Georgian infilling in Dublin.
- This topic has 82 replies, 38 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
The 50 years of the Irish Georgian Society should be marked with a new thread.
I never cease to be amazed by the streets of Dublin, the long terraces, this first modern architecture with its straight lines and grids and squares.
From the 1940’s to the 1970’s many Georgian streets and houses were demolished. The infilling that has replaced these is mostly shocking and astonishing.
This one is listed for demolition.Hahehhh, yeah, kill it
So does anyone have any examples of infilling done well, in a georgian terrace. Can’t think of any off the top of my head.
Eh, I think you’ll find that those are two different buildings; the top two snaps are of Fr. Scully House on Gardiner Street where it meets the SW corner of Mountjoy Square, the third snap is of another social/ health service related block on Belvidere (note the “i” :D) Street, off the NE corner of Mountjoy Square.
Demolition of Fr. Scully House is underway – however afaik I know there is no cash for the building that is supposed to be replacing it. Some reasonably decent brick extensions were put on the back about 8 years ago and these are also gone/ going.
While it certainly is no oil painting of a building, I fear that there maybe a danger that if it is demolished without cash to immediately replace it, it maybe left as a derelict site for years to come 😮
@Blisterman wrote:
So does anyone have any examples of infilling done well, in a georgian terrace. Can’t think of any off the top of my head.
Mater Hospital’s most recent infill on Eccles Street, Morrison Hotel on the Ormond Quay.
I think the Hugh Lane extension works very well.
@archipig wrote:
I think the Hugh Lane extension works very well.
Whats with Architects and glazed walls think out of the box will ye
What about the Cigar Box on North Great Georges St.!
@archipig wrote:
I think the Hugh Lane extension works very well.
It´s an awful extension and it has ruined the symmetry of this once fine, unmolested building. Very evident in GrahamH´s pic here.
Can´t anyone see how wrong this looks? It´s fucking awful.
(c) GrahamHAgreed,
…the “transparent” glass box, you won’t even notice it’s there…
It’s one of those lazy clichés of “modern” architecture and lazy architects.I agree, they should never have added this on to the exterior of Charlemont house. It’s destined to be removed at some time in the future.
@Morlan wrote:
It´s an awful extension and it has the ruined symmetry of this once fine, unmolested building.
perhaps the other side could be simlarly molested to bring back the symmetry 😉
@alonso wrote:
perhaps the other side could be simlarly molested to bring back the symmetry 😉
Wouldn’t that be at least preferable to the current situation?
@alonso wrote:
perhaps the other side could be simlarly molested to bring back the symmetry 😉
That would be a massive improvement.
Look, if you really have to butcher this protected building, at least make the alterations symmetrical.. and PLEASE don´t use marine-blue glass tint.
This below would be a vast improvement, but I would prefer nothing at all.
(c) GrahamHoh wait, it’d work. I didn’t think the exact same block would fill in that gap so satisfactorily. Is it flush with the building to the left? I thought it would mangle it further. I retract my wink
@Morlan wrote:
That would be a massive improvement.
Look, if you really have to butcher this protected building, at least make the alterations symmetrical.. and PLEASE don´t use marine-blue glass tint.
This below would be a vast improvement, but I would prefer nothing at all.
(c) GrahamHCommission this boy up asap 🙂
For what it’s worth, I thought on my recent visit that the extension wasn’t as awful as I thought it would be (and the inner water-feature courtyard garden is a nice touch).However, there’s no doubt that the restoration of some kind of symmetry would be good (with a bit more articulation and less nursery lettering on the glass facade). And while they’re at it, why did they leave the two exposed adjoining gables in that awful dull grey cement rendering? It may be authentic, but it looks awful. Since both buildings are in old red brick, either a refacing to ‘match’ or a sympathetic coloured render would be imo better.
There is the potential for a little civic square between the HLG and the National Monument; traffic could still be allowed, but the road surface could be repaved to suggest an open space in front of the gallery.I’ve always liked the Concern offices on Camden Street Upper…
[/IMG]Tom de Paor’s (sp?) little intervention on Welly Quay I like. Works well and would be interesting in any modest georgian terrace in the city imo (if it was kept clean).
Jayz it’s sad not to be able to rattle off a half dozen decent examples-considering the wealth of eras of architecture you get in the likes of a Ghent city terrace for example…There’s some serious failures also, were conceptual intervention/reinvention is evident but just doesn’t work out – I would be thinking mostly of the Wejchert HQ on lower Mount st. of the top of my head.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
