Forum Replies Created

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 39 total)
  • Author
  • vitruvius

    I know how sad it is to be replying to myself, but the though occurred to me that that park in Arthur’s quay was pushed through by the council with the same zeal as this sub Liebeskindian steamship.
    And just look how that project,which was deemed necessary for Limerick turned out.
    Do they have any collective memory?
    Why not just leave well enough alone – let the apartment dwellers continue to sunbathe on poor man’s Kilkee.


    you’d swear that land in Limerick was €100m an acre! – there’s plenty of space in Limerick for (oh dear!) iconic structures without plonking one into the poor old Shannon. What about the nearby Dunnes site on Sarsfield St and that creepy park in Arthur’s quay:)

    in reply to: The Opera Centre #780588

    It’s not beyond the bounds of imagination to conserve these buildings AND to add infill behind.
    Anybody on here knows the Trinity science block, which abuts Westland Row?
    The houses in Westland Row are nothing to write home about, BUT they are a continuous, unbroken, unadulterated row. The interstitium is filled with a glazed atrium which has access at various levels to the thoroughly modern, functional buildings behind.
    The architects took the opinion that the new buildings would have a finite life, hence when in 15/20 years they have to be rebuilt, they can be, without damaging the fabric of the original buildings on Westland Row.

    It’d certainly make for a nice shopping experience than some glass and marble, air conditioned, security-guard patrolled shopping centre.

    Limerick City Council should adopt an attitude of what we have, we hold.
    Although, having just learned that they voted to delist the boat club, these morons could do anything.

    in reply to: The Opera Centre #780584

    Absolutey agree.
    There are very few magnificent Georgian buildings in Limerick.
    However, the lesser, quainter, simpler, cheaper buildings of the city are its very fabric – the canvas as it were. They set a tone of quiet sobriety and aspiration to an aesthetic completeness that is/ was very ambitious.

    It would be a travesty to interfere with those buildings at Bank Place and Rutland st.
    If you enter the city from the Clare (Killaloe) side – the city is pretty much the same as it was 200 years ago form Nicholas St. to Patrick st. (Sarsfield House, which I kinda like, aside) – St. Mary’s cathedral, the courthouse, the old courthouse, the Matthew bridge, bank place, the granary, the custom house etc.

    The corner of Bank Place is like a portal or a gateway into Rutland, Patrick, O’Connell st.
    As such, it is very, very important to the look and feel of Limerick as a Georgian city.

    As well as all that, the height of all of the surrounding buildings is set by this row of buildings.

    IF ABP ok’s their demolition – we’ll have to stage a Hume St-esque sit in.


    Nike make shoes?


    Who’d have thought land prices were so expensive in that part of town that they’d have to build up?
    I wonder does the developer have tenants in mind for storey 3 to storey 18? Or will it be another white elephant squatting in the city?


    Not being snooty or ‘owt but all shopping centres are cheap. They’re the greatest thing since sliced foccacia for about a month until the next sandstone and glass monolith comes along.
    They are also private spaces – once the lights go off and the shutters sail down in the evening that’s it closed off to the public.
    They lack permeability -they don’t do shops opening onto the street.


    I couldn’t disagree more.
    Of course redevelopment and new building should happen in the city centre but please, let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water.

    The opera centre is very ambitious but the current plan goes to the very heart of what is wrong with Limerick City Council. They are willing to foresake the streetscape of Rutland St./Patrick st. in order to bring in the rates cheque.
    The fact that Rutland st./ Patrick st. is a relatively intact continuous streetscape seems to be of absolutely no concern to the city council.
    The houses in themselves are no great shakes architecturally but they are intact and represent what was originally envisioned by the 18th builders.
    Does the entrance into the centre have to be that big?
    I have no problem with the filling in of the A shaped area behind Ellen st./Patrick/Rutland St. with a modern development so long as the street is preserved – including doors that open on to the street. We don’t want it to become like Pearse st. in Dublin where TCD have bricked up all the doors and windows of the shops.

    They obviously cannot see what poor planning has done to the middle section of O’Connell st. from Burger King up to AIB – a nightmare of different rooflines and shite buildings.

    All becomes well again beyond that.


    jimg is absolutely right.
    There is either no civic pride or else a black hole of aesthetic ignorance in Limerick City Council.
    There is an utter inability to appreciate what we have and the lack of imagination to aspire to something that isn’t ‘developer-lead’.

    This sounds like an echo of the arguments that were being made in Dublin 30 or more years ago. Conservation and commerce can coexist. In fact, a city centre full of preserved and imaginatively reused buildings is a far more attractive place than any suburban shopping mall or ‘precinct’.
    I have a dream!

    Here’s a list of things I’d love to see happen in Limerick:
    -all remaining Georgian buildings protected – no matter how insignificant or run down. If they’re tumbledown – get an enforecement order.

    -the city council to have a coherent plan about the conservation of th historic city centre – not wetting their knickers at the thought of all the rates revenue they’ll collect when some developer comes along offering to demolish half of the city centre.

    – grants for all owner of such buildings to renovate, restore and make them workable (replace white plastic windows with proper sashes)

    -the roofline of the city to be established and good quality infill buildings in the vacant gaps (This has been achieved on the Belltable side of O’Connell st. – the red sandstone building fits in very well)

    – proper pavements using native stone. We’ve really lowered the bar with that uneven grey concrete that constitutes the footpath of O’Connell st. – I’ve seen better croncrete work on silage pits.
    The Bedford row/ Thomas st. paving is a bit ostentatious but at least it’s of good quality – despite all the clutter.

    -All telegraph and electricity poles to be put underground.

    – no more megaliths – i.e. buying and demolishing 4 or 5 houses and replacing them with one ugly office that we all know will be torn down again in 20 years time. Smaller buildings are more sustainable – they can be put to a multiplicity of uses whereas larger ones go obsolete very quickly. Look at Mt. Kennet. Also Harvey’s quay and the Mariot will hardly stand the test of time (the latter looks like something Sam Stevenson might have done on a bad day – all that reflective glass – very 1980s)


    Has anyone seen an ad in Today’s (28/02/07) Independent Property supplement? It’s for a building on Bedford Row. First look, it looks like any bland block. Second glance and it reveals itself as as the old Central cinema/ Unitarian Church. – with a glass atrium in front!
    Surely the only reason that pp would be give to remove the old cinema front would be to expose the church building and create a little space in front of it.
    This proposal is one of the most hideous and short sighted I’ve seen in a long time.
    When Bedford row is “completed” it will be all shiny and new – just like Cruises st. was 10 years ago and then in 2017 it’ll be just like Cruises st. is now.
    The only architecturally interesting thing on Cruises st. is the arch and doorcase on chapel lane.
    The only architeturally interesting thing on Bedford row, now that the pretty Georgian houses at the end of the row are dust, is the Unitarian church, designed by Limerick’s most preeminent architect, James Paine.
    It is no exaggeration to describe Paine as Limerick’s Gandon or Cooley.
    How is this allowed to happen in 2007?:mad: 😡 😡


    On a wet February evening the Richmond Court appartments/ Mt. Kennet Place exude a dreeping, dripping, depressing, Dickensian (but not in a nice way) feeling.
    Fair play to the architects of both developments who have imaginatively interpreted the genus loci of the place – they have really enhanced the sense of menace and danger that (one imagines) accompany a redlight district – Arctic Monkeys could have filmed the video of ‘When the Sun goes Down’ here.
    Daylight is such a rarity there that one expects the unfortunate apartment dwellers to have rickets – I wonder is it safe to stand on those tacked on windowboxes masquerading as balconies? The first floor apartments begin abou 9 feet above street level.
    It’s a complete mess. But what’s most depressing is that the City Council are still allowing such monoliths. I noticed with dismay, yesterday that 3 Georgian houses on upper Catherine steet, with remarkably deep basements (opposite the Carnegie library) had been sold. – no doubt the council will insist on sensitive conservation.
    Come, come friendly bombs and rain on Slough


    What id like to see for our own O Connell Street is more of a minimalist approach, but with the required amount of street furniture and possibly some soft landscaping! Ideally a proper effort to clean up and Improve the buildings along the street would be part of the plan, but I suppose that would be asking for too much!..[/QUOTE”]

    I agree – I think an Elysian scheme like Dublin’s O’Connell st. might be a bit du trop.
    However, Limerick City Council have a long way to come first with regard to planning covenants etc.
    In Dublin, DCC just went ahead and installed the scheme in the hope that the owners of the various businesses would come on board and turn down the neon.
    In fairness, they have been successful – the street looks really well, and I think some business owners are coming up to the mark.
    I don’t know how successful such a scheme, howver modest would be in Limerick – would the centras, spars and supermacs on the street make their presence less visible ?

    Any idea where the stone for Thomas St. + Bedford Row came from? – Don’t get me wrong, the pedestrianisation is a good thing but the paving is a bit fussy – like something you’d see in a shopping centre.

    in reply to: Henrietta Street #775270

    DCC are obviously having a laugh – after giving PP to that bit of gik at the bottom of the street!
    40 years too late for them to start taking an interst. They should be leading conservation not just trailing the private individuals who have spent their own money and lives trying to save the street.:eek:


    I can’t help wondering what kind of people are in charge of planning and preservation in Limerick City Council.
    Surely there is a masterplan of what they would like O’Connell st. to look like?
    Surely all of the remaining Georgian and Victorian houses at the top end of O’Connell St. and it’s surrounding streets are preserved?
    Why then are they allowing for the demolition of entire blocks? Have they learn nothing from the first Savoy site (lifespan approx 17 years).These large blocks are out of scale with everything else around them and they have a very short lifespan.
    Contrast these hideous sheds and their “nice” cladding with that new infill building on O’Connell st., close to the Limerick Leader office.
    I just walked up from Henry St. to the railway station via Mt Kennet and Hartstonge St. – there is such a wealth of building types up this end of the city that haven’t been fucked up yet – stables, townhouses, mews buildings, the odd industrial warehouses . Admittedly many of them are in a rough state but they are worth being preserved.
    Oh, yeah – what’s the story with all the plastic windows in Limerick? If these are listed buildings ( please tell me they are??) how can they get away with putting in uPVC?
    Oh, and another gripe – why are all the electricity poles still on the streets? Why are they not underground?

    in reply to: La Feile Padraig!!!! #725307

    I wonder Paul,whether they will be celebrating April 23 in Iraq?
    – anyway – can anyone come close to understanding what CIE are up to? – Tara St DART sation closed today!- really defies logic

    in reply to: Favourite building in Dublin? #720685

    I don’t know who designed it but the one building of the last 10 years that really turns me on is the slim, glass-fronted job next to Columbia Mills on Sir John Rogerson’s Quay.
    The colour of the glass, the transparency, the lighness of touch – less is more. I adore the way it slopes outward – leaving the rest of the quay behind it! – Gives one hope for the future, I mean if the architect’s infill buildings are this good…..

    in reply to: Has anyone a picture of the George’s Quay tower? #720318

    There is a great view of these towers on Georges Quay from, of all places, the bridge over the DART line at Grand Canal Dock.
    They appear quite bulky and sculptural in the distance. Sorry I have no pics but it would make a lovely Sunday afternoon stroll for somebody (else).
    The smoked glass roofs – what’s that about? A hybrid between the original and resubmitted plans, maybe?

    in reply to: Ussher Library #725485

    It’s Trinity dahling,
    It was probably part of the design brief to ignore the street!
    Seriously though, Trinity regard having a secure campus as being important and so want to minimise the number of gates to their 46 acres.
    Personally, I really like the ‘scizophrenic’ nature of the building – the view down sth. Frederick Street is wonderful – bulky but not overbearing.
    Similarly the elegant, reserved aspect that faces over college park looks wonderful from the pavillion bar – dare I suggest that it looks like the Future Systems media centre at Lord’s cricket ground? Anybody with me on this one?

    in reply to: Ussher Library #725479

    No idea,

    not on for apportioning blame – maybe the provost and his wife went down to B&Q.

    My main point is that excellent architecture needs to be rigorous and no detail can afford to be overlooked without detracting from the overall quality

    in reply to: Ussher Library #725477

    Back studying in TCD for the past three weeks – had first hand experience of the new library. Beautiful precipice of an atrium. I know that atriums have become a must-have in any granite-clad new building but this one is different – it offers views from the shelving area, across the atrium, across the study desks and out to the college park and the pavillion bar. More luxurious than the Berkely – those rather plush scarlet carpet tiles and the small south American rainforest used in the shelving, it is nevertheless austere enough to function as a serious place of study and provide some link to the Berkely. (Note also the use of black ribbed wood for all doors, albeit not exactly identical to those in the Berkely – which give a good sense of continuity)
    My one gripe – and it really grates with me is that the toilets of the new library bear no relation whatsoever, apart from a couple of odd angles, to the design of the building above and around them. I know this sounds a bit ridiculous, but it really lets the building down. Jonathon Glancey recently praised a Daniel Liebeskind building in the North of England (apologies for forgetting its name) for having sympathetically cubist toilets – even the toilets in the Berkely are echoic of its interior.
    The moral of this rambling reply:
    Pay attention to every detail and don’t let any one area detract from the overall building

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 39 total)

Latest News