O’Connell Bridge was managed before the traffic lights came along?
π
I want that job!
They date from 1964 and 1961 respectively.
π
You have a point jimg, but for me anyway I just don’t like the way this can be presented as an either-or situation.
If the will was there to include the advertising shroud concept into the city dev plan, well just as easily could a proposal be made to ensure all scaffolding on street locations be presented and maintained to a minumum standard.Likewise is cases where the likes of stabilising conservation work is required on a protected structure, it is up to the local authority to issue a notice of works on the owner, not to depend on the advertising industry to ‘save our buildings’.
Still one does have to concede that it is a very tantalising prospect to at least get the ball rolling on projects with the shroud concept – even if it does mean suffering π the pain of having more advertising shoved in your face – which is what it does, there’s no getting away from the fact, regardless of what sublime specifications these yokes are made and erected to π
Part of the appeal of most European city centres is that architecture forms the scenery, not billboards & electronic advertising etc. It is paradoxal and therefore highly confusing that it is this very ‘scenery’ that is being protected by this idea! :confused:
Thanks for that ctesiphon – though the chimneys of City Hall are the biggest revelation for me :). What a great view.
Also the ground floor of City Hall on the side facade there doesn’t appear to be original – a Victorian addition along with the balcony to the front perhaps?
This is my personal favourite π
This infamous Fitzwilliam Square one I suppose has to feature:
…even if it rather obviously isn’t Georgian! It was installed for the visit of either Edward VII in 1907, or George V in 1911 as far as I know – think it was Edward though…
Wide doors like that below (Sybil Connolly’s?) with delicate fanlights, sidelights and perfect column proportions & spacing really do it for me as the very best Georgian door – even if the Portland stone shouldn’t be exposed, still looks great against black or dark green doors π
This is the perfect smaller doorcase I think:
…while squat Recencyish ones like these are just ugggh π
Paul – how do you mean the proposal wasn’t replied to, by the City Council or the owners? Thanks.
That is nothing short of fascinating news regarding the proposal for the render to be removed to expose the brickwork!
It would be wonderful if it could be done – and yes the aluminium frames on the top floor suffice to say would have to go, amongst other things πAs for the idea of your company being the ones to instigate the works – whereas I fully commend your intentions, it would be nothing short of egregiously ridiculous that of all sites in the country that needed a privately funded incentive to get conservation works carried out, that this is the building going for that option.
This building, indeed this street has tax incentives coming out its ears!If the owner is proposing to restore the building soley on the grounds of your (good intentioned) private money coming in to fund it, above the incentives that have been sitting there for the past goodness how long, then frankly shame on him.
If this is not the case, then fair enough, but it does come across as just a little irritating when you’ve been following the lack of progress on Upper O’Connell Street properties for some years.Essentially you’re posing a question: do we continue to accept ineffective or unenforced legislation that lets key buildings languish or streetscapes to continue to fall into decay, or do we allow vast commercial advertisments to solve the problem. Though I fully accept this is largely the reality of what we’re faced with and you paint a sad but real picture, it is an unfair question to ask.
Is as you say “landlords are fully aware that because of the lack of enforcement from our city councils regarding making them take care of their buildings, they know they don’t have to do anything to take care of their buildings facades” the reason why the CC won’t take on board your proposals as it merely highlights their own deficiencies?
Yes, the fact that it’s the only one that retains its original appearance does tend to lead you in that direction:
But as far as I know it dates from 1752 (as stated by the hotel’s literature and Frank McDonald etc), meaning that it wasn’t even built by the time the Tudor engraving was made!
Indeed it’s entirely likely most of the Upper street wasn’t even remotely finished by the time Tudor made his engraving.Whereas the buildings on the Henry St corner, although by no means set in stone, are perhaps likely to be older than the 1752 Castle house considering they’re at the bottom of the Mall, and were closest to the commerical Drogheda & Henry Sts.
Indeed I’ve often wondered if the origins of the buildings are even older than Gardiner’s scheme – maybe even being the last part of Henry St that remained following the demolition of other buildings on the street to create Sackville Mall?
Condsiering they’re lower than the dignified new houses, they seem a rather strange way to start off a new street unless perhaps they were part of the older one?Good news. Often laughed at vast tree standing in one of the grassed quadrants to the garden front of the building – looks quite bizarre on its own, disrupting the ordered scheme. Presumably the quadrants are a modern innovation….
Agreed about what the last two Presidents have done for the place – as far as I know the place was falling part when Mary Robinson moved in, despite the earlier restorations. It was viewed as a musty old nursing home for old men beforehand – the ‘send him out to the Park’ phrase being very much so part of that :).
Mary Robinson actually living in the residence itself rather than the 20s wing tacked on the side that Mary McAleese is living in made all the difference no doubt. If I was her I’d pack all the kids off to boarding school so I could move back in to the House proper π
The garden front is really magnificent, especially with Johnston’s beautifully proportioned dead grey portico standing out from the gleaming white walls, and the proud chimneys lending it an air of distinguished austerity π
In contrast to the original front which as Sue says unfortunately looks rather like a hospital…Yes – I went out and bought a City West in Toymaster…
They’re flying off the shelves apparently πHere’s a rather strange picture of a mock-up of part of the west terrace of Upper O’Connell St (attachment). Apologies as to the copy n’ paste nature of it, I’m not exactly a dab hand at Photoshop, but it’s better than some of the graphics in the IAP π
Despite it being rather crude, it is to scale. Note how all of the building plots even today are regular, two-bay Georgian widths right up to Dublin Bus. Interestingly even Dublin Bus today imitates the taller parapet height of the original large house/s on the site.
After Dublin Bus, the plot widths become quite varied, although not really evident in this pic as the building next door to themodern building was a two-bay house too.Apologies for the alarming subsidence Dublin Bus is experiencing π
