gunter
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
It’s a slow day, so here’s a teaser.
An early 18th century, inner city, Dublin church. It was altered in the 20th century by the addition of another storey in concrete and was demolished in the 1990s. I haven’t seen it in any of the books. The question is, where was it?
How it was allowed to be demolished would be another question.
When you see these in the planning office, you’re never quite sure whether the model was damaged in transit , or whether the building is actually crumpled.
@notjim wrote:
I think you are getting out of the habit of reading my posts before replying to them!
I read your post, you just went off on a tangent and I chose not to follow.
For the record, and since we’re swinging handbags here, you picked out the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ phrase from my post, (possibly because you may have issues in that direction) and you ignored the substance of what I was saying.
I will think about what you said though and I will go back down there, I missed it’s ‘dynamic, bursting quality’ the last time I was there.
Come on notjim, those swans are never gettin’ off the ground.
OK the sculpture has qualities, but flight isn’t one of them and anyway, it’s the whole assembly that doesn’t work. It feels like a cemetery, but there’s no graves. The new steps down opp. the gallery help, but it’s such a waste of an urban space.
@ctesiphon wrote:
That is quite disturbing.
BTW, when did Dublin Bus start washing their buses? A proper Dublin bus is thickly coated in grime. Do these people have no respect for tradition?
*I often had to open a window on the 78A to see if I was anywhere near my stop*.
Leaving the buses aside for the moment, Parnell Square must must be in the text books as how not to do an urban space.
The ratio of road surface to ‘square’ is absurd. Why did the Georgians put in racetrack width carriageways in the first place? Did they sit up on the piano nobiles gambling on, ‘Ben Hur’ style, sedan chair races around the square?
Then there’s the Garden of Remembrance. Every other capital city, with a revolutionary past, has a central square with a ‘great monument to the Republic’ and we get a Chelsea Garden Show exhibit with a kiddies swimming pool that you never see anybody use,
The Garden of Remembrance uses all the worst ideas in 20th century memorial architecture: The morbid classicism, the stiff manicured lawns, the regimented seating, the Zepplin Field steps and proto fuhrer podium, the leaden sculpture, railings painted in gold and royal blue. If this says anything about 1916, it’s how completely our cultural consciousness has become mainstream Anglo-Saxon.
I’ve seen the master plan (posted last year by Graham) and even though it looks far reaching, I don’t think it gets anywhere near the radical re-think that a place like Parnell Square needs.
If you look at the evolution of the square, it started out as a philantropic idea, was exploited as a marketing tool, suceeded as a high-end residential venture, developed as a social hub and then slid into terminal decline when fashion moved on and the funcional demands of the institutions began to encroach on the concept.
To tap into the urban potential, the square has to be re-made. As well as being filled up with haphazard buildings, the square never had a southern edge. That should be the first priority, Build a southern edge. Top quality Civic buildings would fit the bill, an extension of the hospital on the right, and the new Central Library (the one they’re trying to squeeze into the Ambassador) on the left. What’s left, the upper two thirds, should be re-planned as a, hard surface, urban square with pockets of trees, edgy pavilions, a sunken garden if necessary, a great monument to the Republic (definitely). The bus stand thing could even work as an designed-in element of a re-made civic square. It would guarantee constant footfall and keep the space busy and vibrant.
I was going to post this up for busman on the College Green / O’Connell St. thread and then the Parnell Square thread turns up. Better again!
If there was a bus equivalent of the train-spotter, Parnell Square would be the equivalent of Crewe.@Seamus O’G wrote:
I see Munich’s Marienplatz mentioned on this thread in relation to the pluses and minuses of the use of College Green for public transport.
It’s important to remember that the location is fully pedestrianised, with not a bus or tram in sight – hardly any buses enter Munich’s city centre, while most of the city’s trams are only a few hundred metres distant (e.g. at Karlsplatz), but not in the Marienplatz itself.
I mentioned it as an example of an enclosed square, which, as you say, is fully pedesrtianized. The point is that, as much as I would love College Green to be a Dublin Marienplatz, College Green has different characterists and there’s no point kidding ourselves about that. There isn’t the same sense of enclosure, or of market space carved out of a medieval street pattern.
Having said that, if there was the slightest chance that College Green could be fully pedestrianized and the city centre served by a new network of S-Bahn and U-Bahn lines, even in the next twenty years, I’d drop any attachment I have to Luas, but somehow, I don’t see that happening, and planning is about being realistic as well as visionary.
@Peter Fitz wrote:
. . feck all has happened on Lower Abbey Street.
You’re forgetting about the VHI ‘iconic’ building.
@missarchi wrote:
back streets are no place for a luas… you need a population/width/ and mini luas which we don’t have
missarchi, you’re starting to make sense! What’s happened to you?
@ctesiphon wrote:
Not just that, has anyone actually taken the Red Line recently? The entire city centre corridor until Heuston seems more blighted than reinvigorated.
Without an actual plan designed to capitalise on the potential opportunities brought about by the introduction of a Luas corridor to a city centre route, the latent regeneration benefits will not materialise and will accrue elsewhere. The market seems to be saying as much, at any rate. No?
@Peter Fitz wrote:
Yes surprisingly litle has happened with this stretch since the introduction of luas & not much in the pipeline either it seems.
I think the reason for this is that the route chozen is a series of back streets which had bugger all commercial development on them before Luas, and now, because of the narrowness of the carriageways, they have more the characteristics of a railway cutting than primary arterial public transportation corridors, or whatever the phrase is.
Every other city: The trams go down the main busy commercial arterial routes, I’m not wrong about this. Trams everywhere have horns that blast you out of it when you’re trying to get a good photograph of something else, it goes with the territory, wasn’t Gaudi killed by a tram?
Isn’t Bordeaux where the RIAI annual conference is to be held this year. There should be a flood of good photographs coming back in the next month or so.
@SunnyDub wrote:
I think Luas can be used to improve the public realm and calm streets generally, it shouldn’t go down back streets
Fully agree with that.
I imagine that full pedestrianisation of College Green is not achievable. There’s also an argument that it’s not actually desirable. It’s a fluid space, like a miniature Trafalgar Square, rather than a cosy enclosed space like Marienplatz in Munich.
If they put in Luas Line F to a cul-de-sac stop at the west end of College Green, within weeks there’ll be a clamour to ‘join it up’ with BX, or extend it to the east. Would it not be better to accept the reality of this and design in expansion from the start?
In no way should this be left to the RPA, a tram network is a civic enterprise not just a transportation system.
A future College Green that is 80% pedestrian and 20% tram line, would be a hell of an improvement on the existing status (30% pedestrian? 70% road surface?)
@GrahamH wrote:
Very simply, any ambitious plans for the College Green, College Street and indeed O’Connell Bridge centres will be turned to watered-down dishwater should these spaces be subject to the extent of cabling, poles, platforms and all other attendant paraphernalia that the Luas travels with. It is utterly inexcusable on College Green, offensive crossing the Liffey and O’Connell Street, and at best highly undesirable along the other major thoroughfares. One need only look at the disaster of Middle Abbey Street to observe what is in store for the coherence of Westmoreland Street. And what’s more, I suspect this entire issue will only rear its head in typical Irish planning Taraesque style, once the project has begun (if ever). Now is the time to make these critical decisions.
@missarchi wrote:
And he (the chief architect from the RPA) said the 15km Al Safooh light rail system will be the first in the world to have no overhead wires. Instead a “third rail” — or power supply built into the track bed — will be used to minimise the visual effect.
I got a sneak look at a document entitled ‘Draft Dublin City Council’s Submission to the RPA, on Luas Line F’ and in it, there are some grounds for hope.
Of Dame St. / College Green it says:
Within Dame Street / College Green the Heritage Officer of DCC must be consulted on the status and remaking of College Green as a ‘Civic Space’ and a Civic Space Framework Plan should be prepared by the RPA in conjunction with DCC. As Trinity Street will in future be the last point of access to this area for general traffic, other than public transport, it is recommended that the last stop for Line F be located just west of the Foster Place South/Church Lane junction (with an emergency turn back point for cars). Beyond that point an engineering link only to the Luas line BX track would be feasible.’OK, one paragraph in a draft submission may not herald the new dawn, but the encouraging thing is that at least DCC are conscious of the ‘Civic Space’ issues and they seem to be pro-actively engaged with the RPA this time, whereas they seemed to stand aloof from the whole Luas planning thing, the last time round.
On missarchi’s point, we have been hearing about this ‘third rail’ solution for some time now and it does appear to be the answer to the over-head clutter concern.
Like cgcsb, It seems improbable to me that Line F won’t end up being extended eastward to the south docks, or Poolbeg ultimately, and it would seem insane, but hardly unprecedented, to be planning College Green as a tram cul-de-sac.
You’ve kept the grass, but you’ve put in a moat and a drawbridge?
This is because I told you about the Troll, right?
@missarchi wrote:
. . it comes down on how wet you wanna get and the metro route south of the green and other future rail options…
There’s a very big troll and he lives behind a very big door and he gets very annoyed if he hears nonsense.
I just think you should know this.@Busman wrote:
I think it is a pity that the LUAS is going to be shoehorned into College Green and O’Connell Street, alongside the buses and all the other traffic, as if some of the buses will somehow disappear with the arrival of the LUAS.
The fact is, all this discourse is for nothing if the LUAS goes through as planned.
I am all for digging up College Green and O’Connell Street and running a Metro below ground, but I think the LUAS is going to have too much dominance in an area where pedestrians should have priority, and the very fact of LUAS running through such a congested area, will negate any efficiencies in terms of speed and reliability that might otherwise accrue to a light rail system. The Red Line is a perfect example of this. We are pursuing a single minded path regardless of any lessons that might be learned from past mistakes.
Everything you’ve said about the buses seems to be incontestable, and far more researched and rational than anything I’ve heard before on the subject. I guess your not called Busman for nothing 🙂 (second smiley face in 6 months)
On the Luas, while I accept that it compromises the level of full pedestrianisation that can be achieved on a given street or square, to begin to reject the Luas on these kinds of grounds, for not doing enough to civilize the city, is just a step too far for me.
I agree that we would add to the chaos, if we just added Luas into the mix at a place like College Green, but if there was a real dedication to getting rid of everything else, I think that could still work.
I thought that this was pretty much the vision of them in charge; trucks gone, cars banned from next spring, buses and taxis to follow ? when Luas BX and Luas F arrive, some time after we’re all dead.
@Peter Fitz wrote:
I’d dispute that there is any necessity to run luas lines through college green with multiple alternative routes available, but concede this is the lazy, shortsighted option we are likely to get.
I don’t know which routes you’re suggesting, I can’t find good alternative routes, that’s the problem. Bearing in mind that if you pick a route that has a high loading of traffic, including bus traffic, already on it, like the Quays for example, the bulk of this displaced traffic will have to be accommodated on an alternative route and one travelling in much the same direction.
I’m already not comfortable with the existing Luas trams avoiding thoroughfares in favour of going down narrow side streets like Benburb street, it just doesn’t feel right.
@cgcsb wrote:
perhaps an indication that DCC intends to grant permission to Carlton redevelopment
I don’t think you’d be going too far out on a limb there cgcsb.
Phrases from the planner’s report like:
The Planning Authority is fully supportive of the radical and ambitious vision that informs the inclusion of this civic space [the sloping linear garden] at the heart of the overall development.’ perhaps provide a clue.
‘The Planning Authority is also of the opinion that the proposed Park and Observation Deck would potentially provide for a meaningful, unique and iconic addition to the overall quantum, quality and diversity of public open space in the city.’
The Planning Authority acknowledges that . . . the proposal (for a new square off O’Connell St.) is unprecedented in it’s ambition or scale.’
The Planning Authority is strongly supportive of the urban design rationale for such an opening, which is in part critically informed by the need to shift the gravity of social and economic regeneration north along O’Connell Street.’
The Planning Authority welcomes the considered and deliberate massing (on Moore St.) and modulated roof height directly abutting and adjoining the National Monument at 16-17 Moore Street.
It goes on like this for 63 pages.
On the other side of the equation, DCC would like the new square off O’Connell Street to be a bit more formal and there are a few mild criticisms of the legibility of various internal routes and a tut-tut about some possible visual clutter, so you couldn’t say the assessment isn’t balanced.
OK, that’s a bit deeper than I was going.
I was absolutely not talking about ccmmercial in the sense of nailing up shop fronts, I was thinking more about a bigger version of the existing student shop, a couple of tasteful college cafes etc. but no more changes to the facade than perhaps turning a couple of window opes into door opes.
Even a bit of railing separation (normal Georgian width) would be fine.
It could be worth looking at.
@GrahamH wrote:
🙂
Opening up the grounds of the Chief Steward’s house is an interesting concept notjim, though I don’t think I’d go as far as incorporating its space into a public square, not least as the elevation of the Trinity accommodation block is unresolved and faced in rubble stoneNot sure I’d go along with that assessment of the stonework Graham. Agreed, it’s not the granite ashlar of the corresponding elevation facing the Provost’s side, but it’s hardly ‘random rubble’ and a little bit of TLC and lime pointing would bring it up a treat. Have you seen the way the dog rough stonework on the base of the Minot tower is coming up biblical quality once they knocked out the cement pointing.
I didn’t pick a great day to go out and photograph this.
Your Google Sky shot shows that there’s definitely the makings of a great urban square here if the Trinity triangle could be added in to the College Street traffic island triangle. There’s even a nice contemporary architectural opportunity to firm up the Dining Hall extension corner behind the chapel. The Chief Steward’s house would be a great little random object in the square, as information point/cafe etc.
Obviously stuff like this, or even the front railings, would require a big leap of faith for an old school establishment like Trinity, but there would be huge commercial possibilities too that are currently passing them by. Prime city centre revenue generating opportunities are not that easy to come by and, as much as I love the creaky floored little student shop, with new pedestrian square frontage, Trinity could be creaming it with public cafes and merchandising units, for the loss of just a few ground floor stundent rooms and offices.
@Peter Fitz wrote:
Agreed, the space in front of the east portico is quite substantial, and could make for a fine ‘waiting room’, it deserves a little more than trees & toilets.
That’s the point, we’re not talking about an alternative to restoring a sense civic grandeur to College Green, but a second contiguous space that would be complementary to it, given that College Green will necessarily be criss-crossed by Luas lines etc. that must limit it’s capacity for pedestrianisation.
@Peter Fitz wrote:
I absolutely disagree with the notion that any future piazza style space could be successfully coupled with some sort of public transport hub,
Luas, great and all as it is, can impact negatively on our finer civic spaces, becoming the focus of a street,
If ever CG is to be adequately transformed, full pedestrianisation is essential.
what a shame that a landscape masterplan doesn’t even seem to be on the distant horizon.
Sorry for butchering your post, but I think these quotes could stand alone.
In a simplistic way, I had always thought of Luas as a force for good, but you’re right, if you take it to the next level, having silent trams whizzing through the space make it effectively unusable as a pedestrian piazza, althogh it would still improve it as a civic space.
Even back in the days of it’s cobblestoned splendour, College Green was still more transportation hub, than pedestrian piazza.
All the more reason perhaps to explore the Lord’s portico end of College Street as a civic square with greater pedestrian floor area, as a complementary space to the main civic space at College Green. A series of inter-linked squares is quite a common civic pattern at the core of other European cities (Bremen comes to mind) and can be more engaging that just the great militaristic central square, to use Graham’s illuminating imagery.
It would be nice to believe that somebody’s working on this, that there’s a little team in the City Council beavering away on the various challenges, knocking the heads together on the city’s behalf, imagining the future, all of that stuff.
No!
What does the ‘Economic Development Unit’ do? surely restoring a civic centre to the city comes under the heading of ‘economic development’? Rose is always going on about how Dublin needs to ‘compete’ with other cities, needs to be creative, imaginative, open minderd, be of a positive mind-set! Why don’t they start cranking out the ideas on College Green and College Street and they could do Parnell Square and Christchurch Place while they’re at it. ( I know there’s a whole thread on Parnell Square, but it’s been dormant for a while)
Graham: I’ll try and come back to this in more datail later, but I just want to clarify the point that I’ve been trying to make about the Trinity railings and front lawns.
The current railings are magnificent, there’s no question about that and together with the lawns they create an oasis of calm which is much loved my lots of people, including legions of Dubliners who’ve waited here to meet their dates, in the era before mobile phones. Although, why we can’t just have our transition to an oasis of calm, 10m further on, when we go through the archway is beyond me.
If you say that the previous railings (the ones we see in the Malton print) were erected by 1761, I’ll accept that too.
I also accept that the an enclosure at the front of Trinity existed before then. The half hexagonal enclosure we see on Brooking’s map of 1728 proves that the old front of Trinity was also, for a time, protected from the rough and tumble of the city by a railing enclosure. Brooking’s accompanying print shows this half wall / half railings in all it’s artless horrow.
Sorry for the image quality, my copy of Brooking’s map is tiny. The copy that used to hang on the half landing in the Civic Museum in South William Street, has obviously gone into storage somewhere.
Sorry, another bad quality image of the old front of Trinity, shown here above an elevation of the Library, again from Brooking’s map of 1728.My point is that at some point between 1728 and 1756, an extraordinary thing happened, something which would never happen today. The college authorities, possibly in tandem with city officials, threw down their defensive railings and briefly embraced the notion that Trinity constituted one edge of an emerging urban space, and one of some magnificence. My guess is that this happened about 1735 or so, when the new parliament house had been completed and College Green had assumed the role of the central civic space of the expanding city and, arguably, the nation (in whatever form that was perceived to be).
Whether, and for how long, the ground floor windows of the new west front were exposed to the grand civic space of College Green (as depicted on Rocque’s map) without the protection of a forward railing enclosure is a matter for speculation. I would point out, at this juncture, that the standard (Europe wide) solution to exposed ground floor windows, since Renaissance times if not earlier, has been simply to design in hefty iron grills.
An example from Rome, can’t remember which palazzo.I fully accept that there are plenty of other things wrong with College Green, as you have clearly identified, but I don’t think that it would do us any harm to include an appraisal of the existing railings and lawns in any future urban review of College Green, (not that there’s ever likeky to be an urban review of College Green, or anywhere else in Dublin).
Btw and at the risk of stirring the hornet’s nest again, your triangular urban space / traffic island opposite the Lord’s portico, would make a great square urban space, if we just got rid of the . . . .
