johnglas

Pertinent as usual, GrahamH; I didn’t mention the awfulness of those ‘mews’ offices, but I suppose it’s all remediable in the future. I can remember the tree-lined expanse of Baggot St (Upper/Lower?) – as civilised a streetscape as you’ll get anywhere – but I just can’t picture LM’s; any pics of it?
Incidentally, I think the part of Baggot St on the ‘far’ side of the canal is a great example of an urban village, which should be used as a template for, for example, Thomas St. (I mean,forget the densification and the drive to oblterate any trace of the street’s architectural history; restore what can be restored and insert sensitive infill where you cannot.
What makes areas like this ‘work’ is the number, range and variety of commercial outlets and institutional uses, with the upper floors intact and also in use. It’s not that difficult.)

And there was me thinking that the stadium had escaped that awful fate… And the point of making it blobby is…? What the rationale is for making something coherent and legible into something incoherent and illegible escapes me – architecture in crisis in more ways than one.

Prax: I’m somewhat more with Gunter on the subject of Esmeralda and Quasimodo! Perhaps the conundrum can be resolved a bit by applying theories of ‘beauty’ (or, more accurately, ‘the beautiful’) to objects (inc. buildings and furnishings), but not to persons- or, to take a Thomist approach, beauty in the person is an ‘accidental’, but the ‘substantial’ is something else altogether!
Loved that series on the Texan churches in NLM; perhaps a bit polychromatic for my taste (in terms of statuary certainly), but the incidental stencilling and the general proportions of the buidings are exquisite – what remarkable survivals.

This is getting tedious: if you object to people having a discussion (sic) about a bar, to the extent of walking out, then you really have to ask yourself what you are doing in a western democracy. And yes, one option is for you to ‘go home’ wherever that is. If you stop discussing things because people might ‘walk out’, then you really are in trouble.
You may dislike my humour, but I reserve my right to make bad jokes. You certainly have not made me defer – your logic is all over the place. By the way, I am in a civil partnership; it gives me all the legal rights of a marriage without the bad taste and the exorbitant rip-offs. I don’t feel my rights have been in any way diminished.

So PC! If you can cite anywhere in the West where any of the above are illegal, then I’ll defer.
(And is it OK in PCland to caricature a whole Western belief-system, ostensibly as a defence of Islam?)

PS It was a joke, already.

This may be interesting, but it needs to be understood with a great degree of caution, if not downright gloom. This could equally have been entitled the ‘Rip-off League’; agents are interested in growth and profit, not affordability. If you want to live in an affordable, pleasant (even dull) place, opt for middle-of-the-road performers. That is where Dublin should now be aiming; being in the big league means high rents and high house prices, therefore suburbanisation and unlivable-in centres, with frantic, property-led development. I think you’ve been there.

CraigFay: you’re making a good case, but I’m still convinced that the ‘glass’ cover will go above and be separate from the side cladding, meaning the render you showed will not be accurate. (In my opinion, this new articulation will be an improvement and a move away from ‘blobby’ architecture.)

‘… it is new-strung and will be heard’ – or at least walked-on! A metaphor for our times. If I were you lot, I’d ask why it’s being fabricated in NL rather than IRL.

And how… I’ve one or two pics of some of the interesting churches, which I’ll send on if I can.

Craigfay: good pics. That man glaring at you looks as though he’s about to run over and nutter you. Did he?