Building after the British left

jonniebgood1

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

The insistence of stone cladding in rural Ireland as being ‘traditional’ – no it’s bloody not, never was, even cottier houses were mortared and limewashed.
.....

Rant over!

Stone as a building material is traditional- think before 1700's.

jonniebgood1

Judgement Day wrote: »

If you're designing a bus station - you design a bus station with anything else (offices. theatre etc) a secondary consideration but in the case of Bus Aras it seems to have been the other way round. The footprint of the building is large enough for it to have been got right. Anyway, I don't like the building and you do.

Regardless of personal opinions Busaras is widely recognised as a successful example of modern Architecture. The fact that it is still in use in the way it is means it has stood the test of time despite the development of this type of travel. The same can be said of Dublin airport which was internationally renowned and widely copied when built both in 1940 and later developments (50's).

Judgement Day

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Regardless of personal opinions Busaras is widely recognised as a successful example of modern Architecture. The fact that it is still in use in the way it is means it has stood the test of time despite the development of this type of travel. The same can be said of Dublin airport which was internationally renowned and widely copied when built both in 1940 and later developments (50's).

Widely recognised bythe elite in much the same way as Sean Scully is recognised as an artist.


https://www.google.ie/search?q=sean%20scully&client=opera&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi

jonniebgood1

Judgement Day wrote: »

Widely recognised bythe elite in much the same way as Sean Scully is recognised as an artist.

I'm going to take a compliment out of that as I would have the opinion that if a building from the 50's is still used for same purpose 60 years later that it deserves enormous credit (i.e. I must be part of the elite!!!!!!)

!!
:pac:

marienbad

Judgement Day wrote: »

Widely recognised bythe elite in much the same way as Sean Scully is recognised as an artist.


https://www.google.ie/search?q=sean%20scully&client=opera&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi

All these things are recognised by an elite , what is your point ? Elites per se are not a bad thing.

Judgement Day

marienbad wrote: »

All these things are recognised by an elite , what is your point ? Elites per se are not a bad thing.

That's another personal opinion - i.e. unwelcome in this thread.

robp

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Stone as a building material is traditional- think before 1700's.

Stone is a traditional building material but only when its covered over wth plaster. Although exposed stone is visible on castles and tower houses these were originally rendered in a lime plaster. The plaster is needed for weather proofing. So many Irish cottages have had their plaster removed and it has greatly reduced their beauty.

Cedrus

robp wrote: »

Stone is traditional building material but only when its covered over in plaster. Although exposed stone is visible on castles and tower houses these were originally rendered in a lime plaster. The plaster is needed for weather proofing. So many Irish cottages have had their plaster removed and it has greatly reduced their beauty.

And their weathering ability, I know several people living in stone cottages who would give their eye teeth to move into a warm dry modern house.

Stone cladding on a modern house is a bit hokey though, but bizarrely, many council planners insist on it as traditional even though our forbears wanted to hide the stone as it looked "poor".

Cedrus

Judgement Day wrote: »

That's another personal opinion - i.e. unwelcome in this thread.

Why would a personal opinion be unwelcome on a public discussion board? This is what discussions are for.

Stating an opinion as unmoderated fact will always be open to challenge, if this offends you, don't go out, ever.

Cedrus

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Regardless of personal opinions Busaras is widely recognised as a successful example of modern Architecture. The fact that it is still in use in the way it is means it has stood the test of time despite the development of this type of travel. The same can be said of Dublin airport which was internationally renowned and widely copied when built both in 1940 and later developments (50's).

Yes, 61 years of contiguous use lends a lie to the idea that Busaras was "useless" or "not fit for purpose".

I think the original Dublin airport is beautiful even now, but you do have to catch it at the right angle as it is swamped by the later terminal.

Ardnacrusha was also copied, the Hoover dam developers sent over a delegation to find out what was done, strictly speaking that was not an Irish project though, Siemens designed and built it, though it was Irish commissioned.

jonniebgood1

robp wrote: »

Stone is a traditional building material but only when its covered over wth plaster. Although exposed stone is visible on castles and tower houses these were originally rendered in a lime plaster. The plaster is needed for weather proofing. So many Irish cottages have had their plaster removed and it has greatly reduced their beauty.

Do you have any information on stone castles and tower houses being originally rendered, i.e. a source for this- I did not think this was the case.

I do not think that you are correct to say that stone was always covered with plaster. In many cases a lime whitewash was painted directly onto the stone. Also common were outhouse buildings that would never have been rendered but were commonly built in rubble field stone. These can still be seen in abandoned traditional farmsteads where the cottage may still have the remnants of lime render whilst the accompanying sheds have exposed stone. Many examples of what I am talking about are contained in this link http://www.heritagecouncil.ie/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/Architecture/Farm_Buildings.pdf
Reference page 14 & 15 for good examples.

Judgement Day

Cedrus wrote: »

Yes, 61 years of contiguous use lends a lie to the idea that Busaras was "useless" or "not fit for purpose".

I think the original Dublin airport is beautiful even now, but you do have to catch it at the right angle as it is swamped by the later terminal.

Ardnacrusha was also copied, the Hoover dam developers sent over a delegation to find out what was done, strictly speaking that was not an Irish project though, Siemens designed and built it, though it was Irish commissioned.

Not really, as the company which uses Bus Aras has been in business for a little longer than the building and is widely regarded as "useless: and "not fit for purpose" yet it continues. The fact that it has continued in use is more down to CIE's inability to develop a new central bus station than the present building's suitability.

Cedrus

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Do you have any information on stone castles and tower houses being originally rendered, i.e. a source for this- I did not think this was the case.

I do not think that you are correct to say that stone was always covered with plaster. In many cases a lime whitewash was painted directly onto the stone. Also common were outhouse buildings that would never have been rendered but were commonly built in rubble field stone. These can still be seen in abandoned traditional farmsteads where the cottage may still have the remnants of lime render whilst the accompanying sheds have exposed stone. Many examples of what I am talking about are contained in this link http://www.heritagecouncil.ie/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/Architecture/Farm_Buildings.pdf
Reference page 14 & 15 for good examples.

Castles and Cottages were normally plastered though it was a much cruder effort than we would consider these days and it did not last well, more hand slap than smooth float, there were also poorer places which did not get plastered but poorer again were the sod cabins.

pedroeibar1

Robp and Cedrus have beaten me in responding (thanks); I'll just add that many of the cottages were finished in a type of 'daub' that did not last. Annual limewashing was a feature to help protect it. The feast of Corpus Christi sees many country houses being painted in a +/- continuance of this tradition. The pages 14 and 15 to which you referred above are for farm outbuildings, not habitations.

dubhthach

Of course prior to the 18th century the standard would have been what were called "Mud houses" (compressed earth -- basically development from Wattle and Daub!):

On the Improvement of the Habitations of the Poor in Ireland
From the Dublin Penny Journal, Volume 1, Number 40, March 30, 1833
http://www.libraryireland.com/articles/Irish-Mud-Cabins/

If I recall correctly in "Green and Silver" (published 1949 -- trip on Grand and Royal Canal) there's a photo of a then derelict "mud cabin". They are basically what you'd call a "bothán" in Irish.

What's evident obviously before the 1600's is that most housing was of a temporary nature (eg. easy to build, just as easy to abandon) , given the nature of Gaelic society at the time that's hardly surprising

robp

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Do you have any information on stone castles and tower houses being originally rendered, i.e. a source for this- I did not think this was the case.

I do not think that you are correct to say that stone was always covered with plaster. In many cases a lime whitewash was painted directly onto the stone. Also common were outhouse buildings that would never have been rendered but were commonly built in rubble field stone. These can still be seen in abandoned traditional farmsteads where the cottage may still have the remnants of lime render whilst the accompanying sheds have exposed stone. Many examples of what I am talking about are contained in this link http://www.heritagecouncil.ie/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/Architecture/Farm_Buildings.pdf
Reference page 14 & 15 for good examples.

I don't have a good citation but perhaps others would. I am not not expert so maybe they weren't always plastered but certainly the popular image of bare stone is incorrect.

Very occasionally you can still see traces on sheltered parts of tower houses. Its sometimes added on restored towerhouses like in the following two.

pedroeibar1

Traditional Buildings in Ireland. Published by: Mourne Heritage Trust Walls – The material used depends on what is locally available. The most common walling material is undressed rubble stone and the second most common is earth. Most people are familiar with rubble stone. These load-bearing walls are generally 600mm to 700mm thick and the stones are selected to face up on both sides. When walls are built against a bank, they are sometimes only faced on the one side. The stonework is occasionally exposed but more often it is protected, at least by layers of limewash but usually there is also one coat of plaster or more.
Earth as a building material is generally not so familiar to most of us. Many owners are quite shocked to find their house has earth walls but, in practice, earth is a very reliable building material. It is important to keep it dry. The especially weak points are the head and the foot but the surfaces between must all be protected with lime. There are a great many earth buildings in use today. Some have been standing for two centuries and more. Earth walls have been built in a variety of ways, some by ramming wet clay between shutters, others by using hand formed lumps or unbaked bricks that have been pre-dried under cover. Some earth walls are reinforced with straw, hair or rags. Earth was commonly used as a bedding for rubble stone work, sometimes neat and sometimes it was mixed with lime.

jonniebgood1

From Patrick & Maura Shaffreys excellent reference book -'Irish countryside buildings' P.118

"When stone of better quality and more uniform size is used it is laid to a more regular pattern in horizontal courses, and if the weathering characterisations of the stone are considered to be sufficiently good it is pointed with mortar and exposed in its natural state. This technique is known as coursed and pointed stonework."
The underline is inserted by me (obviously)...

Later in same book the author details another type of stonework "ashlar work" that was left exposed. This is quarry worked stone. There are several examples of buildings such as forges or public buildings built with cut stone that would never have been intended to be plastered.

pedroeibar1

JBG, We agree that Shaffreys’ book is excellent, but after that.......
I’m not sure that we are discussing the same thing - in my post I referred to the ubiquitous use of stone cladding in modern rural housing – saying

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

....... The stupidity (and growing frequency) of the crass exposure of random rubble walls with raised ‘pointing’ .........

This is an example of the nonsense I mentioned, where a house that was (and should be) faced with mortar has had it removed. It is one of thousands all around the country - and Co. Dublin is no exception, where the stupidity is also happening, Strand Road, Sandycove, Dalkey to think of just a few horrible examples.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

....... The insistence of stone cladding in rural Ireland as being ‘traditional’ – no it’s bloody not, never was, even cottier houses were mortared and limewashed.........Rant over!

Here are a few new-builds that commit the sin 1 and 2 3 4

Particularly when they get it wrong, those houses have no need for stonework cladding, other than to satisfy an uninformed owner or worse, planning official.

My comments remain accurate. Rural housing, when it was stone-built, was invariably random rubble which by its nature is very uneven in size and shape, and difficult to lay in straight courses. This unevenness gives rise to a near impossibility to weatherproof an exterior wall – an inward slope on any one stone will funnel water into the space between the interior & exterior walls, a gap usually filled with rammed earth and ‘stuff’ that would retain the damp. That is why rural houses had their stonework mortared and limewashed. Here is an example of what I mean where the mortaring is poor and the house has been limewashed several times. (Note the little guy in the half door). Here is another that also shows an outbuilding that has been pointed with mortar. Another and another.

Ashlar is commonly /incorrectly called ‘cut stone’ and is generally used only on ‘gentrified’ houses – mansions, castles, agents houses, gate lodges, etc.. It is an expensive process as the face and all sides that abut another stone must be dressed (squared). Ashlar was very popular during the ‘gothicisation’ craze in the 1800’s that led to crenulations and the addition of towers, etc, to existing buildings – frequently the ashlar was just a facade overlaid on Georgian stucco.
On the forges you mentioned above it would have been common to have the entrance arch constructed from ashlar or dressed stone and the remaining surfaces built by random rubble overlaid with plaster. As a rule of thumb, the wealthier the estate and the more prominent the building, the more likely one will find dressed stone and sometimes ashlar. Your mention of plastering over ashlar is a red herring - would never happen, it would be like gold-plating an object and then painting over it with enamel paint.

jonniebgood1

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Originally Posted by pedroeibar1 View Post

....... The insistence of stone cladding in rural Ireland as being ‘traditional’ – no it’s bloody not, never was, even cottier houses were mortared and limewashed.........Rant over!.

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).

jonniebgood1

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Your mention of plastering over ashlar is a red herring - would never happen, it would be like gold-plating an object and then painting over it with enamel paint.

Just to clarify- I stated that Ashlar was left exposed. I think you mixed that up as I also stated "would never have been intended to be plastered"

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Later in same book the author details another type of stonework "ashlar work" that was left exposed. This is quarry worked stone. There are several examples of buildings such as forges or public buildings built with cut stone that would never have been intended to be plastered.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Ashlar is commonly /incorrectly called ‘cut stone’ and is generally used only on ‘gentrified’ houses – mansions, castles, agents houses, gate lodges, etc.. It is an expensive process as the face and all sides that abut another stone must be dressed (squared).

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

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/ashlar

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ashlar

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ashlar

walrusgumble

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

Thanks dubhthach. That's certainly a mega construction all right and very industrial/functional but I suppose what I'm really getting at in my ham-fisted way is Irish design, when I look at buildings in Dublin, they are British in style, Victorian, Georgian etc., and you can see the same style in Belfast and all over Britain, and they're to my mind just gorgeous. I wanted to know what houses/buildings are built in the 'Irish style' after Independence. Is there anything we can say that about? All I can think of at the moment is the ESB building on Fitzwilliam Street. But there must be earlier examples of Irish architectural design.

Ballymun flats, cough cough, just like Peckham.

Liberty Hall? Reburishment of GPO, Customs House and Four Courts?

Irish design hasn't being that great I am afraid

pedroeibar1

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!

whisky_galore

Judgement Day wrote: »

A distinctive Irish (?) design to be seen in many towns is that of "Technical School Art Deco" - the one in Enniscorthy (below) survives in use as the local library. Not an attractive style in my opinion but unusual

Reminds me of my old national school in style, except that had huge single glazed windows (roasted alive in summer/froze in winter), outdoor bogs and hot and cold running rats.

Passed this gem today, a bit of a mini Busarus in style without the horrid Ballymun like carbuncles.

http://www.buildingsofireland.ie/niah/search.jsp?type=record&county=CO&regno=20806042

whisky_galore

robp wrote: »

Stone is a traditional building material but only when its covered over wth plaster. Although exposed stone is visible on castles and tower houses these were originally rendered in a lime plaster. The plaster is needed for weather proofing. So many Irish cottages have had their plaster removed and it has greatly reduced their beauty.

Ugh, like the 'Authentic' Irish Pub look.:mad:
Chip off all external plaster...Strip out all the original fixtures and fittings and fill every nook and cranny with fake-tques and assorted rubbish hanging off the rafters. Not sure if better or worse than 1970's Lounge Bar look...plastic light-up signage and covering the interior in carpet and formica.

ozmo

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Here are a few new-builds that commit the sin 1 and 2 3 4

Thanks for all the info - always noticed and admired the different styles of stone walls - but never knew all the terminology for it.


Some horrible stone work there in those links - very obviously newer(think it might also be the darker stone thats used?) - the second one especially though has hints of beehive huts Link


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?

jonniebgood1

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Ashlar is commonly /incorrectly called ‘cut stone’ ....

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

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).
......

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!

Sorry to be pedantic but it is cut then...:cool: so it is 'cut' stone, rather than 'cut stone'!

pedroeibar1

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Sorry to be pedantic but it is cut then...:cool: so it is 'cut' stone, rather than 'cut stone'!

C’mon, I don’t mind, it’s OK for a Mod to be pedantic about the definition of ashlar - it comes with age oops seniority! But then, that is not really the point, when you’re talking about exposed stone being traditional and ignoring my mud cabins and rendered random rubble houses. So, to help you with your traditional Irish STONE house argument, let’s look at the housing situation at the time of the Famine, which is a good benchmark.

Take a very ‘traditional’ statistical database such as the census. In 1841 how many Irish families lived in First Class houses? About 3%. Second Class? about 20%. Third Class? 40%. Fourth Class? 37%. To put that housing stock in perspective, Fourth Class were one-roomed mud cabins, usually 10 feet by 15 feet. Third Class were not much better, mud-built with 2-4 rooms and a window or two. So more than two thirds of the population were living in mud huts. That definitely was the case west of a line from Malin to Cork, where in some Baronies 80% of housing was 4th class. That is traditional Irish rural housing.
It did change by 1901, when First class housing rose to 9% and Second saw the biggest growth, trebling from 20 to 60%. But then, that brings us to the era of Land reform, tenant purchase and ‘decent’ new rural housing, which of course was rendered random rubble, not mud, and certainly not plain stone. So if you want to be traditional, use mud or a rendered finish, forget stone. :P:cool:
Interesting paper on housing here

pedroeibar1

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.

robp

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).

I am going to back pedroeibar1 again on this. The only occasions I have seen this exposed stone on period buildings is on churches, institutions, school houses and gate lodges. So yes in some cases its present in the Irish landscape but seldom and even more seldom for private homes. For that reason I don't see how it can be considered traditional.

For me the rough surface of a lime mortared wall has far more beauty.