Building after the British left

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The point I made quoting Shaffrey in previous post above is that finished stone is traditional. Maybe not as cladding but the finish of natural stone when built properly had been a feature of Irish buildings for a long time, which is why planners accept it (rather than insist on it in most cases).

Just because finished stone gets a mention in the Shaffreys’ book does not mean it was a widespread feature throughout Ireland. Finished stone is not ‘traditional’ in Ireland - it was used by a tiny elite minority, because it required a huge amount of work i.e. cost which was beyond the scope of the cottier and small farmer classes. Furthermore, with most farms being subdivided on marriage, why would a new sub-tenant invest in building an expensive home when there was no fixity of tenure and leases were for three lives at most? Omitting mud-built and sod-built houses, and confining ourselves to the post-Cromwellian period, the typical rural Irish house was built of random rubble stonework, usually uncoursed and rendered with a lime mortar and then lime-washed to help keep the rain out. I have given several examples above from the NLI collection. That system of building succeeded because it was low-skilled, cheap, relatively durable and suited to low height cottages. One up from that is the ‘coursed’ random rubble, where the courses were not the same height – the quoins at the corners were built first, a string run along above the wall-top and stone was built to that level. Every few feet (vertically) there would be a band of regular sized stones – this both evened out the work and created better load-bearing strength.

There is no issue that finished stone (roughly faced/squared on five sides) was used and often were laid in bands rather than courses, heavily mortared between the gaps and usually the facade remained unrendered. This is called ‘snecked’ masonry. However, houses of this type were not the typical rural home, they tended to be houses built by landlords for themselves or the tenants on their estates.

The Planners’ craze for a stone finish is for one that is cladding, which has no structural purpose and no mortar visible between the joints – what bit is present is hidden.. And it is insisted upon, regularly, often unofficially, as in ‘Of course you will be using a stone finish?’ because they want a building to ‘fit’ into a landscape and believe that this does the trick! (At the same time insisting on solar panels to save the environment!) In Kerry today for example only local stone is allowed, whereas in the 1800’s the owner when building Kylemore Castle (Abbey) had a row with his architect and insisted that granite be used. (The architect who wanted local stone gave in, granite was shipped in from Dalkey, by boat to Letterfrack).

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Explain why you see it incorrect to call Ashlar stone 'cut'??? i.e. how is it squared or shaped?

There are several types of ashlar – the highest grade is ‘fine tooled’ which is finished to very fine tolerances by a saw– think of kids building bricks – and the height of a stone is always less than its length, so most are rectangular but some are squares. Rustic ashlar is where the exposed face is unfinished, chiselled, not cut but there is a strip around the edges to enable close joints. Chamfered ashlar is like rustic but there is a bevel around the face edge of each stone (like a bar of Dairymilk).

In general ashlar is the most expensive because it consists of regular rectangles and some squares laid in parallel courses with very tight joints that are invisible from a distance. While nobody but a pedant would insist that ashlar and cut stone are totally different, cut stone is the term usually used to describe stones that are ‘shaped’ and laid in courses which are not necessarily parallel and the joints are mortared (sometimes heavily) and always visible. Ashlar quoins (cornerstones) can be found in many masonry walls as they provide strength.

Some do not differentiate between ‘cut’ and ‘dressed’ stone; others will insist that dressed stone applies only to stone that has been carved in some way.
The things one picks up and half-remembers as an owner of an old house!

ozmo wrote: »

Trying to see the positive in this - Although it is fake - at least its uniform fake and not everyone doing their own thing. Maybe one day it will be considered an accepted movement - like the Victorian 'Castle' style.

Are there any Mud walled houses left?

Cr@ppy stone clad is bad design, becomes cliched and out of context very fast. Crap design never lasts, ever. It is a passing phase, like a cornflakebox bungalow out of a 'design' book or like burgundy or 'avocado green' baths, or tail-fins on car wings - it just dies. A few retro people will like it, but not many. The Gothic movement had style, even if one is not a fan. That is why it has lasted.

There are several surviving mud cottages and new ones are being built by the eco-brigade, god help us.

crockholm wrote: »

Just going to stick my oar in here, I'm a stonemason who trained primarily in restoration.There are tell tale signs on a facade which can suggest it's history.The coarse fieldstone was rendered,the masons deliberately built the facades in a rougher style (proud and weak) so that the render would stick more easily.
Raised pointing is just a way to disguise the unattractive stonework that was never intended to be visible.
We have stone facade Buildings that were intended to remain visible,these are noticible by their use of "dressed" stone (not neccessarily cut-stone or ashlar) and built in styles such as coursed rubble,jumper & jink (called snecked in parts of the country) and possibly the hardest of all-Kentish bond-again unfortunately people have used raised pointing on these Buildings and it ruins the craftmanship.

As for the ashlar debate-in my experience it is either coursed or snecked (see above) with heights of between 350-400mm and lengths of 450-750mm,and the joint,which should be flush to the stone of less than 5mm (3mm preferably).Can have draught margins around the edges of the stone and the face finished with a stone axe,which can give each stone a sort of distinctiveness.

Thanks. MOre or less confirms what I said in no 54

duffalosoldier wrote: »

Heres one.....

Pig ugly former Texaco HQ in Ballsbridge. Not a protected building (dread the thought) under the latest development plan but when its owners went for planning in 2013 for a modern piece of Architecture in the form of a modern office building, it was refused because this is a building of "National Architectural Importance"!!

I rather like it. The Dublin City Council planning site says that the planning application was declared invalid and it appears nothing further was lodged by the applicants........ What is the source for your claim?

Dubhthach wrote:

Again how is the rent achievable by the Texaco/Audi site beneficial to the economy of the state? It's only beneficial to the owners of the site.

duffalosoldier wrote: »

So the silos are not listed and a newer more meaningless building in the Texaco site is? Does that strengthen the case I was originally making.

Look build the Bolands Mill site if it means so much to you- would love to see such large scale development. Point is the Pembroke Road site is a much smaller mass and more practical and realistic. The economic benefit is in the form of progress, jobs, office space more easily lettable I wou,d suspect. Im not dishing the Bolands Mill project at all. Delighted to know it could be a work in progress but my focus in on another site....sorry.

Your focus is misplaced. That is the second time you have incorrectly asserted that 83, Northumberland Road is a protected structure – it is not, the 'protected' properties at that end of Northumberland Road are 78, 80, 82, 84 and 86. The owners of no.83 are free to re-apply for permission to demolish and rebuild.

Furthermore, the plans that were lodged in the invalid application for no.83 included a basement level which amounted to about a quarter of the new building’s floorspace, so being underground it is hardly prime property!

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

No, so far, we don’t have a recognisably Irish architectural style. Even when the British left us to our own designs (excuse the pun!) we didn’t employ them, our designs I mean, not the British. .......... I was asking for an Irish design. Forgive me, but there is a difference. I'm sure an Irish architect could easily design a Chinese Pagoda, it then would be Irish designed, but not an Irish design............... I doubt very much if there is a major interest in Ireland in restoration, as there is in the UK. ........., but when you get down to the nitty-gritty we are God-awful at preserving it......... .

The comment on design is a little unfair. We are talking about post 1922 architecture so earlier references to Gandon and his mates, along with the Dutch Billy were ignored as not relevant. (Lots of Billy houses around still if you know how to spot them, 30 pages of discussion on them over on an Archiseek forum.) There also have been references to several notable Irish architects and post 1922 buildings earlier in this thread.

I have difficulty in the concept of ‘Irish architecture’, particularly if it has to be some Celtic fantasy stuff that should be regarded as better just because it is ‘Oirish’. Irish architects need to earn a crust and are coerced into providing the client with what s/he wants often against the dictates of good taste. All design – including architecture – develops slowly but not evenly. Like a growing child it develops in ‘growth spurts’ so the introduction of a new fad (Tudor, Queen Anne, Georgian/Palladian, Gothic Revival, Victorian, Arts & Crafts, Art Deco, Minimalism, Brutalism, whatever) produces huge change and then loses momentum, often leaving bits of its better attributes behind. There are several reasons IMO why the modern architecture and building stock in Ireland are so poor.

Firstly, one must look at the history of buildings and architecture. In Ireland we had a very turbulent era in the 1600’s, rebellion in 1798, we had Whiteboys, Ribbonmen, Terry Alts, etc. then Famine then Fenians then IRB then Rising then Civil War. Even excluding the economic consequences, that had a huge influence on design, with houses having semi-basements and shutters, and being designed with an eye to defense. In the UK after Naseby in the 1640’s there was nothing much until a couple of battles - Clifton Moor and Culloden - in 1740’s. Defense was not a factor in UK design for at least two centuries earlier than in Ireland. They also had huge trade activity, a more stable economic environment and lots more money. Result? Huge influence on building and house design.

Secondly, architectural design in the UK was influenced by the local rich guy, often the lord of the manor, who had been on a grand tour, was trained in classics and had an educated ‘eye’. Those people built a nice home, employed people from their model villages who then ‘upskilled’ and often copied (aped?) their social superiors. In Ireland that did not happen, the Act of Union saw the demise of many ‘big houses’, servants generally were shipped in from the ‘mainland’ or a city and Ireland was seen as a source of revenue rather than a place in which to spend money.

Thirdly, there simply was very little money in the Free State and most of that was borrowed – the Anglo-Irish were unlikely to spend a very big sum (unless forced to) on rebuilding the houses they had been burned out of. Most foresaw the end of their lifestyle, Land Courts, Land Acts, taxes, the peasants taking over, death of their heirs in WW1, the ‘Ne Temere’ decree, etc. Many landlords viewed the ‘Three F’s’ as a deplorable interference with the rights of property. Not an ideal climate for investment. The average Irish citizen did not have the education, training or money to appreciate or afford good design. They had grown up having Jimin Maire Thadgh, Peig and Liam na Giuise beaten into them by the nuns and Brothers, who generally came from country cottages and, like the books they were using, extolled the virtue of the thatched cottage and a simple life. Rich man, kingdom of heaven and eye of a needle stuff. An Beal Bocht/The Poor Mouth by Myles na gCopaleen is a great parody of this.
Fourthly, architects in Ireland who were qualified in 1922 generally had trained or had considerable ‘work experience’ in England and were steeped in that design tradition. The Irish ‘gothic revival’ people – for e.g. Lanyon, Lynn, Deane, Fuller, were Irish born and English trained – and from 1860-ish onwards had left a huge mark and considerable influenceon Irish buildings. Although most were dead or slowing down by the 19teens, their past pupils/apprentices often were the best of the ‘new crop’ who went on to design for the new State – I quoted Jermyn as an example in an earlier post.

Fifthly, many of the Irish ‘new builds’ were domestic housing schemes that were to house the maximum number of people at the minimum cost. Hardly a criterion for good design (but it should not block it or innovation.)

The main reason we have such uninteresting (or frequently downright awful) housing stock is that Irish people in general have no style exacerbated by a disgraceful planning process. Paul Costello was correct to negatively remark on Irish female dress sense (male is worse!) and that lack of taste extends to housing and landscaping. Good design is not recognized so it cannot be understood, so it cannot be demanded. What I am arguing is that because of this ‘style ignorance’ in general Irish people demand / build / buy houses that are at best mundane and humdrum or at worst awful McMansion type ego trips. (Begod, that’s a foine block of a house!) Too many still firmly believe that a couple of plastic pillars, just like a stupidly hyphenated surname, are the epitome of ‘class’

The Planners share the blame. At the time of the Famine Ireland had a far greater housing stock – there were cabins dotted all over mountains. That is our ‘traditional’ countryside: however, today it is considered ‘intrusive’ on the landscape to build a house anywhere other than jammed against a neighbour in a village housing estate (too often on a flood plain!). I agree that a house can have a strong visual impact, but in Ireland that is seen only negatively and as a result we continuously fail to correctly insert a house into a landscape. Instead we try to harmonise it in, ‘It must be vernacular design’ (whatever that is) with stupid rock cladding and humdrum, boring architecture.

We agree on preservation of heritage, in Ireland we fail abysmally. People concentrate on Haughey’s negatives but he did many good things – the artists’ tax break was specifically aimed at luring rich ‘artists’ to Ireland who would (a) buy ‘splendid’ houses and (b) restore and maintain them. Many did, but left due to Irish insularity (Freddy Forsythe, Lloyd-Webber to name just a couple). In the UK the National Trust is the biggest landowner after the Government. Here we have nothing but a part-time ‘An Taisce’ that has a few good people and too many nutter supporters that impinge on its reputation. In the UK Historic House owners get grants, subsidies and tax breaks; in Ireland it is extremely difficult to get any support – countless reports, inspections, requirements, etc, to the extent that it is usually not worth the effort. It is far simpler for some pissy little village in the ass#ole of Bogland to get the price of a new GAA pitch than it is for a heritage building to get a fraction of that amount as a grant.

There is Irish style in housing, and some of it is great. Back in the 30’s Robinson & O’Keefe designed several houses in an ‘Art Deco’ style that had an Irish influence and the DIC building on Kildare Street has Art Deco motifs. Michael Scott’s ‘Gerah’ in Sandycove Co Dublin fits in with the Martello Tower. Ignored for most of her career, Eileen Gray (1878-1976) from Co. Wexford is now regarded as one of the most important furniture designers and architects of the early 20th century and the most influential woman in those fields. Her work inspired both modernism and Art Deco. Does that make them Irish? http://www.museum.ie/en/exhibition/eileen-gray-introduction.aspx
Some people believe in setting the style and deserve credit. For e.g., the owner of an old coastguard cottage at Dirk Cove could have added a plain, pastiche extension but instead with an architect did something bold, daring and very successful.
Here are some others:-
2012
2011
[URL="[url]http://www.irisharchitectureawards.ie/annual-awards/2010-gallery/house-1-house-2"]2010[/URL][url][/url]
2009
2008
So, because they are similar to ‘international’ designs are they not Irish? Was Rory Gallagher’s music not Irish because it was Blues? Is the music of U2 or Sean O’Riada’s not Irish because it is not a jig or reel and played on instruments that are not Irish?

There's lunch hour gone!

Victor wrote: »

These houses were some of the first houses built after independence - on the site of the former Linenhall Barracks, which was burnt down during the Easter Rising. Note they have slate roofs, but plastered walls, which is a relatively rare combination for such houses.
https://maps.google.ie/?ll=53.351211,-6.272035&spn=0.001127,0.006899&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=53.351212,-6.272033&panoid=JmDmw5b-lo5N0qKN8q1tgg&cbp=11,335.84,,0,-1.9

http://maps.osi.ie/publicviewer/#V1,715045,734857,7,9

Interesting housing - also bears out the terrible things that are done in Ireland in the name of 'fashion'. Most contain the very worst of what sadly is regarded by too many as ‘stylish’ glazing, shiny artificial slates, specimens with stuck-on artificial stone, plastic bricks and pillars, not to mention the one with balustrade.

The initial plan for housing there dates to 1912, for a proposed designed by Charles McCarthy, the City architect. Irish born & trained, the son of an architect. He designed many public buildings, including libraries, fire stations, the Bolton Street Technical School, and over 1,700 dwellings under the 'Housing of the Working Classes Acts.'

What was built (c1926) was by Frederick Hicks, an Englishman, who designed the 63 two-storey houses for Linenhall Public Utility Society. No.20 looks as if it has not been touched, except for the front door, as it has the steel windows that were being introduced here around that time and the old roof slate pattern. Hicks came to Dublin just after he qualified and was very prolific in his works, ranging from workers cottages to the Foxrock home for Sam Beckett’s father and Rathmines Tech and Library.

There was a great article by Graham Hickey on Dublin's Georgian Squares in yesterday's Sunday Times magazine. Also, if anyone is passing by Merrion Sq. there are great models of Eileen Gray's houses in the Irish Archi Archive @ No. 45.