gunter
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
@Praxiteles wrote:
The chancel in St. Paul’s Aran Quay is closely modelled on St. Mary’s Moorfields in London. As with that church, it was originally supplied with a large fresco of the Crucifixion on the wall behind the High Altar. The Crucifixion was replaced in 1862 by a copy of of one of Rubens compositions on the conversion of St. Paul. This copy was executed by F. S. Barff of Dublin . . . .
The bad news is that the original, dating from 1616/1617, was destroyed in the burning of the Flakturm in Friedrickshain in 1945.. . . . . Friedlaender maintains that it was in large measure the work of Ruben’s bottega and that in this picture Rubens re-worked an Italian mannerist idea deriving from Zuccari or Salviati. So, the Dublin copy is more significant than might be imagined and greater care should be taken of it.
Archiseek rocks:)
The very theatrical interior of St. Paul’s, Arran Quay.
Never been in this church before, but then ‘Culture Night’ 🙂 comes along and you find yourself in the strangest places.
The primary red and yellow on the ceiling is startling, but weren’t original Greek temples garishly painted too?
. . . . and people always complain that our public transport isn’t integrated.
When is the first meeting of the O’Connell Street Survivors Group?
These two houses look like they could be a complete (early 20th century?) brick-by-brick rebuilding of two houses depicted by Rocque in 1756, (if he actually existed).
detail from Rocque’s map when this section of the street was called Gravel Walk.
The houses retain the small gabled returns, the massive central chimney stack and the corner fireplaces of the pre-Georgian ‘Billy’ plan and I’d be very interested to see if either of these houses retained any other discernable features from their probable, early 18th century, manifestation.
Which type of poxy replacement windows these house have is also interesting.
From Phoenix Magazine, August 2009:
RAISE a toast to developer Shane Murphy, who’s finally got permission
to redevelop the Dorset Street home that was not Brinsley Sheridan’s,
the 18th century playwright and politician.
Back in 2007 a row emerged when the remains of the house, listed on
the belief it was the home of Brinsley Sheridan, were permitted to be
demolished by Dublin City Council.
In went the appeal by local Senator David Norris to An Bord Pleanála,
supported by An Taisce, and planning journalist Ruadhán MacEoin. And
down in flames went the permission.
However it then emerged that although Brinsley Sheridan lived at 12
Dorset Street, it actually wasn’t this house, as prior to 1840 the
street was renumbered – with the “real†Sheridan house inadvertently
demolished years ago.
Hence Murphy was free to get the house de-listed, and replace it with
a new development. But the saga took another twist when Murphy instead
applied to reinstate the house in which Brinsley Sheridan wasn’t born
in – and match it with a twin Georgian style townhouse that was never
there.
Although a reinstatement, the Dominican priory next-door appealed the
scheme to An Bord Pleanála. Again Norris and MacEoin also filed
observations – but this time welcoming the redevelopment.
Happily Murphy has just got consent from the Bord – but with this
stipulation: “details of the plaque to be placed on the wall to
commemorate the proximity of Brinsley Sheridan shall be submitted to,
and agreed with the planning authority prior to commencement of
developmentâ€.
“A plaque on all your houses!†Goldhawk says.”A plaque on all your houses” I do like that:) leave it to Goldhawk to murder Shakespeare!
Probably better than ‘A plague on both your mortgages’
@tommyt wrote:
. . . . people on here know there is a poisonous cabal of pseuds and spoofers trading as our neo-urbanist betters & overlords in Wood Quay (with some honourable exceptions I know).
🙂
@GrahamH wrote:
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 proposedâ€, suggesting that permission would be granted if the necessary modifications are made.
© The Irish Times
I don’t think it was ever envisaged that ABP would take on this role of re-designing, or directing the re-design of, major urban schemes, such as here or the ‘Opera Centre’ in Limerick, but fair play to them for not just flipping a coin and cashing their pay-cheques.
@Junior wrote:
. . . . I decided to go one further and use the information from the Civil Survey together with all the cartographic information available in the Limerick Museum to draught a new map which is far more accurate (not just a pretty picture).
Outstanding, re-plotting historical maps is a head-wrecker, but incredibly valuable.
What does your map tell us about the Mary Street ‘Billys’, opposite Gaol Lane? How is it that there appears to be a laneway opening in the centre of the group where there should be a party wall? or was the centre pair a single property with twin gables? (or was the whole thing a single property with four gables?). Does the last of the Billys line up with Fanning’s Castle, or not?
@Junior wrote:
The map and accompanying booklet on the extant medieval fabric of Limerick is due to be published in September.
Will there be complementary copies for Archiseekers?
@searbh wrote:
. . . the church of St. Sebald in Nuremberg . . . the choir and nave are not aligned.
Can anyone shed any light on this? Is it likely to be deliberate or simply a matter of cowboy building in the middle ages?
the change in alignment looks pretty slight on plan, I can’t say I ever noticed it on the ground and it’s one of my all time favourite churches. The way that the big hall-church chancel juts out into the rising streetscape, sheer urban magic! Sorry can only find one of gunter’s dodgy Christmas market photos.
On the subject of great steeples, Freiburg gets my vote
@johnglas wrote:
. . . his contention that all true Christian churches were cruciform is just plain wrong. (Most pre-1829 churches were rectangular or T-shaped.)
. . . and the early crusader churches of the Hospitallers and the Templars were round! (not Torphichen unfortunately johnglas, nor Kilmainham, as far as we know!)
I take it the basilica isn’t Christian in Kevin Myers world!
Mr. Buckley should get out the lead and post a better picture and not let his creation take the hammering hutton’s picture gives it:) . . . It could take me a week to find mine, and that’s assuming that I actually took the pictures and didn’t just fully intend to take the pictures!
One of the reasons I’d be a bit tolerant of the Henrietta Street block is that it doesn’t do this:
a recent spec. apartment block around the corner on Mountjoy Street.These guys came up with 17 good ideas, but unfortunately they were let use all of them, with the result that the scheme bursts out in all directions, literally and architecturally;)
Devin, I’m not going to go into battle for that scheme, I don’t like ‘blocks’ pure and simple, I think the ‘block’ is the wrong unit to use in the repair of streetscapes, but, as blocks go, I don’t think this one is as bad as has been made out.
I’ve forgotten who the architects were, but you can certainly see a certain amount of architectural intention in it. For a start, they picked up the deBlacam + Meagher brick/pointing detail from the ‘Wooden Building’, which was well worth giving another whirl to, and they resisted the temptation to over-elaborate the corner and that should have earned them some brownie points at least.
There should have been some stepping of the side elevation to reflect the sloping streetscape of Henrietta St. and (as I keep saying) the proportions all worked better before the etched glazing went on, but I think to gratuitously dump on it every time Henrietta Street is mentioned, is a bit unfair.
Personally I can think of a couple of dozen worse spec apartment blocks in the inner city.
Oh Christ! . . . now hutton’s back, are you two hunting in packs
You left out my bit about the squirrels!
That last bit should have read: he knocked the city off it’s axis . . .not access . . obviously.
Are you saying he didn’t smell?
That’s a brutal photograph hutton!
That’s Daily Star hatchet-job-on-Kate-Moss quality. I know have a shot of it somewhere, before all that pale green glass got bolted on, and it wasn’t that bad.
@hutton wrote:
The monsterous block built at the end of the street was approved by Dublin City Council in 2003 – again the DCC planning department to blame, who should have stopped this.
What is so terribly wrong about that building?
OK, it’s a big square block, but most of the lauded Henrietta Street houses are big square blocks!
I think it was one of the better in-fill apartment schemes from the ‘Tiger’ years and until the etched glass balconies were bolted on flush, killing some of the window proportions, and the etched glass roof terrace barrier went on, killing the vertical proportions of the chimneyesque central lift shaft, this was a class scheme, no?
@Tuborg wrote:
Have ABP gone about their business in a rather strange manner here or are they perfectly within their rights?
Those are murky waters to be casting a fishing hook into Tuborg!
Probably better just to thank Christ somebody sorted this all out. The (17) conditions look pretty comprehensive to me, . . . . of course it does all hinge on what exactly was submitted on 1 May.
CONDITIONS1. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the plans and
particulars lodged with the application, as amended by the revised plans and
particulars (including in relation to conservation of existing historic
buildings) received by An Bord Pleanála on the 1st May 2009, except as may
otherwise be required in order to comply with the following conditions.
Reason: To conserve the architectural heritage of the area and in the interest
of clarity.2. The architectural treatment at the junction of Glover’s Lane with Patrick
Street shall be as indicated in the design shown on Douglas Wallace sketch
drawing “Option 1†received by An Bord Pleanála on the 1st May 2009.
Board Direction
Reason: To reflect the historic street pattern of the area.The wording of that condition no. 2 would seem to imply that the applicants submitted several versions of some aspects of the development adopting a ”take your pick” approach. Maybe it could be said that such an approach is lacking in design conviction, but hell, if it works, as it seems to have done here, I don’t know I think I’d be inclined to overlook that 🙂
That must have been quite an event.
A couple of thoughts on some of those papers.
Dr. Helen Diety’s ”Nuptial Meaning of Classic Church Architecture”.
Making cross-cultural connections can be a minefield.
Is it not true that when a new movement starts, it is nearly always wont to plunder elements from existing culture in order to bolster it’s credentials and compete for a following. An easily accessible example would be the Mormons, who’s founding text, Joseph Smith’s ‘Book of Mormon’ contains passages lifted from all kinds of sources, everything from the Bible to Shakespeare.
In this case, the borrowed tracts offer little that is inherent to an understanding of the new religious movement, and are unlikely to reveal much in forensic analysis, because they were lifted simply for their gravitas.
I suspect that something similar is going on with the early Christian architecture’s borrowings from the structures evolved for Jewish rites.
Mr. Ethan Anthony and his ‘Third Revival, New Gothic + Romanesque Catholic Architecture’: . . . . what would an inovator like Abbot Suger say to this man?
Professor Duncan G. Stroik’s assertion that ”All great works of art are a manifestation of God”, is going to be a tricky statement to stand up, unless we’re going to relax the definition of ‘manifestation of God’ to include lots of pretty profane stuff!
On Neil J. Roy’s paper, I have to admit that I know nothing of the liturgical significance of ‘The Galilee Chapel’, but having recently visited Durham Cathedral, I would agree that the presence of the Galilee Chapel at the west end in no way diminishes the impact of the original architectural intentions, and if anything, entering the great church through a nave aisle only heightens the impact of the gigantic pillars and makes the experience more intriguing and mysterious, some would probably say spiritual.
dodgy interior shot of the north aisle (entrance) of Durham, looking towards the Galilee chapel at the west end.
