Bren88
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Homebond isn’t that hard to find. I bought a updated version less than a year ago. Keep looking, it will come in useful in the building of your extension.
But regards to your question. In terms of sound, The solid 215mm (9″) wall gives a better sound transmitance resistance. It is easy to think that a cavity wall would give better results bcause sound would find it difficult to travel across the gap. But this slight advantage is countered by the fact that the walls are separate they are less stiff and so less resistant than solid walls.
To get the same resistance in a cavity wall as a solid wall, a denser block must be used. With regards the insulation. In a cavity situation. Board type insulation would actually lower the resistance. A quilt type would help, but fixing is a problem.As for fire, a one hour rating can be achieved easily with either type wall, as it will be plastered on both sides. And for reference, wet plaster direct to the wall gives better fire protection than standard slabs on battens.
It’s a change of use because currently the attic is a storage space. And you would be changing its use into a habitable room. And the cost for a planning application is realitively small. Check your planning authority.
@Seamus O’G wrote:
There was a case a few years ago, if I recall correctly it was in Luxembourg, where a pool which was exactly 50m long was built. Unfortunately, that pool was useless from the point of view of competitions, as the distance between pressure pad and pressure pad was only 49.something metres, and therefore no meaningful competitions could ever be held there and no records set there could ever be recognised. That’s a serious waste of money for something which holds over half a million gallons of water.:rolleyes:
Alot of pools are built so that they are 49 or 51 metres and so not usable for competions. This is normally private pools such as gyms or health clubs. Where the owner doesn’t want to be forced into a position where he would have to hold competions. Irelands first 50m pool, Wasn’t really 50metres.
Thought it might be useful to see how they wanted it to look. This was the idea. Not exactly whats is delivered.
@a boyle wrote:
A few people have said that it looks poorly from kings street and bolton street , fine. It looks quite good from henrietta street and that is what actually matters.
Why is it only Henrietta st that matters. I don’t agree with you that it looks ok from henrietta st, but even if it did, how would that excuse the way it looks from Bolton or Kings INN street. It is just as much on Bolton street as it is on Herrietta, and alot more people are going to see it from Bolton/Dorset/Kings Inn streets so would these views be equally important. I see this building everyday, If I look the window now i could probably strain to see it, but i won’t torture my eyes any further.
@a boyle wrote:
the modern building has become the main focus of interest at that end of the street.
This is not what was required on henrietta street.Having a masterpiece like 1 castle street would take away from the terrace in my view.
In my opinion this building does take away from the terrace, only not because it is a “masterpiece” such as castle street. But because it is so very badly built. alot of people here have problems with design elements. a boyle you think they are fitting and so have tried to justified. But the BIGGEST problem is the downright bad wormanship, esp with the brick work. It is this messy work that makes the building stand out, as being an eyesore. They tried to make it plain and unnoticed but it stands out from the street completely. Walk up Kings Inn street and you will see what an eyesore it is.
@Seamus O’G wrote:
I think #9 is on Green Street East, between Sir John Rogerson’s Quay and Hanover Quay.
Nope, no. 9 is Spirt night club. Thats all thats left now of the old building. Not sure of the street name, that facade is off liffey street/abbey street.
I agree with you on most parts. The building sticks out like a sore thumb. I see it all the time and sigh.
“The brickwork, bonding pattern, mortar, windows…all have major flaws in them and the overall effect certainly makes for uncomfortable viewing…”
Agree with you in most aspects. For example the mortar joints appear too big, but it might just appear that way because the mortar is such a bright shade. Either way, bright or wide, looks awful.
But I was wondering what problem do you have with the bonding? Its completly standard.First place i’d stop would be the Building regulations; Part M. Get the technical side of public buildings sorted before moving on to analysis on thought.
Obviously they can’t check every building. And they probably don’t make their quota. But it isn’t really a big deal. Most of the elements covered are pretty simple to comply with. What exactly are you worried about/ looking into?
Care to expand a little on natural products, as could be taken at a number of levels. What have you got in mind? roughly
@ctesiphon wrote:
Graham-
I had a quick look at the link to the Capel Street page and I’d guess that most if not all of those ones are PSs, even the two-storey one with the mucky shopfront. Something about its facade says ‘I’m more interesting than you might think!’
And to be fair to DCC, they have probably the most highly skilled Conservation Dept of any planning authority in the country.
I hope I’m not coming across as dismissive of your points and opinions- I’m enjoying the debate.Not coming accross as dismissive at all.I hope i’m not coming across as dismissive of the whole PS system. I should probably explain a little bit more on my reasons. These refer to some of the buildings.
- Poor Quality – A building that was suited to being a prime example of a typical protected structure, and an example of why buildings are protect. But deglect over a number of years allowed this building to fall into a terrible state. And is now a shadow of it’s former self. I feel some buildings were once great but protecting them now is pointless, but why protect buildings if they are let to rot. For example This building is in very bad condition, a long way from the building that appeared in a Malton print. It’s also in a very public location, can’t help but notice it on the way up the keys as it sticks out so much. Yet it’s falling apart despite being protected. (incase I am misunderstood, I am not suggesting that this building be removed from the RPS, I was asking why have an such a vast RPS if little is done about great buildings like this until it is too late)
- Altered buildings – Here I am talking about buildings that not just the facade is altered (shouldn’t have really said facade), the whole interior is alien to the building. I suppose the RPS must try to preserve what little elements of character a building has left. But is trying to keep tiny elements when the whole building has practically been removed or altered really nesscery.
- As for the buildings on capel street from this site. At least one, (possibly a second im not sure about one) is not protected. Have a guess as to which one, you might be surprised.
@ctesiphon wrote:
Bren-
50 buildings of a total of how many on the street? And is it just the high number that bothers you or is it the quality of the buildings?53 buildings out of about 170 on the street. The amount doesn’t bother me. I was just a little surprized that almost a third of the buildings were included when I know that alot of the buildings on the street are in very bad condition, some facades completely altered from there original design and some are modern buildings. Now I don’t know which street number correspond with which buildings so I can’t get an idea of which ones are protected. Hopefully the poor buildings are the ones that aren’t protected.
Here is the sites page on Capel street
http://www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/dublin/northcity/capel_street/index.html
Some of these buildings are protected, some aren’t. And some I’m not sure of.Some buildings appear to make it on to the list (or the record) a little to easily. Take Capel street for example, there’re are 50 something PSs on Capel street. That seams a little bit much. I am not trying to say that capel st doesn’t have any social or historical value, it certainly does, but I find it difficult to believe that 53 (i think) buildings are “special” above all others.
To settle the argument. There is such a thing. Just as there are senior positions in every carrer.
It isn’t an extra degree or qualification, but a senior position with more control over jobs. And of course more expierence is required for a senior position.@murphaph wrote:
The worst problem is the awful stench from the decomposing mud in the summer. The weir would solve that. Your point makes little sense to me, it seems to claim that it’s good to know what sort of material has been dumped into the Liffey, even though no attempt is made to removed the stuff-
Did you honestly consider that I was claiming that it’s good to see what has been dumped into the river. My point was that raising the level like that would hide the current rubbish. And due to some of the lower bridges, the level could only be raise to a point. But all the crap would continue to build up.
The idea would help with the unsightly stains and mud. But all the dam would achieve would be a consent high tide liffey. And the current liffey is still very far from beautiful at high tide. The river is better at high tide, but I would find it hard to believe that the average high tide could “encourage people to take in the liffey”.
@Frank Taylor wrote:
solving the dirty walls and bad smells problem when the tide runs out and the shopping trolleys and traffic cones poke out from the slime?
It wouldn’t really solve it, it would only hide it. So various crap would still end up in there, and the extent would not be known. And the water traffic would suffer from it.
Think you need to repost those photos, Can’t see any of them.
I was on site in Carton House a while ago, I know alot of people have concerns that it will be a Hotel just stuck on to the existing buildings with little or no concern. There is still alot of work to do, but I know from what I saw that one of the main concerns was the the original was disturbed as little as possible.I can think of one building that fits your discription, On bolton st, opposite the DIT entrance, theres a building that incorporates all three usage types. The ground floor is retail, stationary/office supply shop and a printing shop, first floor is a offices, a few small companys and the other floors are apartments.
