johnglas

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 20 posts - 301 through 320 (of 361 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Dublin’s Ugliest Building #713231
    johnglas
    Participant

    So long as architects are actually prepared to live in it!

    in reply to: Dundalk #752711
    johnglas
    Participant

    Guys, an interesting discussion on the intricasies of townscape, but a plan would have gone a long way towards elucidating the scheme better. I’ve always thought of Dundalk as an extremely dreary town, but clearly things are looking up. Although the scale of the insertion shown above may not be excessive in absolute terms, Graham H’s well-argued points show the value of local knowledge – the rebuilt neighbouring shop looks to me like a textbook example of how to be trendy and respectful of the historic fabric at the same time.

    johnglas
    Participant

    ake: a wonderful series of pictures of a very historic building; given that both this and the C of I cathedral were both designed by the same architect (John Roberts) at the end of the 18thC – a ramarkable feat in itself – it is perhaps ironic that the Cath cathedral has now developed a more ‘anglican’ feel. The present colour scheme may be chaste, but too much splendid detail (‘pagan’ rather than ‘christian’ in the classical manner) has been lost.
    One thing that intrigues me: where did the forest of tie-bars come from? Is the fabric so unstable? There are none in Christchurch, so did the catholics build their’s on the cheap? I thought there would be other technical, less intrusive, means of dealing with this problem. Tie-bars are often a feature of Italian gothic churches, demonstrating a lack of familiarity with Gothic building techniques (e.g. the use of buttresses), and not to their aesthetic advantage either.

    johnglas
    Participant

    Prax: Yes , there are some proposals not merely to ‘renovate’ the interior, but to extend the sanctuary area, build some new ancillary accommodation in the form of a ‘cloister’ and otherwise drastically reorder the building. I did e-mail the Administrator (prosaic title) to voice concern at some of the details; he did do me the honour of a reply.
    I have very mixed views about the proposals; the building (built 1814-16, Gillespie Graham architect) is badly in need of a makeover. It was neglected for years, no least by Cardinal Winning. The new plans have simply appeared; the new cloister, though welcome, will present a very blank (almost Arabic) facade to the street. The sanctuary will be extended by at least two bays (though the present tripartite apse will be demolished and rebuilt as the ‘new’ apse), and the sanctuary area will be ‘opened up’ (my main concern). In addition, the present Lady Altar (a middling late-19th C crocketted creation) is to be relocated and possibly ‘broken up’ (cf. Newry Cathedral). A pair of parclose screens (themselves the relics of the erstwhile choir stalls) will simply vanish. All the details are sketchy, but I fear the worst. The present state of the cathedral is so dingy that almost anything will look better.
    I’ll keep you posted and, in the meantime, I’ll renew my correspondence with Mgr McElroy.

    in reply to: ILAC centre #732071
    johnglas
    Participant

    Beautiful facades, which should teach some people a lesson about over-enthusiastic remodelling or even removal of early 20th C buildings. But what about those shopfronts?! Bland or what? Where is DCC’s design guide?

    johnglas
    Participant

    Aaagh… they simply do not write songs like that any more!
    Unfortunately, the only time I ever saw it I did not have the presence of mind to switch on any lights. If there is one space that needs light to appreciate it fully, this is it. That in itself is not without symbolism. For a chapel that would eschew any ‘popish’ connections, it has a remarkably domestic scale of rococo decoration and an expressionist display of aptness and tenderness in the stucco work that I have rarely seen equalled. Yet another (?) undervalued gem in Dublin’s architecture.

    johnglas
    Participant

    Prax: you have it in one – I was pushed to find out quite what was the function of this space when I first saw an illustration of it.
    As a ‘meditation space’ it might just pass muster; as a chapel it fails miserably (where is the Christian iconography of any sort?). If it is not a Christian chapel, then it should think of another name (I presume some non-Christians would object to the use of the term ‘chapel’). Perhaps ‘Funky Light Space’ would be better. (Am I too harsh?)
    One can but sigh for hospital chapels like the Rotunda’s – now there’s artistry!

    johnglas
    Participant

    Ake:I think you’re a bit hard on the colour scheme; from your initial comments I thought they had done the whole church in bright blue, but as it is they have kept to a fairly neutral base and indeed have used two graded shades of blue – a light blue band lower down and the brighter blue higher up, again used mainly as (extensive) highlighting of the coffers and compartments in the ceiling. In all, it’s not a bad job; presumably blue after the dedication to the Immaculate Conception.
    Love the altar rails in what I presume is the Blessed Sacrament chapel; they have a real Art Deco feel – not exactly appropriate to the style of the church, but splendid all the same. Incidentally, the flooring throughout the church looks magnificent; let’s all pray earnestly that someone does not think of covering it in carpet!
    The loss of altar rails in the main church and of the ambulatory gates/railings is to be regretted. ‘Open-ness’ is fine, but not if the price is the vandalism of historic fittings.

    in reply to: Point Village #760911
    johnglas
    Participant

    BTH: I’ve no reason ro doubt your sensitivity, but I’m not convincedit’s such a big issue and to destroy the old to justify the aesthetics of the bland new seems to me a step too far. What if in 10 years time everyone hates the current intervention and wants to redo it making more positive use of the old building form?

    johnglas
    Participant

    Interesting that the spokesperson for Limerick CC was so anxious to get ‘the Fire Brigade’ (!) to knock the bldg in question; it just demonstrates that the ‘dangerous building’ is the local authority equivalent of the ‘insurance’ fire.

    in reply to: reorganisation and destruction of irish catholic churches #771346
    johnglas
    Participant

    Prax: the only reference I can find is an exotic one – in Times, Chimes and Charms of Dublin by J Curtis (Verge Books Ltd, 1992, p.113) – where it is stated as having been built in 1912; there is naturally great detail about the bells, but no architect mentioned!

    johnglas
    Participant

    ake: very nice pics – this church should prosper with the development of the Docklands. The mosaics and statuary (of the two angels holding – originally – candles) are of a very high order and illustrate the earlier points about the quality of 19th C artwork, in a positive sense in this case. The gap in the rails will be so wide because the gates have been removed (why?) and the space between the gateposts deliberately widened (for no apparent reason). The church is generally in very good nick and has a nice atmosphere. Apart from the altar gates and the daft position of the font, it appears reasonably intact.

    johnglas
    Participant

    Prax: you are right of course on both counts; the church looks to me like a 14th or 15th C Baltic gothic church (with characteristic brickwork) – here is the facade (it is the church of sw. Bartolomieja in the (Ukrainian) Greek-catholic eparchy of Wroclaw-Gdansk).

    in reply to: New Court Complex – Infirmary Rd #756848
    johnglas
    Participant

    This thread has gone dead – anyone have any idea of progress on the new courthouse, or even a few pics?

    johnglas
    Participant

    I believe it is a psychological phenomenon where you do not really ‘see’ but you ‘know’ what it is!
    There are clear exceptions to my sweeping statement about 18th and 19th C art, but I think the general point is valid. There is the example of the Orthodox tradition of icons, and while it is true that individual icons are very beautiful (for the most part) and the overall effect can be stunning (and no-one can deny the numinous interior of these churches), their very profusion can simply overwhelm. There is a good example of a church in Gdansk (geb. Danzig) which was probably Latin rite (via a spell of Lutheranism) but is now Byzantine. The church is very plain, but the iconostasis oozes good taste. I am trying to do an attachment.

    in reply to: Point Village #760907
    johnglas
    Participant

    What’s all this about ‘getting rid of’ the gables on the Point building? It’s not just a case of appeasing ‘the preservation lobby’; without the gables, the building would have a ‘short front and sides’ look and the ‘new’ architecture (which you admit lacks imagination) would be put into even starker relief. You cannot just get rid of historic architecture; if you’re going to ‘add’ to it you can’t eliminate it to suit the new style. Better to demolish it and lose a part of urban history forever than mutilate it. What will be the lifespan of the ‘new’ Point – 25, 20 15 years…? Too late then to say that the old rail depot had some integrity.
    Some of you clearly have all the historical sensitivity of the madman who planted the mine in the Four Courts and destroyed the archival history of 700 years; most of what is built today will be so yesterday tomorrow.

    johnglas
    Participant

    PS: to modify my last comment a bit- the statue of OL and Child is chaste and delicate, the polychrome statues of the Sacred Heart and St Anthony are not (although the main objection is to their positioning, not their existence). Why doesn’t the church cultivate a higher standard of iconography? Medieval statuary and painting is powerful, as is the ‘old master’ artwork of the
    16th and even 17th centuries, but from the 18th century onwards it has been downhill all the way, with the 19th century being arguably the worst (‘Pugin’-school and similar excepted).

    johnglas
    Participant

    ake: couldn’t agree more about the incongruity of a ‘modern’ (i.e. contemporary) church with ‘traditional’ statuary and iconography. It can work, but only if the traditional is of a very high quality, which it isn’t here. I would consign ‘repository art’ statuary to the dustbin (of history) – controversial, but… Contemporary representational art is pretty dire, however, so there is a bit of a quandary.
    The representation of OL is, I presume, of the Immaculate Heart; whatever the theology (or is it mere devotion?), the cult of both the Sacred Heart (of Jesus) and of the IHOM is unfortunate artistically and it is hard to avoid the sentimental or the downright gruesome. But it is so deeply engrained (although actually not necessary as a feature in parish churches, in spite of the ubiquity) that my objections are probsably pointless.

    in reply to: dublin airport terminal #717324
    johnglas
    Participant

    Darkman: grow up – criticism should be answered with an argument – what age are you – 13 1/2?

    johnglas
    Participant

    Prax: By a curious twist of the camera position you have illustrated just how visually ob/intrusive trees can be! Usually seen as A Good Thing they can occasionally obscure very good facades. The lone example on the St Mary’s side shows this perfectly. The only trees that should be anywhere near this beautiful and serene buiding should be fastigate species like cypresses or Irish yew, assuming you could get them to grow here.

Viewing 20 posts - 301 through 320 (of 361 total)

Latest News