Is there a staircase inside the Wellington Monument in the Phoenix Park?

Dancor

Mellor wrote: »

The hole from which you look out can be view in this photo.

The state of that one.

Tabnabs

Mellor wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous. It my no means HAS to be hollow. Solid Obelisks have been built since ancient Egyptian and roman times.
There is a solid obelisk 45m tall originally erected c.3,500 years ago that is still standing today. In fact, a solid structure would be considerable easier to build.

Erecting the Obelisk in the pheonix park was not a challenge for builders of the 19th century.

And yet, it most probably is hollow.

Let's put a little scale on this object

http://viviendoendublin.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/450px-ireland_-_dublin_-_phoenix_park_-_wellington_monument_2.jpg

Why on earth would they build this cut stone monument as a solid structure? The practicalities of construction of a structure this large would suggest it is built vertically from the inside, similar projects were carried out by contemporary engineers such as Robert Stevenson.

Or is your sole evidence 5,000 year old technology? <insert double confused smiley here for dramatic affect>

Mellor wrote: »

Again, I have no clue what you are talking about here. In fact the first picture is labelled as scaffolding in the victorian era, which is exactly when the obelisk was erected.
Timber scaffolding has existed for thousands of years. Again, back to the romans, greeks and egyptians
I don't see what makes you think it didn't yet exist. If you are referring to the 1909 date mentioned, that was the patent of a particular device patented for scaffolding, not the invention of scaffolding.

Again, take a look at the size of the structure, do you genuinely think they erected scaffolding around it?

The medieval example cited gives no details about height restrictions or what the scaffolding was used for. But if anyone thinks that they carried the gargoyles up (tucked under their left arm maybe?) the scaffolding, they need to show more evidence on that theory.

Mellor wrote: »

I thought my post above clarified where the stairs myth came from.

If anything it shows the opposite, that similar sized obelisks at this time did indeed have stairways inside them.

trellheim

had a look at the PRO website and nothing there.

A Disgrace

The more I look at it, the more I think it might me hollow.. that's a hell of a base for a start.. but if it is, why the big secret? Surely it would have been explioted by now

Mellor

Hermy wrote: »

Obviously a typo, 1817

Tabnabs wrote: »

And yet, it most probably is hollow.

Why on earth would they build this cut stone monument as a solid structure? The practicalities of construction of a structure this large would suggest it is built vertically from the inside, similar projects were carried out by contemporary engineers such as Robert Stevenson.

Again, take a look at the size of the structure, do you genuinely think they erected scaffolding around it?

I never said it was solid, or that it was built in any paticular way. I never offered any opinion on it.
I was simply pointing that you were wrong in some of your statements. Not with the idea that it hollow.

I haven't yet offered an opinion on it, so I suppose I might as well now.
I believe its hollow, purely down cost and not construction. Solid is no more difficult, nor is the option on building it hollow from the outside.

It was most definately scaffolded. A scaffold is much easier to work from than a stairs. Either externally or internally I don't know. Internal is cheaper, but then there's the tricky external platform that needs to be built to finish it. if i had to guess, I'd say internal as i know cost was a issue with the project.

Or is your sole evidence 5,000 year old technology? <insert double confused smiley here for dramatic affect>

No, that was a reply to you ridiculous notion that scaffolding didn't exist

The medieval example cited gives no details about height restrictions or what the scaffolding was used for. But if anyone thinks that they carried the gargoyles up (tucked under their left arm maybe?) the scaffolding, they need to show more evidence on that theory.

What medieval example? I said Victorian.
I don't see any gargoyles either??? But regardless. Carrying them up saffolding presents the same problems as would carrying them up the stairs.

If anything it shows the opposite, that similar sized obelisks at this time did indeed have stairways inside them.

There is a huge different between a scaffold for building it (which i never disagreed with) and a purpose built stairs to a viewing platform, which was the question notion discussed. Also the idea of a "secret" tunnel.

BeerNut

Mellor wrote: »

What medieval example? I said Victorian.
I don't see any gargoyles either?

I think Tabnabs is responding to me there.

This guy seems more interested in his flowery hagiography of Wellington than architectural detail, but still:

A subscription was opened in the city of Dublin, for the purpose of erecting a testimonial to perpetuate the glories of Wellington, and in the space of a few weeks the sum of sixteen thousand pounds was collected. This munificent contribution was expended in the erection of a pyramidal granite column, designed by Robert Smirke, rising to a height of two hundred and ten feet, and placed on a well-chosen site in Phoenix Park, where formerly a salute battery stood, commanding the whole range of the city quays from the park to Essex bridge. The first stone of this stupendous column was laid on the eighteenth of June, 1818, the anniversary of the battle of Waterloo, and the scaffolding was not struck until the third year from that day had expired

G. N. Wright, Life and campaigns of Arthur, Duke of Wellington, 1840.

I've been looking at contemporary descriptions of the design and construction of the monument and there's no mention of stairs inside in any I've seen. It was definitely never intended for people to go inside, whatever about the mechanics of building it.

Hermy

Mellor wrote: »

Obviously a typo, 1817

Obviously.:rolleyes:

Victor

While the exterior may be of cut / dressed stone, the interior stone could obviously be somewhat rough cut.

Stripey Cat

It would seem strange to not have stairs inside, seeing as other similar structures did have internal stairs.

Was anyone else ever told of a staircase by their parents?

BeerNut

Stripey Cat wrote: »

It would seem strange to not have stairs inside, seeing as other similar structures did have internal stairs.

It seems far far stranger to me that some would write, in 1820:

The testimonial is in the form of an obelisk, or truncated pyramid, 205 feet high. A platform accessible by four flights of steps supports a pedestal 56 feet square, and 24 feet high; the pannels of which are ornamented with bas-relief medallions, representing different victories won by his Grace: in front of the pedestal, on an insulated pedestal, is an equestrian statue of the Duke in his military habit. From the pedestal rises the obelisk, having the names of all the victories won by the Duke of Wek lington, from his entrance into military life to the battle of Waterloo, inscribed on the four facades.

In the view of the Law Courts, drawn for this work, this monument is seen in the distance, on an elevated situation in the Phoenix Park, formerly occupied by the salute battery, and commanding a view of the whole city.

(G. N. Wright [again!], An historical guide to ancient and modern Dublin)

and neglect to mention internal stairs, if they existed.

The previous section, for instance, describes Nelson's Pillar and says

From the gallery is a commanding view of the city and bay. The balcony, to which the ascent is by 168 steps, is 108 feet from the ground, and the entire height to the top of the statue 131 ft. 3 in.

If there were stairs in the obelisk, he'd have said.

Mellor

Stripey Cat wrote: »

It would seem strange to not have stairs inside, seeing as other similar structures did have internal stairs.

Was anyone else ever told of a staircase by their parents?

Most similar obelisks wouldn't have stairs.
It would be strange to have a stairs and not have a viewing platform as any ones I know of with a stairs has a viewing platform. (I know of two)

trellheim

Somewhere in one of the weblinks it refers to the Royal British Architects Institute library or some such. The plans should be on file there, if anyone knows anybody over there.

Stripey Cat

in front of the pedestal, on an insulated pedestal, is an equestrian statue of the Duke in his military habit.

Er, the hey what now?

BeerNut

Stripey Cat wrote: »

Er, the hey what now?

They still haven't built it. Any day now, I'm sure.

Stripey Cat

So the description above is being taken as evidence that no staircase existed, because the writer would have, we assume, mentioned a staircase if it was there.

The writer does however mention a large equestrian statue.

Which was never built.

Hmm...

Mellor

trellheim wrote: »

Somewhere in one of the weblinks it refers to the Royal British Architects Institute library or some such. The plans should be on file there, if anyone knows anybody over there.

They would more likely be in the RIAI library than the RIBA (irish verses british), but may not be in either seeing as the start of construction predates both.

Stripey Cat wrote: »

So the description above is being taken as evidence that no staircase existed, because the writer would have, we assume, mentioned a staircase if it was there.

The writer does however mention a large equestrian statue.

Which was never built.

Hmm...

The description was written during construction, the writer would of been familiar with the proposed plans/design. The smaller statue was part of the design.
But by the time it approached completion, Wellington had fallen out of favour with the people, and funds were tight, and the statue was aborted. Wellington actually died just before it as finished, so he never seen it complete, and was prob never aware they didn't bother with his statue.

trellheim

http://www.dia.ie/architects/view/5006

(3) Margaret Richardson, ed., Catalogue of the Drawings Collection of the Royal Institute of British Architects S (1976), 64.

More info :

http://books.google.ie/books?id=AQzYxvX_U8MC&lpg=PA308&ots=KUG1co5oGz&dq=robert%20smirke%20wellington&pg=PA308#v=onepage&q=robert%20smirke%20wellington&f=false



there is 3 or 4 pages in http://www.yalebooks.co.uk/pdf/9780300159097.pdf on the design ( Page 8 onwards )

BeerNut

Stripey Cat wrote: »

So the description above is being taken as evidence that no staircase existed, because the writer would have, we assume, mentioned a staircase if it was there.

The writer does however mention a large equestrian statue.

Which was never built.

Hmm...

Hmm, yes, they could have excavated a staircase into the granite after the obelisk was finished. A big bendy corkscrew would do it.

Stripey Cat

BeerNut wrote: »

Hmm, yes, they could have excavated a staircase into the granite after the obelisk was finished. A big bendy corkscrew would do it.

Or maybe the writer wasn't such an authority on this as he appears.

BeerNut

Perhaps. I had only meant it as illustrative of the contemporary descriptions of the monument. You could also have this, from Dublin Delineated in 26 Views of the Principal Public Buildings (1830):

Of all the public monuments hitherto raised in honor of the Duke Of Wellington, that of the Citizens of Dublin is, if not the most graceful, at least the most colossal and magnificent.

It stands on very elevated ground in the Phoenix Park, and consists of an unadorned Obelisk, resting on a pedestal 56 feet square and 24 feet high, which is accessible by a pyramidal flight of steps, making a total height of 205 feet. The pedestal is intended to be ornamented with bas-relief medallions, representing the chief battles won by His Grace, and an insulated pedestal on the east side, is intended also to support an equestrian statue of the Hero of Waterloo. For these embellishments, the requisite funds are as yet wanting. The sides of the Obelisk are inscribed with the names of the several victories gained by the Duke.

The whole monument is of cut granite, and was raised at an expense of about £20,000. The design was furnished by Mr. Smirke, jun.

Again, no mention of a staircase where one would expect it to be mentioned.

Or this, rather less complimentary, from The History of the County of Dublin by John D'Alton (1838):

The Wellington testimonial next engages attention —an ill-proportioned structure, of plain unornamented mountain granite. On the summit platform of a flight of steep steps, a simple square pedestal is erected, designed to present pannels at the sides, commemorating the Duke's achievements, but they have never been put up. In front of this pedestal is a much smaller pediment, resting partly on the steps, and partly on the main platform, and which was intended to support an equestrian statue of his Grace, also unaccomplished. From the main platform a massive obelisk rises truncated, and of thick and heavy proportions. On its four facades are inscribed the names of all the victories gained by the Duke, from his first career in India to the battle of Waterloo. Its total height is 205 feet. The site, forming the highest ground in the park, is that formerly occupied by the Salute battery, and was given by the Board of Ordnance to the Wellington Committee, with a view to the erection of this trophy. A square, dry ditch, fronted with stone, surrounds the whole.

Mellor

Stripey Cat wrote: »

Or maybe the writer wasn't such an authority on this as he appears.

Why would he have to be an authority, it was written during construction, the plans and paticulars would of been freely available to the public.

BeerNut

Mellor wrote: »

the plans and paticulars would of been freely available to the public.

In the foyer of Leinster House, apparently.

Stripey Cat

Mellor wrote: »

Why would he have to be an authority, it was written during construction

That's true, and begs the question why pay any attention to what he wrote, or indeed what the others quoted above wrote either. They don't prove anything.

BeerNut

Stripey Cat wrote: »

They don't prove anything.

Once again for the hard of thinking: no they don't, but it is strange that if a staircase existed it would not have been mentioned in any writer's account of the Monument.

The existence of the staircase inside the Wellington Monument, like the existence of dragons inside the Wellington Monument, remains to be proven. "But no-one said there isn't one" is not an argument.

magicface1

I live a very close distance from the wellington monument(if that is the right term).. Time to settle this once and for all.. Going to get the rockcutter and just go investigate myself.

Sunnyisland

magicface1 wrote: »

I live a very close distance from the wellington monument(if that is the right term).. Time to settle this once and for all.. Going to get the rockcutter and just go investigate myself.

Make sure it does not topple down on top of you now

Stripey Cat

BeerNut wrote: »

Once again for the hard of thinking

Is that really necessary?

Why post a load of quotes from people writing about something when it hadn't been built?

BeerNut

Stripey Cat wrote: »

Why post a load of quotes from people writing about something when it hadn't been built?

It had been built.

Edit: Here's a sketch of it done after the first phase of work stopped in 1820 but before completion in 1861 (before 1847, in fact, according to The National Library):


Looks built to me.

Mellor

Stripey Cat wrote: »

Is that really necessary?

Why post a load of quotes from people writing about something when it hadn't been built?

What are you talking about?
It had been built. Those quotes were from after plans were released and after the construction had been underway for some years.
If there was a stairs on the plans it would have been seen by all. There is not much chance that it was a secret, either way, it would of been known once construction began.

Christine Casey is a well known architectural historian, the quote from her a few posts above was a book published in 2005. She descibed it as a "masonry core and ashlar granite facing"

Stripey Cat

So quotes from 1830 and 1838 about a structure which was completed long afterwards are about something which

had been built

?

Right.