Reply To: North Georgian Dublin
There’s still nothing like dogma for leading you down an intellectual cul-de-sac.
We have conservation guidelines yes, but you’re not supposed to disengage your brain before using them.
The passage quoted in the planners report states:
”the importance of recognising the various past alterations/interventions that contribute to the cumulative historic interest of a building and the fact that these should not be erased without due consideration of all the consequences.”
What are the terrifying consequences of reinstating the original window proportions?
The building is now semi-anonymous in the streetscape and virtually un-dateable to the casual observer due in large measure to having been thoughtlessly fitted up with a set of 19th century plate glass windows. And that’s the alteration that we’re supposed to value over an above any consideration for the integrity of the original design.
The City Assembly House isn’t some vernacular building that evolved over time, each new generation contributing wonderfully to its layers of patination. It is a dignified minor set-piece building that was consciously designed in the mid 1760s by an individual [apparently Oliver Grace] and that was faithfully executed according to that design.
Were the original window proportions integral to the architectural design? Of course they were.
The City Assembly House doesn’t have . . . various cumulative alterations and interventions that contribute to its historic interest . . . it has the wrong windows!