johnglas
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Could it be the time sequence? Gothic preceded Neo-classical (and Baroque), so a Baroque piece could historically have been placed in a gothic building (although the argument becomes a bit complicated when you slot in Neo-Gothic, etc.). Many continental churches built in the middle ages have been ‘baroqued’, but I think this is rarely a happy marriage.
That presumes that developers have a strategy other than making money and beating their competitors. There will always tend to be an over-supply of commercial floorspace to allow for some ‘slack’; in a downturn, there will be a certain amount of ‘rationalisation’ (i.e. closure), but the main driver is fashion: what’s hot? what’s not?. So, even if there is a theoretical over-supply in Limerick, this would not prevent the Opera Centre going ahead. The big factor at the moment would be: will the banks finance it?
Surely that is the painting by David of Napoleon crowning Josephine, with the Pope (seated) fuming in the background.
I should have said that any ‘screening’ of the sanctuary shopuld ensure that it is clearly seen from the back of the church; that would suggest glass, but the thought of a contemporary ‘iconostasis’ or of a solid screen only up to the height of the arcade would offer endless possibilities for creativity and good taste. (Sorry, did I utter a profanity?) The nave space could also be capable of opening up for a larger congregation or audience. I think we need some multi-task thinking here.
Here is what I think is a brilliant modern iconostasis from a Latin-rite church adapted for Greek-catholic use in Gdansk:Part of the solution in a church as big as the Franciscan in Limerick would be to confine the library use to the nave (which would be very appropriate for it) and screen off (sensitively) the sanctuary area and the side chapels as a ‘worship space’ (or whatever the contemporary trendy term is). This would preserve the fabric of the building (any changes being ‘reversible’) and maintain at least part of it in religious use. Not perfect, but a good compromise.
Prax: I hope you won’t mind me being a bit mischievous here; there are of course two splendid 18th century tapestries in Dublin of a ‘religious’ character. They are in the old House of Lords and depict The Heroic Defence of Londonderry and The Glorious Battle of the Boyne! It is also said that the Lord Lieutenant sat under a canopy of crimson velvet (a ‘pavillon d’etat’?) when opening sessions of the Parliament of Ireland. So, we now know the origins of this ‘Orange’ iconongraphy (cf. also the design of the banners carried in Orange processions).
Interestingly there are two tapestries designed by Dutch landscape painter William Van der Hagen and woven by John Van Beaver dating from circa 1733 in the hall. The tapestries are unique. One represents the “Battle of the Boyne” and the other the “Defence of Londonderry”. Each of the tapestries has five portrait and narrative medallions around the central scene which depict, narrate and name central characters and events in each of the battles. Both also have “trophies of arms and figures of Fame below enclosed by fringed curtains”
.
The quote is from Wikipedia and the illustration (poor) is of the GBoB tapestry.The website is:
http://www.diogh.org/Don’t know if anyone is familiar with the new ‘co-cathedral’ just dedicated in Houston TX. It looks like a very conservative design, but is undoubtedly a building of some dignity and presence. These pics are not great; there’s more on the Galveston-Houston website.
gunter: I think your last point is very well made. In any major development (define?) – and this clearly is by any measure – not only should there be agreed planning guidelines in place (such as there have been in one form or another throughout urban history), but there should be a process of ‘due diligence’, arguably even before submission, to make sure that it measures up to what is required for the site. A site of such major impact as this cannot simply be the domain of the developer, nor even of the planning department, but of the whole community. At the moment there is no vehicle for that except through the planning system, which is limited and bureaucratic and subject to fashion like everything else.
Just one more thought on ‘objections’ v. ‘support’: it’s perfectly true that support should in theory rank equally with objections, but you then have the prospect of big-beast developers buying support (you support me on A, I’ll give you the sub-contract on B, etc.). I still maintain the planners should ignore (as a rule) letters of support and entertain only objections strictly on planning grounds. The confusion arises because, with any planning application, all other things being equal, the presumption should be in favour of approval. A development should be refused only if it is ,e.g., contrary to the zoning of the site or because of some other valid planning objection, which is why they matter more than any amount of support.
Vkid: sense at last; couldn’t agree more. I’m an outsider taking an interest, not mounting personal attacks or defending my position to the last ditch. From what I remember of Limerick, it has agreat urban feel, with probably an undeserved reputation for violence, a bit like Glasgow in fact.
No. Your behaviour is akin to a spoiled child who has to have his own way and the last word; I may be spam, you are certainly not caviare. The tall ship (the Glenlee) is berthed alongside and parallel to a quayside wall, so there’s no comparison.
Cologne Mike: Here we go again… I’d forgotten that message – clearly you haven’t. My comment was just that, a comment, not directed at you. There is nothing worse than suggesting something out of context from somewhere else; there is simply no equivalent site in Glasgow.
Try to avoid turning everything into a personal attack.Prax: I think it’s now about time for a Cobh ‘Committee of Public Safety’ or equivalent to secularise the building and put it into the hands of a competent authority. (I’m not saying that the Lord Bishop should be guillotined in Cobh’s equivalent of the Place de la Concorde, but…)
This case also underlines the fallacy of regarding major items of patrimony like Cobh cathedral as just a slightly bigger parish church that can be managed in the same way as a rural parish.There is another option: come up with a better-designed proposal that is not just maximising commercial floorspace and actually complements rather than swamps the bridge and the existing Edwardian boathouse/club. Turning this site into a suburban lawn is hardly an option at all.
What I can’t understand is why DCC even entertains ‘messages of support’; what does that have to do with the planning system?You could have umpteen vacuous supports, but if there is only one valid planning objection that carries far more weight and is the only one the planners should look at. It’s a planning application, not a popularity contest; no wonder the planning system is clogged up if they’re entertaining this dross.
Of course, but they’re punting an image of it that makes it look like an ugly brute,etc. Maybe that’s just the ‘warrant design’ and there’s a swan in there somewhere. We’ll see.
The images of the exterior still make it look like an ugly brute; no wonder the residents were upset. Even the aerial progress shots demonstrate just how cramped the site is.
