John
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
After hearing the responses on this forum I was dreading seeing this building, but I have to say I think some of the criticism has been a bit excessive. I quite like the pale stone cladding and from what I saw there seemed to be a lot of gaps in the facade which remain to be covered, perhaps with some decorative features, which might reduce its “clunkiness”.
I think most of the comments on this topic have been a little harsh on Sen. David Norris and his fellow residents of Nth. Great George’s St., possibly as a result of the Sunday Times article on the matter. Senator Norris appeared much more reasonable about the proposal on the radio than the article would suggest, and I think there are some reasonable arguments in favour of putting gates on the street. For example, the problem of joyriding in the area is quite prevalent, and only recently there was an incident in nearby Hill street where joyriders crashed a double-decker bus into an apartment building. Surely its not unreasonable to try and prevent incidents such as these. I also don’t agree that it would create a snobby “enclave” as the proposal only suggests gating one end, and pedestrian access would be uninhibited. And as has been said in this forum already gates at this end would appear to have a historical precedent. Also the argument that they would impede emergency vehicles seems a little dubious as fire engines (presumably from Tara St.) would approach the street from the ungated Marlborough St. end and ambulances from the Mater or Temple St. Hospital would surely use Hill St.
I am not an architect (nor am I in any way connected with developers) but I do take a keen interest in development work and architecture.
I have to admit that I do not find anything particularly attractive about Pelican House. It does not have any obvious distinctive features and I just wonder whether you should not also take into account the plans for the building to replace it before criticising its demoltion outright.
Is there a danger that architects are too sensitive to demolition of building from the recent past? What makes this building worthy of preservation?
PS I understand from the IT that BoI is a prospective tenant.
I am not an architect (nor am I in any way connected with developers) but I do take a keen interest in development work and architecture.
I have to admit that I do not find anything particularly attractive about Pelican House. It does not have any obvious distinctive features and I just wonder whether you should not also take into account the plans for the building to replace it before criticising its demoltion outright.
Is there a danger that architects are too sensitive to demolition of building from the recent past? What makes this building worthy of preservation?
