Archer’s Garage
- This topic has 191 replies, 38 voices, and was last updated 17 years ago by
.
- Posts
I genuinly think that such an offence should be punished by the whole tract of land being rezoned as open space. It may sound excessive, but might actually help put a stop to this practice. As Graham says, rebuilding is pretty much pointless. The original building is lost and connot be replaced.
Absolutely. Also a court order to rebuild is based principally on the premise of a structure being of architectural significance. Buildings that may have little or modest aesthetic appeal and are protected on the basis of, for example, social, historical or technical merit, are the biggest losers when a demolition takes place; rebuilding then is even more futile than cases of architectural destruction.
Any chance that someone who knows how to do these things could post a pic of Archer’s Garage as it looks now? Paul’s 2004 shot still had scaffolding
and what are people’s views of that convent in Terenure. Was it of architectural importance? Will Dublin miss a convent? I only ask…..!
The building was not particularly significant as an architectural entity, but seems to be a good example of an institutional building from its time, which coupled with its historical/social significance and pleasant appearace, probably made it worthy of protection. It could perhaps also have had a few interiors of note such a chapel.
As for Archers, here’s before:
And after:
Complete with delightful aluminium windows in place of the original steel :rolleyes:
At least the ground floor glazing works quite well. It seems the roof is being used as a roof terrace to try and claw back some use for the original building.
The gates they installed are terrible though – they introduce a vertical empahsis where none is needed and don’t seem to address the building at all. Are they stock or did someone “design” them I wonder. As the one in the left hand side of your picture has started to sag badly already I suspect the mightn’t last too long anyway. I can’t decide if they look worse open or closed.
As Archers is still listed (even indicated as “rebuilt after demolition” in the register) – dosn’t that mean that these railings are now listed…?
Pretty much
He possibly thought once down he could increase the overall height to 6 storeys on most of the site but was restricted to a 2 storey section as close as was reasonably possible for Archers and a 4 storey section on the other plots in the holding.
After the fact there wasn’t more that could have been done; he got away with far too much on Merrion Hall which he renamed the Davenport Hotel as he should have been made reinstate as per the original with the reinstatement payment received from his insurers.
@Sue wrote:
What’s the verdict on the new one? Seems like a reasonably faithful reconstruction
🙂 As good as could have been expected, the developer must be grinding his teeth at the lost revenue :p (no harm at all)
The designation as a protected structure doesn’t necessarily mean that all elements are listed Lotts – rather a Section 5 declaration on behalf of the local authority will decide what is and what isn’t listed, or more specifically what alterations would require planning permission, when an application comes in.
In the unorthodox case of Archer’s Garage, I’d imagine that everything but the basic concrete shell could attain permission for alteration without too much hassle from the planners, provided it was an ‘improving’ development. In fact, considering the corner tower is a dodgy replication, even a re-jigging of it to a more accurate form would no doubt be looked on favourably in Wood Quay.It is very odd that the tower which is composed in cast concrete, probably the easiest of all materials to work in and recast features with, was replicated so poorly – as evident in Paul’s before and after pictures:
Not that it’s a major blemish, but it’s the principal that counts. And the original did have a more aerodynamic stance to it, than the lumpen stump there now.
Overall the development adds a nice crisp splash of brightness to a rather soulless place, especially in the sunshine. The surrounding buildings integrate quite nicely, if the white garage a bit jarring against the cream stone walls. Suppose you can’t account for everything…
@GrahamH wrote:
8/12/2006
Developer faces fine of €13m
Probe underway after early morning convent demolition
A developer has illegally demolished a 19th century convent which was in the process of becoming a listed building.
Homebuilders Kimpton Vale Ltd razed the building on November 5, just two weeks after Dublin City Council began the process of adding the Presentation convent in Terenure to the Record of Protected Structures (RPS).
© Irish IndependentAnd the company faces fines of up to €12.7m after the illegal demolition. Yesterday, the council confirmed the destruction of the building was unauthorised, and that enforcement proceedings have begun.
The convent was part of a three-acre site on Terenure Road West which was sold in April for over €15m. On October 18, Labour councillor John Gallagher proposed it be added to the RPS, which was agreed by councillors. But just over two weeks later, workers employed by the developer began to bulldoze the convent at 7am on a Saturday.
By the time council inspectors arrived on site two hours later, most of the building was gone. A decision was taken to allow the remainder of the building to be destroyed, as it posed a danger to the public.
© Irish Independent“Two notices have been served on the developer,” a council spokesman confirmed. “It is an unauthorised development. It had been proposed to list the building; the difficulty for us was the developer went in before the process was complete.”
“We had a dangerous building inspector on site on the Saturday morning. By the time he arrived, it (the convent) was half demolished. In the interests of public safety, the remainder was demolished.”
The enforcement proceedings are being taken under the 2000 Planning and Development Act, which states: “Any person who, without lawful authority, causes damage to a protected structure or a proposed protected structure shall be guilty of an offence.” The council can insist the building is reinstated, or issue a fine of up to €1,900. But if it decides to take legal action, a court can impose a fine of up to €12.7m. “I’m disappointed it was done when discussions were ongoing with the council,” Mr Gallagher said last night.
“The ultimate sanction for demolishing a habitable house is reinstatement. The building is gone, and the developer shouldn’t get away with it. There’s a procedure and it should be followed.
“There should be some standard that applies, the procedure should not be to knock the building.
“It’s a fine building, and should be considered part of the city’s heritage.”
City managers have previously forced developers to reinstate buildings after they were illegally destroyed. In 1999, the Art Deco Archer’s Garage on Fenian Street was razed, but the council forced the developer to rebuild it.
It was unclear last night if the developer was told the building was to be listed. Kimpton Vale were not available for comment.
Paul Melia
© Irish Independent
So the practice rumbles on. At least local authorities have teeth nowadays – including that essential protective provision of the inclusion of proposed protected structures in the 2000 Act. The same also applies to proposed Architectural Consevation Areas. What’s most astonishing about this case is the notion that the developer thought they could get away with this in 2006. Sure half the non-professional poeple on this website alone could tell him the council would be on his back before he got out of bed that morning.
It’s possible they had no idea – though the 7am start on a Saturday perhaps says otherwise.As much as it’s a punishment for developers on such insanely valuable sites, the rebuilding of one-off structures like this seems rather fruitless to me. The fabric has been lost. Of course if the underlying idea in this case was to demolish and be ‘forced’ to rebuild the basic structure but to a modern interior standard, and without any of the hassle of converting PS, they’ve achieved their aim. Hopefully the fine will hit hard.
I remember hearing about this. My sister came home with it as a roumer from school. Couldn’t believe it. The place is still a building site, however the school next door (presentation primary, dating from 1889 just like the convent) has managed to gain an extra couple of classrooms on the site of the former convent
@djasmith wrote:
I remember hearing about this. My sister came home with it as a roumer from school. Couldn’t believe it. The place is still a building site, however the school next door (presentation primary, dating from 1889 just like the convent) has managed to gain an extra couple of classrooms on the site of the former convent
What was the outcome of the razing of the original building in the end? (I’m referring to the convent, btw, not Archers)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
