hutton
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
@Thomond Park wrote:
Corner of Sean McDermott and Gardiner Sts in the rather pointless park?
I was just thinking that myself – though that park is far from useless! Gets a lot of use. I revise my earlier position on leaving the temple front where it is. With that new development, the damage is done, and there is no way that it can be resolved in its current location:( . It simply looks ubsurd.
However if moved a couple of 100 yards, it would make a great feature in that park – while still keeping it in the area. Now if we were to be really ambitious, we could look at also ressurecting the Abbey facade – the granite blocks of which lie out in garden of the late Daithi Hanley in Killiney;)
BTW AoifeR, glad you liked my ‘greek reasoning’ + welcome to archiseek 🙂
Odd thing is, I reckon theyll have to change or add to these signs with diagramatic type such as that of the diagonal red line thru a black bottle. A stat that I have come across suggests 1 in 5 illiteracy in the adult pop 😮
Also, while I agree with the sentiments behind the creation of the bye-law, that it has all the authority of a local authority is a bit of a damp biscuit. For example, if not why then why the guards apply the DCC bye-law as to access to wcs in pubs; many places now openly advertise that their facilities are “for patrons use only”…All very arbitery, methinks;)
BTW Graham,
@Graham Hickey wrote:
Indeed. Come on – this is O’Connell Street, one of the busiest streets in the country in daylight hours….If anybody thinks that winos hold an intimidating presence over O’Connell Street in this day and age they clearly don’t use the street or still live in 1986.
The last (and only) time that an attempt was made to mug me on that st was indeed 1986! I was 11. 😮 😮
In fairness PDLL, thats twisting my suggestion somewhat, as first-off it is my own belief that we should try to apply the measure of sustainability to urban construction as to rural building, and here I declare an interest. At present I have some periphery involvement with a city-centre apartment scheme in which certain meaures are being incorporated into the design, such as gray-water recycling, passive solar panels etc.
Second-off, while I dont believe that one-off eco-houses are the complete panacea for all ills, they are of less impact to the environment – and generally tend to actually cost less. To be honest, I wouldnt have an objection to the use of a pattern-book for basic design ideas – provided 1) it uses sustainability as a basic criteria, and 2)architectural advice is sought as to how best apply such a design to a specific site… Now thats probably going to get up both the would-be builders and architects’ noses 😀
@Graham Hickey wrote:
Nope, though I see where you’re coming from.
A certain something peeking through the balustrade may give it away…Grrr … Ive been wrecking my head trying to figure out that grid-looking yoke in the background… Tis doing my head in…Maybe its not in Dublin at all but in Hedrek City 😀
Anyway throwing my toss at E,what say the Four Courts – left corner of the central block?
BTW Just to clarify, my original point was the futility of one-off threads dealing with the same issue, in this case one-off houses – that was my bugbear!
For those who have confused the criticism of repeatedly starting the same thread with any particular position on one-offs, if they were to check they might find that I also posted the following on the thread on one-offs in Meath –
@hutton wrote:
However if you are planning to work in the countryside, and will look into building sustainably (ie no leaking septic tanks to begin with ) and are looking into incorporating the abode into the topography etc, thats a different story.
It might be worth looking at using materials other than concrete for construction, wood, wattle, or straw – a lot less environmental impact, and much better thermal values. Also have a look at geo-thermal heating units etc.
A tip of genuine advice, if you are pursuing this route, have a look at the Green Building Handbook.
[https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=4991%5DWas such advice really a total anti-rural perspective? Me don’t think so…
@PDLL wrote:
If people on this site have a problem with that then they should examine the reasons …no matter how barbaric it may appear to the eyes of a UCD educated dilettante. Such lashing out at the rural population bespeaks nothing but a biased opinion of blind ignorance and arrogance and to that end there is a genuine need for proper editorial control over the virulent remarks being made against the rural community on this web-site. If not, then lets call a spade a spade and rename the whole shebang as Archiseek – DUBLIN.
😮
ROFL I love a good rant, so I do :p
@Alek Smart wrote:
A brief stroll along the Street last evening revealed little more than what appears to be a form of steel pole nursery.
ROFL 😀
But seriously, I agree with most of the sentiments already expressed by Jimg, G Hickey et al… After 4 years in the making it is most underwhelming.:(
What I really cannot understyand is the way OC Bridge has been left out of the scheme entirely:confused:
Surely the bridge should have been critical to the brief. Instead there is the retrospectively painted ghost lines on the road north-bound, almost as if it is intentional to create the impression that it is a check-point between North and South sides :rolleyes:
Where was the planning?
H
Have we any more information about this, ie architect, a more specific date – my one was purely a suggested date – and any site history? Ive gone through my books – the usual suspects – but to little avail 🙁
What were the conditions given to the new development when granting permission? Do they now own this, and so are they the ones responsible for its upkeep? Hmmm back to my enforcement point.
As to the style, I note that the building was built for the Presbyterians. Maybe this is why its built in the Greek style rather than a Roman form of classicism, thus that they got a temple style building inspired by a (somewhat) democratic state – in keeping with Presbyterian democratic values, while not having any of the dirty popeish connotations that a Roman classical building may have given rise to? Perhaps 😉
Any thoughts, any further info?
stifz,
Phil is offering you sound advice; sounds as if it is a matter that requires legal interpretation.
Hope youve recovered from the ‘roasting’, but as others pointed out you were probably unlucky in your timing.
BTW A very warm welcome to the site 😀
pr, you and developers have my sympathies here. The problem is that post-’77, in the abscence of rates and proper govt financing, local authorities are 1) racing to a bottom of the barrel planning-wise in terms of trying to create a rates base, and so are 2) seeking to raise revenue on the backs of developers who then pass it on to buyers, and 3) LAs subsequently ignore the preveious practise of maintaining areas such as privately developed housing estate…All the time central govt refuses to even pay the commercial rates due on its own properties in DCC area. Nice one lads:rolleyes:
@Bren88 wrote:
The probably cause is the fact that its the summer now and people are in the building buzz. Extensions and one-offs are a traditional summer passtime
Ah ’tis the weather then…last weeks sunshine has got to peoples heads 🙂
@Graham Hickey wrote:
So, who’s going to win the biggest PVC contract in the history of the state?
Might as well go the whole hog and clad the entire building in the stuff – a monument to Ireland’s love affair with plastic.
And aptly, a short term solution.ROFL 😀
Ooooh look at that…DCC’s lists as 7648 on the Record of Protected Structures –
“62 Sean MacDermott St Dublin 1. Corn mill building, former Presbyterian church (facade only)”
Clearly the facade is protected, judging its current state:(
Peculiarly above this listing at 7646, is listed “Sean Mac Dermott St Lower – Facade of former Presbyterian church”
Obviously there cant be 2, so this must be a double entry…
Hmm ..Twice the effort in listing, and half the effort of enforcement. Wonderful :rolleyes:
@stifz wrote:
You guys are pretty ‘open’ to the whole ‘forum’ ‘discussion’ thingy eh?
It feels like the cat caught among the hounds.Shouldnt that be “fox”?
:p
Bob, I dont mind if they visit the site – the more that educate themselves about planning/ environment/ architecture in this country, the better. It just began to bug me the amount of one-off posts that were being posted!
That said, I think your right that it would be worthwhile if it was established where the new members heard of the site – not that automatically they shouldnt be referred on, but for the benefit of Paul C and how the site is run!
H
TP, I defer to you on grounds 1, however Point 2 would be irrelevent to any developer if they were then to lose sq area!
So back to whacking it anyway then 🙂
@stifz wrote:
We’d then build our own house ( our right as it’s family land i believe ) and sell on the smaller house to live closer to our family..
A) Just because you/ your family own some land does not mean that that makes it suitable to build on. Perhaps you are a victim of govt double-speak about people having the right to live where they grew up, just because they gew up there. But if that were the case, and if my folks lived on Ailsbury Rd – which they dont – would that gaurantee me the automatic right/ pp to fill in the garden with a one-off bungalow? Me dont think so!
B) I think TP is offering you sound advice; in any case why would you want the headaches of building 2 abodes instead of one – unless it is a plan motivated by profit.
C) I am normally not hostile to anyone on this – check out my posts – but this week far too many new people have been posting one-off threads about one-off houses, when the matter has been done to death on this site, if they had just looked first. And while “every case is different’, there not really, and especially as the new OPs arent even bothered to put up details, maps, etc and instead just ask vague questions about specific cases.
Excuse me, but *yawn*
H
What about recladding and refurbishing the building – this has been done sucessfully elsewhere, eg the awful eyesores that were on Stephens Green… It just strikes me that any developer of this site would be unlikely to get pp to replicate the volume as currently exists, as well as demolition being wasteful.
Now theres a thought – bet you never imagined that I would be advocating a development strategy that would in part keep/ reuse a building that we all – and me especially – depise!:p
