Georgian Limerick - Should we tear it down? (split from age thread

gregos

Oh, that's all right, then. I was starting to worry that the person who thinks we should knock down all the georgian buildings might be an adult.

limerick_man

gregos wrote:

Oh, that's all right, then. I was starting to worry that the person who thinks we should knock down all the georgian buildings might be an adult.

Is that aimed at me???

Cause i have never siad we should knock down all the georgian buildings... hell thats one of the cities biggest tourist attrations!
Although i beleive the buildings along O'Connell street, should all be at a certain standard!
Some of the roads leading off O'Connell street have georgian buildings which do need to be knocked all right! There are too many in the city, and the likley hood someone will move into one and spend thousands on doing it up is ludacris since they cant change the walls inside to fit the needs!

gregos

It isn't about tourist attractions. But as I said, it's just as well those are the views of a sixteen-year-old and not an adult. Ask a grown-up to explain.

1huge1

well as long as they are kept in good condition they should stay but if they start to fall apart i say down with them

billy the squid

gregos wrote:

Oh, that's all right, then. I was starting to worry that the person who thinks we should knock down all the georgian buildings might be an adult.

firstly put the handbag away we wil have no fighting or bickering here, ok?

secondly it was me that suggested that SOME of the georgian buildings on O connell street should be knocked down for safety reasons. I have lived in one and the landlord of the building I was in let it go to wreck and ruin.

just look at what happened to 77 o connell street after it was left unattended for so long, some undesirables moved into the basement and set the place on fire. after which the burnt out shell of the building was left for nearly two years unrepaired.

now can we get back on topic

gregos

billy the squid wrote:

it was me that suggested that SOME of the georgian buildings on O connell street should be knocked down for safety reasons. I have lived in one and the landlord of the building I was in let it go to wreck and ruin.

now can we get back on topic

Just one quick thing before getting back on topic. There's a serious point here: people seem unaware what happened to Irish cities for the last fifty years. Is that because they don't know, or just don't care?

What you suggest is actally a charter for unscrupulous developers. All anyone with money needs to do is to buy a building, however historically significant, allow it to deteriorate and then knock it. This happened all over Dublin, and much of Limerick, with nobody being held accountable. Buildings don't just deteriorate: they become neglected, and until recently, the owners have had freedom to treat these historic buildings any way they liked.

Is that the way you want things?

limerick_man

No but even the city cooperation feel that we cant do anything with the buildings. i.e moving the centre from along o'connell street to along the dublin rd.! Thats a bold step and the cooperation wouldnt spend so much unless they felt more buisnesses would flock to the city!

These buildings in many cases are unworkable and so make the city look worse and create a bill for our taxes to take care of!

billy the squid

gregos wrote:

Just one quick thing before getting back on topic. There's a serious point here: people seem unaware what happened to Irish cities for the last fifty years. Is that because they don't know, or just don't care?

What you suggest is actally a charter for unscrupulous developers. All anyone with money needs to do is to buy a building, however historically significant, allow it to deteriorate and then knock it. This happened all over Dublin, and much of Limerick, with nobody being held accountable. Buildings don't just deteriorate: they become neglected, and until recently, the owners have had freedom to treat these historic buildings any way they liked.

Is that the way you want things?

Ok we could have a half-decent discussion spinning off from the original thread so what I will do is split these posts into a new thread.

Now as for your points, The Georgian buildings which are in good condition should be preserved, but the ones that we can no longer do anything with, should be torn down. if not for safety reasons, then health reasons, some of these ones on O'connell street and lower hartstonge street are crawling with rats, are damp, and in some places dangerous.

77 O connell street was listed, yet it still fell into disrepair. is it not better to have buildings that are safe to live in than to have an ugly burnt out shell on our main street.

gregos

OK. Let me address those issues one by one.

billy the squid wrote:

The Georgian buildings which are in good condition should be preserved, but the ones that we can no longer do anything with, should be torn down.

It's very easy to say that a building is beyond repair but this is very often prompted by its superficial appearance. What technical basis are you using to judge when a building is beyond saving? Are you using a recognised standard, or is this view based on specialised knowledge about the stability of structures?

. . . if not for safety reasons, then health reasons, some of these ones on O'connell street and lower hartstonge street are crawling with rats, are damp, and in some places dangerous.

Infestation is normally caused by ready availability of food and the absence of vermin-control. It wouldn't be usual to demolish a house because there are rats in it. A less extreme solution would be to kill the rats.

Dampness can be easily treated.

I don't know what you mean by dangerous. Perhaps it's the same point as in your first paragraph.

77 O connell street was listed, yet it still fell into disrepair. is it not better to have buildings that are safe to live in than to have an ugly burnt out shell on our main street.

Nobody wants burnt-out shells. It's better to have proper enforcement by the Corpo, and prosecution of the people who started the fire. If you look at no. 77 now, you'll see that it's being reinstated with original features, including timber sliding-sash windows instead of those dreadful plastic ones that have defaced the whole street.

heggie

one of the buildings on o'connell st used to be occupied by my family when they lived down there, alot of strange spooky things went on there so they left it, and when we went to visit limerick a few yrs ago it was one of the only buildings unoccupied on the st, dunno what number it was or anythin, think its beside a plant shop or diy shop or somethin

Karmafaerie

gregos wrote:

It isn't about tourist attractions. But as I said, it's just as well those are the views of a sixteen-year-old and not an adult. Ask a grown-up to explain.

Ok, now who sounds like a sixteen year old?!

billy the squid

firstly put the handbag away we wil have no fighting or bickering here, ok?

nobody ever listens to me
if anyone else posts attacking another user in this thread it will be a week long sebatical from the forum for you.

billy the squid

gregos wrote:

OK. Let me address those issues one by one.



It's very easy to say that a building is beyond repair but this is very often prompted by its superficial appearance. What technical basis are you using to judge when a building is beyond saving? Are you using a recognised standard, or is this view based on specialised knowledge about the stability of structures?

Im using the experience of actually living in one of the buildings on O'Connell street, with water coming through the ceiling, no heating, windows hanging out of their frames, and rats in the basement. having spoken to other tennants in that building while I was there the landlord in particular let this be the situation for two years. so there was a lot of water and rodent damage. rats eating holes in the walls etc.

Infestation is normally caused by ready availability of food and the absence of vermin-control. It wouldn't be usual to demolish a house because there are rats in it. A less extreme solution would be to kill the rats.

that might be true, but rats are not the only factor to be considered. The buildings along arthurs quay were not salvageable, so they were demolished, while at the same time other buildings like the crescent can be maintained.

I don't know what you mean by dangerous. Perhaps it's the same point as in your first paragraph.

a situation where you are likely to either be injured or killed due to il-health from cold/dampness or loose ceiling tiles, slates, windows, floorboards.



Nobody wants burnt-out shells. It's better to have proper enforcement by the Corpo, and prosecution of the people who started the fire. If you look at no. 77 now, you'll see that it's being reinstated with original features, including timber sliding-sash windows instead of those dreadful plastic ones that have defaced the whole street.[/QUOTE]

gregos

That's a bit anecdotal, really. You lived in a house that was in a bad state, but all the symptoms you describe are easily rectified if the landlord wasn't too much of a scrooge to fix them. The examples you mention, such as leaking roofs, rotten windows and loose slates, while completely unacceptable, are not evidence of a fundamental structural fault. In structural terms, they're superficial and simple to repair. Don't let the skinflint landlords off the hook so easily by advocating demolition.

The buildings along Arthur's Quay were a disgrace. More particularly, the owners were a disgrace for allowing the houses to become so dilapidated. However, the easy option was taken in the end- demolition. And make no mistake, that is the easy option. It avoids having to come up with imaginative solutions, and it saves people like your former landlord having to spend money. I certainly wouldn't like Arthur's Quay to be the standard for how we treat our old buildings nowadays. Anybody who buys a historic building also buys the obligation to preserve it.

I could take this example to extremes, for illustration only. If I could afford to buy, for instance, let's say the Sistine chapel (I know that's an extreme example). Could I bring in a JCB? Would my money have bought me the right to knock it if I wanted? Is it ok to use money as a weapon or do we actualy have a society we're all part of? If the answer is no, then really the rest of us are only here to help the rich become richer.

Let's not be too quick about destroying things, and remember this: these houses are irreplaceable. You might not consider them to be of any value at the moment, but who knows - maybe you'll have a different opinion in five or ten years. The problem is that when these houses are gone, that's the end of it. We can't rebuild them, except as pastiche, like a theme park.

This idea was rampant in the sixties: everything had to be modern (as they saw it at the time) and newly-made. It was why, for example, all the pubs threw out their original interiors and replaced them with plastic. Now, of course, they're paying a fortune to get them put back the way they were, while Nancy Blake is laughing. Funny old world, isn't it?

limerick_man

Buildings such as the sistene chapel are, well bad example because the catholic church run that! But buildings of major importance would be run by the state! But in Ireland we have hundreds of these buildings, so the gov. cant snap them all up!

gregos

Try to see beyond the specific example.

The question I'm asking is this: if I have enough money, can I buy and destroy whatever I want?

billy the squid

gregos wrote:

That's a bit anecdotal, really. You lived in a house that was in a bad state, but all the symptoms you describe are easily rectified if the landlord wasn't too much of a scrooge to fix them. The examples you mention, such as leaking roofs, rotten windows and loose slates, while completely unacceptable, are not evidence of a fundamental structural fault. In structural terms, they're superficial and simple to repair. Don't let the skinflint landlords off the hook so easily by advocating demolition.

If you must know, the buildings that can be restored are being restored. example being the O Gorman Solicitors building on the corner of Hartstonge Street and O Connell Street. The One that was burned down is slowly but surely being restored, along with number 76 O Connell Street.

oh and in my case, it was half the block which were falling down, not just the one building.

Now ones that could not be saved like the ones where arthurs quay now stands had to be demolished. and were.

Its neither here nor there anyway as I am unaware of Limerick City council having any plans to delist any Georgian buildings in the city.

The buildings along Arthur's Quay were a disgrace. More particularly, the owners were a disgrace for allowing the houses to become so dilapidated. However, the easy option was taken in the end- demolition. And make no mistake, that is the easy option. It avoids having to come up with imaginative solutions, and it saves people like your former landlord having to spend money. I certainly wouldn't like Arthur's Quay to be the standard for how we treat our old buildings nowadays. Anybody who buys a historic building also buys the obligation to preserve it.

I don't think it was the easy option, there were just too many delapidated buildings throughout the city during the time the arthurs quay buildings were demolished. Limerick at the time. It would have literally costed billions to repair or rebuild them.

I am not sure if the arthurs quay buildings were listed during the eighties when they were knocked.

I could take this example to extremes, for illustration only. If I could afford to buy, for instance, let's say the Sistine chapel (I know that's an extreme example). Could I bring in a JCB? Would my money have bought me the right to knock it if I wanted? Is it ok to use money as a weapon or do we actualy have a society we're all part of? If the answer is no, then really the rest of us are only here to help the rich become richer.

A part of the problem is the fact that the building is listed. Owners are prevented from doing renovation or alteration work on listed buildings by legislation. even if the building does not suit the purpose for which it was bought. If you want to keep your georgian buildings in good condition, then the planning application procedure should be less arduous for owners who simply want to restore or repair wear and tear in these buildings.

Let's not be too quick about destroying things, and remember this: these houses are irreplaceable. You might not consider them to be of any value at the moment, but who knows - maybe you'll have a different opinion in five or ten years. The problem is that when these houses are gone, that's the end of it. We can't rebuild them, except as pastiche, like a theme park.

I'm all in favour of preserving alot of the georgian arcitecture we have, the problem I have is that the city council have made it too difficult for owners to preserve these buildings.

There should be incentives to encourage owners into keeping their buildings in good condition if they are listed, and penelties for letting them fall into disrepair.

This idea was rampant in the sixties: everything had to be modern (as they saw it at the time) and newly-made. It was why, for example, all the pubs threw out their original interiors and replaced them with plastic. Now, of course, they're paying a fortune to get them put back the way they were, while Nancy Blake is laughing. Funny old world, isn't it?[/QUOTE]

gregos

billy the squid wrote:

There should be incentives to encourage owners into keeping their buildings in good condition if they are listed, and penelties for letting them fall into disrepair.

Exactly! Couldn't agree more. I think we've found common ground here.

It's kind of like the Peace Process, isn't it? Except that it actually works.