Building after the British left

whisky_galore

robp wrote: »

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.

Seen a lot in farm outbuildings and buildings out of the public eye or buildings not 'pretty' enough (warehouses/stores) to warrant a mortared finish.

ozmo

The old whitewashed cottages look best - but new builds look too plain when rendered in modern perfectly done plaster - or too over the top when embellished with a swiss house look or whatever (Halfway house Navan Road, Station House Raheny Village).

The dictates given are to fit into what we see today - if what is left is unplastered walls on castles, ruined cottages with visible rubble stone work, and simple dry stone walls - then maybe it is better we ape what it looks like today rather what it looked like before living memory.

In ancient Greece and Egypt the statues and buildings were all brightly painted - not white - it would be inconsiderable of those countries to try match up new builds with what's left as they were originally meant to be.

donaghs

Don't think anyone's mentioned social housing schemes yet? Dublin particularly had a lot of inner city unsuitable overcrowded accomodation, with very few efforts made to rehouse people. The Marino Scheme in the early 20s was one of the first to address these issues: http://www.theirishstory.com/2011/09/07/a-garden-city-the-dublin-corporation-housing-scheme-at-marino-1924/#.U2H686KZj9s

Other schemes followed in the 1930s like Cabra and Crumlin.

pedroeibar1

donaghs wrote: »

Don't think anyone's mentioned social housing schemes yet? Dublin particularly had a lot of inner city unsuitable overcrowded accomodation, with very few efforts made to rehouse people. The Marino Scheme in the early 20s was one of the first to address these issues: http://www.theirishstory.com/2011/09/07/a-garden-city-the-dublin-corporation-housing-scheme-at-marino-1924/#.U2H686KZj9s

Other schemes followed in the 1930s like Cabra and Crumlin.

Beat you to it, back inpost #22
But thanks, Marino Scheme is a good example of early post-independence architectural efforts.

crockholm

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.

Ballyknockan village is like Knock for us stoneheads.

chughes

donaghs wrote: »

Don't think anyone's mentioned social housing schemes yet? Dublin particularly had a lot of inner city unsuitable overcrowded accomodation, with very few efforts made to rehouse people. The Marino Scheme in the early 20s was one of the first to address these issues: http://www.theirishstory.com/2011/09/07/a-garden-city-the-dublin-corporation-housing-scheme-at-marino-1924/#.U2H686KZj9s

Other schemes followed in the 1930s like Cabra and Crumlin.

Could I respectfully bring post number 14 in this thread to your attention.

Cedrus

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

.............................. it’s OK for a Mod to be pedantic about the definition of ................................................ rendered random rubble houses.

Speaking of being pedandtic, it's common to assume/call stone built cottages "rubble" but in fact they are mostly found/field stone, Rubble is actually quarry waste so was not always as available, was often too small to be useful, and it had to be worked for, whereas the field stone was a byproduct of farming. Of course many were also a mixture of fieldstone and rubble.

On another material, in Cork, all of the local brick was slob brick mad from river mud which fired irregularly so was usually only fit for hidden walls (side, rear, inside and rendered), the exposed brick Facades were more often than not imported brick (or rendered).

pedroeibar1

Cedrus wrote: »

....... it's common to assume/call stone built cottages "rubble" but in fact they are mostly found/field stone, Rubble is actually quarry waste so was not always as available, was often too small to be useful, and it had to be worked for, whereas the field stone was a byproduct of farming. Of course many were also a mixture of fieldstone and rubble.

Quite, but random rubble is a descriptive term for a type of wall (built with any unworked stones randomly set) rather than a description of the source of its integral parts.

pedroeibar1

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

pedroeibar1

To get back on topic,
Image of the Dept. of Industry and Commerce (etc) shows the fine ashlar above rusticated ashlar courses.

Several of the links put up by Victor here are for buildings done by Robinson and Keefe (Cathal Brugha Street, Marino College, etc.) They were very active for the RC Church, schools, churches, etc and had several housing schemes e.g. 100 houses at Richmond Hill in Monkstown. Good online book on them with illustrations here

Victor wrote: »

https://maps.google.ie/?ll=53.341853,-6.295896&spn=0.002421,0.015278&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=53.341857,-6.295898&panoid=NEry9MVkqrWOS5vXCk8QVg&cbp=11,109.62,,0,-6.67 - I'm not sure about the date of these.

Those are Ceannt Fort houses, formerly McCaffreys Estate 1917-1922? By T J Byrne (who was English born & trained) and a key figure in the design of early 20thc public housing. He also supervised the rebuilding of the Four Courts.

duffalosoldier

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"!!

What? Whats so important about it? It dates back to the 70s - 4 decades ago. Architecture didnt stop then! Im sick of these conservationists throwing their oar in where its not wanted and influencing important economic decisions. Progression is the key word now coming out of a recession and the relentless persuit by activists to preserve anything in the city from before their own generation is quite frankly wrong on many levels. Protect features that need protecting like Georgian Dublin - not nonsence Architure of little or no important.

Rant over.

dubhthach

How is redeveloping a site in Ballsbridge an "important economic decision"?. Be better off building largescale offices in the Grand Canal Docks (The redevelopment of Boland's mill site) which would provide the large amount of floor space needed by Tech industry down there. Tbh the Victorians probably looked at the Georgians in much the same way you are looking at this building

pedroeibar1

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?

Judgement Day

A horrible eyesore. :eek:

duffalosoldier

dubhthach wrote: »

How is redeveloping a site in Ballsbridge an "important economic decision"?. Be better off building largescale offices in the Grand Canal Docks (The redevelopment of Boland's mill site) which would provide the large amount of floor space needed by Tech industry down there. Tbh the Victorians probably looked at the Georgians in much the same way you are looking at this building

The economic decision is that the site on Pembroke Road could be justified on the basis of the rent achievable. Due to the scale of Bolands Mill and the fact that it too is another listed building, it cannot be justified. Any case point is there is no point living in the past when making these decisions. Focus should be creating legacy for the future.

dubhthach

duffalosoldier wrote: »

The economic decision is that the site on Pembroke Road could be justified on the basis of the rent achievable. Due to the scale of Bolands Mill and the fact that it too is another listed building, it cannot be justified. Any case point is there is no point living in the past when making these decisions. Focus should be creating legacy for the future.

The grain silo's in Boland's mill are not listed. There was plan to demolish both of them and replace them with equivalent height office blocks (at least 15 stories akin to "Montre Vetro" the google office)







Here's a render of a proposed design that would replace the silo's.


The actual 19th century sections of the complex would be retained.

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

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.

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.

Alias G

I quite like the former Texaco HQ although it probably grew on me over time. I also think it functions quite well in it current guise as a car showroom from an aesthetic point of view. It is certainly preferable to whatever generic glass cage offices would be likely to replace it.

pedroeibar1

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!

CrabRevolution

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.

How do you define "progress" and its contribution to the economy? It sounds very vague and meaningless. You can put a number on jobs and office space, but are there figures for the "progress" this project would produce?

tac foley

I don't believe that original direction of the question has been answered - the work of Eero Saarinen, Corbusier or Frank Lloyd Wright can hardly be described as 'Irish' in any way, no matter how much quaint 'Irishness' they might have included in their designs. And BTW, incorporating a few decorative 'whorls' and 'triskele' spirals in the concrete does NOT count as Irish.

So, let's start over.

Is there what could architecturally be described as a current genuinely native Irish architectural vernacular, that does NOT include thatched huts and round towers?

tac

ozmo

tac foley wrote: »

Is there what could architecturally be described as a current genuinely native Irish architectural vernacular, that does NOT include thatched huts and round towers?
tac

Before Georgian Architecture in Dublin - apparently Dublin (and much of the country) looked a lot like Amsterdam type houses - tall with stepped front gable.

Known as Dutch-Billy houses - they were everywhere apparently pre-1700.

I think there is still one left in Dublin but the step has been modified to hide it but I cannot remember where it is sorry...


edit: ahh found it: http://irisharchaeology.ie/2012/03/dublins-forgotten-buildings-the-dutch-billy/

tac foley

Ozmo thank you for that. Yes, they ARE Dutch, of that there can be no doubt. I live in East Anglia, and in particular, the town of Wisbech not far away looks just like 17th century Rotterdam. As the very landscape itself around Cambridgeshire owes its existence to the work of the Dutch water engineer Vermuyden, so does the local architectural vernacularr owe itself unmistakeably to his Dutch merchant pals. Many people around here still have their Dutch names, unchanged from those times when the British finally made friends with the Dutch after a brief and very unpleasant little war that nobody really enjoyed. One part of the next county up - Lincolnshire - is actually called New Holland.

Sooooooooooooooooooo, we STILL don't have a recognisably Irish architectural style, do we?

tac

ozmo

tac foley wrote: »

Sooooooooooooooooooo, we STILL don't have a recognisably Irish architectural style, do we?

Not sure what you are looking for - being subjected to a new culture every few hundred years brought in new styles continuously - all architecture (Ireland, UK or where-ever) can be traced back to some origins somewhere.

But the building design in each case would have been done by Ireland based Architects (James Gandon etc) so its is Irish in my books.

tac foley

'kay.

tac

whisky_galore

tac foley wrote: »

Sooooooooooooooooooo, we STILL don't have a recognisably Irish architectural style, do we?

tac

Judging by a spin around the country at the weekend; the McMansion and its close cousin, the McEstate. :pac:
But seriously, passing through many towns/villages, some of the nicest buildings in them often seem to be boarded up, disused and falling into disrepair, getting trashed by the kids and gutted of anything of value by passing 'opportunists'. There's a fetish here to keep on building new houses of varying degrees of ugliness/blandness and not making use of what look to be perfectly sound existing ones or converting some older attractive building to domestic use.

Jellybaby1

Hi everyone, remember me? The OP? I've been following all the posts up to now and just want to comment on the last few if I may:

tac foley wrote: »

I don't believe that original direction of the question has been answered

Nope, not yet guys.

ozmo wrote: »

Before Georgian Architecture in Dublin - apparently Dublin (and much of the country) looked a lot like Amsterdam type houses - tall with stepped front gable......Known as Dutch-Billy houses - they were everywhere apparently pre-1700.

I remember now there is a house in Dublin I’ve always described as ‘Dutch’. Turn left onto Upper Kevin Street from Patrick Street and it’s just a few doors up on the left. Is it Dutch? This is what I was talking about. You can definitely say Dutch Billy houses are obviously Dutch designs!

tac foley wrote: »

.....Yes, they ARE Dutch, of that there can be no doubt. I live in East Anglia, and in particular, the town of Wisbech not far away looks just like 17th century Rotterdam.

Sooooooooooooooooooo, we STILL don't have a recognisably Irish architectural style, do we? tac

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 live in hope that someone will post something to prove otherwise.

ozmo wrote: »

Not sure what you are looking for - being subjected to a new culture every few hundred years brought in new styles continuously - all architecture (Ireland, UK or where-ever) can be traced back to some origins somewhere.

But the building design in each case would have been done by Ireland based Architects (James Gandon etc) so its is Irish in my books.

But you mean it is Irish designed. 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, if you get my drift.

whisky_galore wrote: »

Judging by a spin around the country at the weekend; the McMansion and its close cousin, the McEstate. :pac:
But seriously, passing through many towns/villages, some of the nicest buildings in them often seem to be boarded up, disused and falling into disrepair, getting trashed by the kids and gutted of anything of value by passing 'opportunists'. There's a fetish here to keep on building new houses of varying degrees of ugliness/blandness and not making use of what look to be perfectly sound existing ones or converting some older attractive building to domestic use.

Oh, I wholeheartedly agree. I doubt very much if there is a major interest in Ireland in restoration, as there is in the UK. For heaven’s sake, many people on this little island have their lives and careers built on our history viz., politicians, government departments, tourist industry, heritage, historians, University lecturers, TV programme producers etc., and probably more I can’t even think of, We are great at selling it abroad, but when you get down to the nitty-gritty we are God-awful at preserving it. I don’t really care whether the history was produced by the Irish, British, French, German or Spanish. If it happened in Ireland, then it is Irish history.

Thank you all for your posts so far, it is fascinating reading.

tac foley

Way back in the 60's we had an original two-room cottage in Kilcoole. When my dad died it was sold off and within days had become a heap of rubble. IMO it had been worth preserving, but I had no say in its fate, sadly.

I belleve that it is now the site of the Kilcoole Pharmacy and the 'Cool cuts' barbers, according to GE, anyhow.

tac

pedroeibar1

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!

Jellybaby1

Thank you for all that effort to explain Irish design. I bow to all the experts here. You know your stuff. I know nothing about the subject as you probably realised quite early in this thread. It was a mere enquiry on my part to know if there were any Irish designs i.e. not British designs, after the British left, something that anyone in any country could point at and say…..’that’s an Irish design’. You have definitely gone to great lengths in your replies to explain Irish architectural design in great detail, much more detail than perhaps my question really needed, and nonetheless I have enjoyed reading the replies and enjoyed learning from them.

You mention Rory Gallagher, and I could mention, say for instance Thin Lizzy and ‘Whisky in a Jar’ but that’s another story and as I am neither an artist, an architect, a historian or a musician there would be no point in any argument from me.

Before I end, having looked at the buildings you listed and the 2008 house “Tuath na Mara” in Donegal is very reminiscent of ancient dolmens and I would accept that is a truly Celtic design. I won’t say dolmens are an Irish design as they can be found in other countries like Scotland and France, but yes, definitely Celtic. Yes, I’ll take that all right.

Thanks again everyone.

JB