Building on Sean McDermott St.
- This topic has 95 replies, 34 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 1 month ago by
Anonymous.
- AuthorPosts
- June 20, 2006 at 7:27 pm #708706
AoifeR
ParticipantHi,
Simple question…maybe not so simple, but we’ll see…could anyone tell me what the Greek-looking building on Sean McDermott St. is?
I walked down that street for the first time the other day and this building (though it’s in an awful state) stands out a mile in contrast to the flats and other dreadful buildings around it.
I coudn’t see anything on it that would identify it for me. It’s got some Greek script across the front, but I can’t read Greek… Any info would be greatly appreciated, it’s spiked my curiosity and I won’t be able to rest till I know what it is!
Thanks,
Aoife
June 20, 2006 at 8:14 pm #778250Frank Taylor
ParticipantThis one?
June 20, 2006 at 8:50 pm #778251hutton
ParticipantJust seeing Franks photo reminds me how angry I get when I see the condition of that building. Its a flaming disgrace and leaves me spitting! ๐ก
To reply to the OPs question, the building was a protestant church in the Greek Revival style, circa 1810 – or there abouts.
The facade was “retained” whilst the rest, which was derelict, was knocked and thereafter that block was thrown up behind. No effort to tie-in or rehabilitate the facade with the new block, it was simply ignored:mad: . Obviously rehabilitation should have been conditional when the new dev was given the go-ahead. Again ๐ก
Im afraid thats all I got at the mo, thou Im sure Devin or Graham H will have all the details ๐June 20, 2006 at 10:46 pm #778252urbanisto
ParticipantYes, this is one of those cases that spring to mind just when you think that planning is getting better in the city. What a mess. why not just demolish the temple and build a proper street frontage. Or if you really wanted to have it both ways remove the temple and relocate in a park as a feature, or on a street as a feature..
June 21, 2006 at 10:51 am #778253aj
Participant@StephenC wrote:
Yes, this is one of those cases that spring to mind just when you think that planning is getting better in the city. What a mess. why not just demolish the temple and build a proper street frontage. Or if you really wanted to have it both ways remove the temple and relocate in a park as a feature, or on a street as a feature..
wouldnt this look fantastic restored and relocated as a feature in one of the city parks
June 21, 2006 at 12:58 pm #778254hutton
ParticipantLeave it where it is! Its not as if SmcD st is full of great architecture; this is/ should be (:mad: again) a feature to that st. Just restore it!
IS IT AGAINST THE LAW TO LEAVE IT AS IS? Now thats the question…June 21, 2006 at 1:07 pm #778255urbanisto
ParticipantIts a difficult area (demolish or restore) but in this case i favour demolsih and build a proper street frontage for this block of buildings. The ruin can be relocated. It far too odd looking to be integrated into a building. As you say its against the law that it should have gotten in this condition but Welcome to Ireland!
June 21, 2006 at 5:32 pm #778256hutton
ParticipantOoooh look at that…DCC’s lists as 7648 on the Record of Protected Structures –
“62 Sean MacDermott St Dublin 1. Corn mill building, former Presbyterian church (facade only)”
Clearly the facade is protected, judging its current state:(
Peculiarly above this listing at 7646, is listed “Sean Mac Dermott St Lower – Facade of former Presbyterian church”
Obviously there cant be 2, so this must be a double entry…
Hmm ..Twice the effort in listing, and half the effort of enforcement. Wonderful :rolleyes:
June 22, 2006 at 4:35 pm #778257ConK
Participantanother view.
June 23, 2006 at 1:49 pm #778258urbanisto
ParticipantGod what a mess! To think that this has been sanctioned by the planners is deeply disappointing.
June 23, 2006 at 2:14 pm #778259hutton
ParticipantHave we any more information about this, ie architect, a more specific date – my one was purely a suggested date – and any site history? Ive gone through my books – the usual suspects – but to little avail ๐
What were the conditions given to the new development when granting permission? Do they now own this, and so are they the ones responsible for its upkeep? Hmmm back to my enforcement point.
As to the style, I note that the building was built for the Presbyterians. Maybe this is why its built in the Greek style rather than a Roman form of classicism, thus that they got a temple style building inspired by a (somewhat) democratic state – in keeping with Presbyterian democratic values, while not having any of the dirty popeish connotations that a Roman classical building may have given rise to? Perhaps ๐
Any thoughts, any further info?
June 23, 2006 at 2:38 pm #778260urbanisto
ParticipantThe new building has only gone up in the last 3 years. I cant find any record of it in the DCC planning files (online). Its a social housing complex for teh elderly built by the Order of Nuns in thed convent here, I think.
June 23, 2006 at 7:43 pm #778261GrahamH
ParticipantWhat a disgrace. This certainly went up quickly, not having being round here for only a year or two either – who the heck granted permission for what would result in such a disasterous state of affairs?!
The only explanation is that the facade is going to be moved – the grey part of the housing complex extends to the exact width of the church plot, has no windows and essentially remains unfinished in appearance, as if to be extended over the church site and out onto the street.
June 23, 2006 at 7:49 pm #778262Anonymous
InactiveIt was in construction (finishing off) in September 2004
June 29, 2006 at 8:04 pm #778263AoifeR
ParticipantThat’s definitely the building I was talking about. Thanks for all the information, I am much enlightened ๐ Liked your take on the reason for it being Greek in design, hutton:D
Looking at the images you’ve posted, it looks worse than I remembered it ๐ฎ And from where I stood I hadn’t really registered the fact that they’d built a development directly behind it. It really is in a very sorry state.
For the sake of the remaining facade I think maybe…possibly…moving it elsewhere to preserve it mightn’t be the worst idea. It’s such an unusual-looking facade and such a pity to see it degenerating. I don’t have a lot of faith in developers or the DCC doing anything with it because of its current location – I don’t remember ever having walked down Seรยกn McDermott St. before and I’ve lived in the city for 30 years! i.e. it’s not on a tourist route, it’ll only be seen by locals (cynical view, I know). I just think that, looking at the rest of the street, any building activity would be around housing and amenities rather than heritage.
I’d really rather see the history preserved than see it continue to be covered in the detritus of people who (seemingly) could care less… ๐
June 30, 2006 at 2:03 pm #778264tommyt
Participant@hutton wrote:
Ooooh look at that…DCC’s lists as 7648 on the Record of Protected Structures –
“62 Sean MacDermott St Dublin 1. Corn mill building, former Presbyterian church (facade only)”
Clearly the facade is protected, judging its current state:(
Peculiarly above this listing at 7646, is listed “Sean Mac Dermott St Lower – Facade of former Presbyterian church”
Obviously there cant be 2, so this must be a double entry…
Hmm ..Twice the effort in listing, and half the effort of enforcement. Wonderful :rolleyes:
Remarkable to think D1 could in days gone by support two Presbyterian congregations (t’other being the gothic revival on Parnell Sq.). If this facade had have been anywhere else but S McD street there would have been an awful stink kicked up. One can only hope it is due/proposed to be removed to another location.
June 30, 2006 at 2:07 pm #778265Anonymous
InactiveCorner of Sean McDermott and Gardiner Sts in the rather pointless park?
It is currently in Killarney Street.
June 30, 2006 at 2:50 pm #778266hutton
Participant@Thomond Park wrote:
Corner of Sean McDermott and Gardiner Sts in the rather pointless park?
I was just thinking that myself – though that park is far from useless! Gets a lot of use. I revise my earlier position on leaving the temple front where it is. With that new development, the damage is done, and there is no way that it can be resolved in its current location:( . It simply looks ubsurd.
However if moved a couple of 100 yards, it would make a great feature in that park – while still keeping it in the area. Now if we were to be really ambitious, we could look at also ressurecting the Abbey facade – the granite blocks of which lie out in garden of the late Daithi Hanley in Killiney;)
BTW AoifeR, glad you liked my ‘greek reasoning’ + welcome to archiseek ๐
June 30, 2006 at 3:10 pm #778267hutton
ParticipantAs a curiosity fact, if the temple was to be moved, it would be the 2nd protestant church facing onto Sean Mc D st to ‘disappear’ in less than 100 years.
St Thomas’s, built 17588-60 was built by John Smyth and modelled on Palladio’s Redentore in Venice. Pre-1922, it stood where Cathal Bugha St has been subsequently inserted, linking Sean Mac D and O’ Connell Sts. Frederick O”Dwyer gives it a page in his ‘Lost Dublin’,(p68).
July 2, 2006 at 4:57 pm #778268a boyle
Participantthis facade would look very well as an entrance to one of the nearby parks.
- AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

