What is the most attractive bridge over the Liffey?

It has to be Queen Maeve Bridge for me – even if the name change was faintly ridiculous…
Such a graceful, simple structure. O’Donovan Rossa is a close contender, not least considering its similarity, but Maeve just beats it by her timeless hump-backed profile 🙂

The Ha’penny, albeit an obvious choice is still in the top two/three – another classic profile that just cannot be beaten.
And it’s such a ‘friendly’ looking structure too – it looks like it’s reaching out from both sides to link the north and south together:

Those lanterns though have just got to go – a breathtaking insult to the structure. The most famous lanterns in the country and the CC tack on a handful of standardised factory-churned pieces of rubbish: it beggars belief.
The conservationists that restored the bridge must be fuming.

By Pat Liddy:

From the records of Dublin Corporation 1913:

“Wellington Bridge [Ha’penny] is an unsightly structure. It is a narrow footbridge with a steep gradient and a toll of one halfpenny is made for crossing it. The lease will expire in a few years when a suitable new bridge will be built”. 🙂

or that so few opted for Grattan Bridge.
I go for Queen Maeve as well. Such a pretty structure. Some smart pavinga nd lighting would do it wonders.

I have reserved judgement on the OCasey Bridge till now. Im not at all happy with the finish – is it galvinised steel? The arms look clumsy and ungainly, very lacking in finese.

As is the lighting of many of the city’s bridges.

Look at the muck tacked onto O’Connell Bridge 😡

This was discussed before https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=3240&highlight=liffey+bridges+lighting with Plug’s post being very interesting.

The results of this poll have really surprised me, I really thought that the Ha’penny and Joyce bridges would have run away from the pack as opposed to such a dilution of support to all but three bridges. Matt Talbot and Frank Sherwin were predictable as would a similar level of support for the Eastlink were it included. The level of support for Grattan Bridge given that it has its pre fridges photo included is amazing. 1.78% for a bridge that had its restoration lauded lavishly 18 months ago on this forum and is one of the most used bridges in the City is sending out a very clear signal.

I noticed that only one of the Four Kiosks is now open and that it is selling little more than cigerettes, as if we didn’t have enough convenience stores as it is. I think it is time for DCC to cut their losses on this failed experiment.

Yes.

Poor old Grattan Bridge, definitely in the top four for me anyway. The fridges certainly seem to have something to do with the result.

I was sitting there recently with two other people and it was they who were pointing out how ridiculous everything was, the fact that you’re facing the fridges rather than a view of the Liffey, the fact that there’s little room for pedestrians to get by, the fact that you have to stand in a flippin drainage channel to be served at the stalls, the fact that three of the fridges were closed or vacant, and the poor timber finish of the brand new benches.

The fridges ought to be removed and a pedestrian friendly scheme laid out to overturn the injustice done to the city’s most unusual bridge.

@Graham Hickey wrote:

Yes.

Poor old Grattan Bridge, definitely in the top four for me anyway. The fridges certainly seem to have something to do with the result.

I was sitting there recently with two other people and it was they who were pointing out how ridiculous everything was, the fact that you’re facing the fridges rather than a view of the Liffey, the fact that there’s little room for pedestrians to get by, the fact that you have to stand in a flippin drainage channel to be served at the stalls, the fact that three of the fridges were closed or vacant, and the poor timber finish of the brand new benches.

The fridges ought to be removed and a pedestrian friendly scheme laid out to overturn the injustice done to the city’s most unusual bridge.

Well said Graham. They simply do not function well. Would it be an idea to have a separate poll regarding their removal? Is there anywhere else that they could be put nearby? It would be an awful pity to see them wasted all the same.

Out of curiosity: even if these units did look right, how is it that the kiosks of O’Connell St are deserving of a decent wood-clad finish, but these even more prominent ones aren’t? Are the plasticy grey panels supposed to merge into the sky or something?!

@Dublin City Development Plan 2005-11 wrote:

Section 15.27.0 Street Furniture

Certain uses in the public realm including elements of street furniture can lead
to problems of visual clutter and to obstruction of public footpaths for
pedestrians, in particular people with disabilities. These elements include
newspaper stands, telephone kiosks, traffic and bus signs, tables and chairs,
taxi and bus shelters as well as unauthorised A-frames and spinner stands
erected by retailers. It is an objective of Dublin City Council to control the
location and quality of these structures in the interests of creating a high
quality public domain.
All outdoor furniture provided by private operators including retailers,
publicans and restauranteurs etc., and utility companies should be to the
highest quality, preferably in good contemporary design avoiding poor historic
imitation and respect the overall character of the area and quality of the public
realm and be so located to prevent any obstruction of all footpaths and paved
areas including landings.
In this regard, street furniture will require either a licence under Section 254 of
the Planning and Development Act, 2000 to 2002 or planning permission
(including street furniture erected on private landings).
In both instances, the applicant will be required to submit details of the
location, design, specification and quality of the proposed elements of street
furniture. Details of maintenance and cleansing schedules together with a
certificate of structural stability may also be required.

The kiosks are not retail units they were notified as street furniture, what do you think street furniture or retail space?

Is there a definition of street furniture in the Dev Plan?

I would consider them very much so to be retail units due to their sheer individual scale. They are too substantial in size to be considered furniture, and especially a grouping of four of them.
A smaller unit, like the Boardwalk coffee outlet model would scrape it in as furniture, but not these.

I would take the definition of Rateable Structures from the Telecom Eireann vs Valuations Office [1999] judgement as being ‘any structure that is capable of exclusive possession’. Telephone Kiosks are not capable of exclusive possession by their nature but I would contend that any structure where the occupier can open and close at will is a Structure as opposed to an item of street furniture. Have you ever heard of a bench opening or closing for the day?

I’m sure there’s a witty response to that….

Yes telephone kiosks would rate as street furniture in most people’s books, whereas such large scale structures restricted to use at only certain times generally are not. How can a closed up cube be called street furniture when it serves no function at all, not even decorative like lampposts can be?

Can we have a ‘most attractive bridge over the Lee’ poll next, please?

Re: Cork bridges that would be interesting, but as there are no bridges in the Buildings of Ireland section you would need to send photos up to the moderator of the forum.

@Graham Hickey wrote:

I’m sure there’s a witty response to that….

Theres always a witty response 😉

They are certainly structures that did not translate from the drawing board to reality very well, in fact they look nothing like what was originally proposed and they do as you say look like mere cubes. I say sell them to the GAA and put the flagpoles back on top where County colours could be displayed on match days, they would make perfect match programme stands/vending kiosks.

Certainly one use for them – though if they were just slipped over into the Liffey when no one was looking that’d be good enough either…

Meant to ask before Plug if you’re around – what would you do to light the Liffey’s bridges?
What methods and colour palette would you use?

How is it that only 63 people think Heuston bridge is the most attractive on the Liffey? While it does need a good cleaning, it is definitely the nicest 19th century bridge in Dublin. But then again, there’s nothing much to compete with for that title!! 🙂

Do you have a picture of it? Thanks in advance.

This poll is fast approaching the 1006-1015 credibility stakes – though yes, it doesn’t factor in traditional socio-economic elements etc, but perhaps that’s a good thing for once.

Hi

Admitting from the start to be a quasi ignorant when it comes to traditional identity, dare I opt for Mr. Santiago’s James Joyce as the nearest to what Dublin comes to these days.

For a bit of entertainment let’s only imagine what would’ve been if instead of him Daniel Libeskind was the bridge competition winner!!! (was there any competition at all for it?)

I suppose – as if you talk about cars and other sort of more actual gear – it’s a matter of asking which is the sexiest contemporary bridge or classic one. Different things, matter of personal taste, tricky answer 😉

I totally agree can you imagine trying to merge an aston martin and the latest Ferrari you’d probably end up with a kia

Always a traditionalist i was ready to vote Queen Meave but on my trip up to the capital last monday I came across the new James Joyce bridge on my way to Blackhall. What a wonderful addition to the river and the city. Well done!

People seem to really like the Ha’penny Bridge!! Nearly a hundred people think the Heuston Bridge is the most attractive over the Liffey.

Interesting to note the vast difference between O’Donovan Rossa and Queen Maeve, considering they’d appeal to the same people by and large.

Agreed about James Joyce Eugen C. – and as was pointed out by ctesiphon on another thread, is as dangerous as hell when wet – nearly split myself to on it too, much to the delight of motorists sitting at the lights 😮
Enough to make me despise it even more so, only now for life.

Sorry, I just discovered this thread 🙂

Difficult to describe how I would light the bridges with a blanket answer, as I think each one has to be taken individually, highlighting the relavent structural features, and bringing out the individuality of each bridge. I certainly would would light them without tacking visiblle floods all over them for starters. I’dlike to see more made of the potential for highlight and contrast made between the structural underside of the brodges and the facade (sorry, not up on bridge terminology, do bridges have facades?) Also, I’d be keen to use the reflective properties of the river itself to bounce light back up onto the underside of the bridges in a contrasting colour to the general lighting of the underside. As for a colour pallette, again, although there has to be a certain uniformaty, shades and positioning can be altered to suit the individual properties, but I would certainly shy away from the “Hey this is Ireland, lets just whack a green flood under all the bridges, regardless of whether it suits them or not” Architecturallt the bridges are different, why not light them differently?

Well if it’s not going to be green Plug, then it has to be blue – end of story. After all there is no other colour when it comes to lighting bridges except blue – as I’m sure you know 😀

Thanks for that – yes the contrast with facades and the undersides of arches on bridges always works very well. Even with the current contrast, in spite of it being green, you can see the potential.
There is a degree of that reflective movement of the water you describe on O’Connell Bridge at the moment – very calming 🙂
It might look spectacular if more pronounced alright.

The biggest hurdle to get over it seems is not the lighting design itself, but the longevity of bulbs – they’re never replaced in this country, and when they are it’s often done incorrectly.
So especially considering the awkward positioning of the lamps (i.e. only accessible via a boat :)), we’d need bulbs that last for as long as possible, and a dedicated scheme in place for maintenance.

The term LED springs to mind…

I was thinking they could introduce bulb replacement as a kind of added hurdle for that annual canoe race down the liffey !

Seriously tho’ in an ideal world bulbd should be replaced before they blow, it’s pretty easy to work out the life expectancy, so why not put in place a scheduled bulb replacement for any and all difficult to access bulbs, 2 blokes, one boat, one day, do the whole lot in one go,

(yes, I know I’m dreaming, but it reality they’re no harder to replace than the lamps in high level motorway lighting, just a different problem, I’m sure there’s a couple of lads in the corpo that’d love the idea of spending the day bobbing about on the Liffey!)

I kind of shyed away from mentioning the obvious advantages of LEDs (life expectancy/power consumption etc etc) as as soon as you mention LED’s some people tend to automatically assume they’re going to be changing colour! (cue “outraged cries of “you want to turn the river into a disco!!!”) although having the ability to alter rhe colours for specific days a la the empire state building is an interesting option. They would be perfect for saturated colours, but the colour of the white light outpout from white LED’s isn’t really ideal for lighting stonework, and due to the RGB nature of colour mixing LED’s they don’t do tints or shades of colour very ewll.

Another option that would work well on some of the bridges would be edge lighting with side glow figre optic cable, you can stick your light source somewhere easy to access.

and it’s gotta be blue with deep amber ripples 😀

🙂

Ah, I wondered if that replace-before-they-blow method was a practice used. Was watching a pair of workmen working their way around Penney’s on O’Connell St replacing all the florescent uplighters, even though the vast majority were working.
So that’s what they were at!
An efficient practice – as long as the bulbs are recycled of course.

Pity about the poor white light from LEDs, as it tends to be the most effective colour for lighting stone or in providing a good base for other colours to work off.

ooohhh good for pennys, it actually makes my skin crawl when I see a row of fluorescent uplighters/cove lighting where one or two bulbs in the string have blown and not replaced, and don’t get me started on when I see one thats been replaced with a tube of a different colour temperature ! 😀

Unfortunately it’s back to a colour temp issue with using white LED’s on stonework, it obviously depends on the colour of the stone, but it generally (in my opinion) stonework benefits from warmer whites and softer tones, white LED’s tend to be a bit harsh and unforgiving.

Ah you’re confusing us now Plug – we’re only moving on from sodium orange here – have yet to grasp the notion of a white bulb, let alone various shades of the colour 🙂

Oh yes, is there anything worse than a flourescent gone in a row – esp in clothes shops that use them a lot above cornicing etc, or a nice warm stretch of them with an ‘ice white’ replacement chucked in the middle 😮
Shows how much interest I take in clothes – light fittings and suspended ceilings are so much more worthy of one’s attention 🙂

Unfortunately a lot of the (LED?) orange strips that light the balustrading on the bridges at the moment aren’t working, whatever about the spots that light the keystones.

Indeed lets just take a look now – it’s approaching 1.00am, high summer, lots of tourists about – surely the Liffey must be putting on it’s best show with bridges resplendent in flattering light?

…or maybe not.

shame, isn’t it ?

coming from a theatrical background I have the somewhat high and mighty opinion that lighting is, be it internal or external, an art form.

Used at it’s best it should highlight the beauty and detail of a structure, taking full advantage of the contrast between light and darkness afforded by the night.

In my opinion there’s mouch more to it than just lighting it up so people can see it, New aspects of any structure should come alive after dark. A beautiful example I saw recently was in the “style” section of this weeks Sunday Times (Graham, ask your wife/partner where she left it) It’s a pic of the front of the V&A Museum at night, no front facade lighting at all, but every archay and window is lit. It really looks stunning and gives the building a majesty completely different to the one it has during the day.

It was where it always is – on the bathroom radiator shelf 😮 😀

Fully agreed – I love schemes like this on elaborate buildings that give it a totally new lease of life after dark – in many ways reflecting the architect’s intention to create something fantastical.
It’s a treatment I generally do not like to see applied to sober classical set-pieces, but Victorian and Edwardian architecture was just made for this sort of ‘highlighting’ lighting scheme, with all of their nooks, crannies and high-relief features.

If the Calatrava bridge were included I wonder would the result be any different?

The one that was built (James Joyce Bridge)?

Or are you talking about the Sam Beckett (Macken Street) which shouldn’t be included IMO as it’s not in place yet (never ever judge by renders)

Heuston Bridge is cute.

Frank Sherwin bridge is a plain Jane, although the curved arches beneath are attractive.

Rory O’ More Bridge is painted up nicely.

All the the stone bridges are attractive over the Liffey.

Ha’penny Bridge for me!

O’Connell Bridge needs a makeover.

Butt Bridge ain’t bad, now that they ‘ve painted it and removed the adverts.

Matt Talbot bridge is plain, pure function, no money in the country then I suppose.

Calatrava’s second addition (Samuel Beckett bridge) when built will be a show stealer!

The East link which is not mentioned is horrible!

Aye Paul………I meant the Loopline Bridge……….Doh!

City Council hell bent on shoe horning in this new bridge it seems, out of sync, out of character & out of line.

(think there’s another thread on this, sorry if there is, couldn’t find it.)

@The Irish Times wrote:

Dublin to get new bridge over River Liffey
ELAINE EDWARDSDublin City Council has confirmed it is to build a new €15 million bridge over the River Liffey, just downstream of O’Connell Bridge.

The council said the bridge, funded by the Government’s Transport 21 plan, will carry buses and Luas trams across the Liffey.

“It will have cycleways and generous footpaths that will open Marlborough Street and Hawkins Street to greater footfall, prospective development and create a new north-south link from Abbey Street to Pearse Street,” the council said in a statement.

It promised an “elegant, contemporary” design, with proper facilities for cyclists and wheelchairs to cross.

There will also be seating and landscaping.

“It will be a slender, single span, smooth concrete structure, with the underside of the bridge being designed to be as high above the water as possible so that river traffic is not impeded,” the council said.

Construction is due to start late next year and will take approximately 18 months.

Consulting engineers Roughan & O’Donovan and Seán Harrington Architects were appointed in May to design the bridge. Roughan O’Donovan was the engineer for the Taney Luas bridge in Dundrum, Dublin, as well as the M1 Boyne Bridge at Drogheda, amongst others.

Harrington’s projects include the Dublin Millennium Bridge. Conservation architect David Slattery will ensure that the historic quay walls are properly conserved, as well as advising on other matters relating to the historic and important setting of the project, the council said.

Gordon Rowland of the council’s road design department, said the bridge would take a lot of bus movements away from O’Connell Bridge.

Asked whether the project might be under threat as a result of current economic difficulties, Mr Rowland said he believed the project was “fairly robust” and that there was a requirement for such a bridge to be built at that location over the Liffey.

Mr Rowland said that in the event that the project was not completed within an 18-month timeframe, there was a provision for a temporary bridge just downstream, which would facilitate work on the planned metro line.

Gordon Rowland of the council’s road design department,said the bridge…

Need any more be said? They’ve been lusting after this for this for years.

What a way to f*ck up the compelling rhythm of bridges along the Liffey. What’s galling is the lies and deliberate deceptions used in the PR to justify this. It won’t “open up” anything in the city in the same way that D’Olier St. doesn’t “open up” anything. It “opens up” a corridor which goes nowhere except to inpenetrable side of Trinity. Why not admit that this is a traffic engineer’s bridge and nothing else. The mention of a Luas using the bridge is simply a deliberate lie; BX is off the cards for the forseeable future.

Worse, this will severely compromise the symmety of the setting of O’Connell Bridge. It will also devalue it’s significance by reducing the amount of river it commands. Leaving O’Connell Bridge to rot (besides inserting weirdly shaped balusters – bulb like instead of teardrop shaped) and using it as a Taxi rank while persuing this project is absolutely typical.

Why not spend the money on a proper restoration of O’Connell Bridge? It’s plenty wide for bikes, pedestrians, wheelchairs and anything else and it actually leads to somewhere people actually want to go. It is part of a carefully designed set piece and is one of the most important locations in the city.

The egos required to confidently ignore the significance of the context and condition of O’Connell Bridge must be immense. Do any of the philistines in DCC ever even wonder why other European cities which straddle rivers (I know aspiring to Paris is expecting too much) treat their historic bridges with loving care and think about the impression such bridges leave on visitors?

Public consultation info here:

http://www.dublincity.ie/RoadsandTraffic/MajorTransportProjects/Pages/MarlboroughStreetPublic.aspx

as we all know it is simply not needed… traffic is what 5km hr
it will be expected to increase to 5.23km hr therefore justifying 15 million…
I have no problem with the Irish Army providing a temp bridge…
but if metro north goes in the number of buses cars ect could be expected to go down down down…
if the ticket price is right which we have no idea…

fix o connoll st bridge pave the whole thing in stone and not the standard DCC landscaping solution competition I hear?

im seeing things

‘I think we may be going a bridge too far.’

That would appear to be the view of many.

Nous n’avons pas des amants du pont neuf?

@missarchi wrote:

as we all know it is simply not needed… traffic is what 5km hr
it will be expected to increase to 5.23km hr therefore justifying 15 million…
I have no problem with the Irish Army providing a temp bridge…
but if metro north goes in the number of buses cars ect could be expected to go down down down…
if the ticket price is right which we have no idea…

fix o connoll st bridge pave the whole thing in stone and not the standard DCC landscaping solution competition I hear?

im seeing things

Sport on.
Bus ( & car) numbers will drop and so it should when a higher capacity service goes the same way. In fact the whole bus network has to be re-designed and it has to stop ths over crowing An Larism system that currently exists.

The 2 Luas tracks should use O’Connell St, the as trams have been doing for many, many years, and head to Liffey Jtn and onward to Finglas.

The more I think about it, the more I feel that Mary O’Rourke should foot the bill for all this as it was her decision to break the Luas into 2 lines under the pressure of city centre business lobbies that started this mess in the first place. Then same groups later call for the Luas link up and for the metro, then they say that they don’t want the construction to occur. :rolleyes:

And now Dublin Bus has make things worse by crying like a little baby and forcing the RPA to come up with the up O’Connell st , down Marlborough St plan all because they refuse to re-design their network.:cool:

p.s. (As for the design, yes bland but can you be more than bland at this spot)

Does the railway bridge that crosses the Liffey between Islandbridge and Hueston Station have a name? It’s surely one of the Liffey’s least known bridges.

Good question, the disappointing answer is that it is called the “Liffey Railway Bridge”

http://ireland.archiseek.com/buildings_ireland/dublin/islandbridge/conyngham_road/heuston_bridge_tunnel.html