Building on Sean McDermott St.

Home Forums Ireland Building on Sean McDermott St.

Viewing 20 posts - 41 through 60 (of 97 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #778289
    Praxiteles
    Participant

    @hutton wrote:

    Ah, Im afraid I cant keep up with you folks and your secondary school Shakespeare quotes 🙂

    Anyhow, what an odd montage! That the proposer has managed to include 9 vehicles in the foreground is quite an accomplishment…

    The facade is lost in the glazed box. Bizarre that the lampost is left in front with that flag being a further visual obstruction. Why is the facade not presented as being clean and pristine – it is afterall Wicklow granite.

    I cant describe this treatment and its relation the facade as an “afterthought”, as the facade predates the proposed glass box; is “a pre-thought” the best description?

    All in all, the Greek Revival facade seems to be in the way of the architect; given what’s preposed, maybe the best thing is to carefully take the facade out, and with dev levies, locate it elsewhere – the original context is long since lost anyhow 🙁

    Btw am I correct to presume that the giddy brown box further down the street is some sort of military installation?

    Ah, fie on it, ’tis a garden grown to rank and seed.

    #778290
    notjim
    Participant

    More matter with less art.

    #778291
    Praxiteles
    Participant

    @ctesiphon wrote:

    Wishful thinking, my troubled prince.

    ‘And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust?’

    Oft expectation fails, and most oft there
    Where most it promises; and oft it hits
    Where hope is coldest, and despair most fits.

    #778292
    johnglas
    Participant

    ‘How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable’ (Hamlet: 1,2,129)

    #778293
    Praxiteles
    Participant

    My salad days,
    When I was green in judgment, cold in blood,
    To say as I said then!

    #778294
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    @hutton wrote:

    Anyhow, what an odd montage! That the proposer has managed to include 9 vehicles in the foreground is quite an accomplishment…

    Very true this part of town hasn’t seen 9 vehicles together in 50 years!

    Someone jumped on Mashkadob for saying it should be cleared; you were right as I’m sure he felt landfill for the portico was the way to go. I can’t see this portico ever working at this location given the prevailing surroundings and the architects on this scheme have obviously regarded it as no more than an inconvenience.

    I think that the portico should be taken down and reassembled as a folly in a city park such as St Annes or the Phoenix Park or even Mountjoy Square as it is after all local heritage.

    The proposed treatment is however the worst of both worlds

    #778295
    urbanisto
    Participant

    That scheme looks dreadful! Absolute shite. Just take the remains down and relocate them to a park as a feature and build someything half decent on the site.

    #778296
    Paul Clerkin
    Keymaster

    That’s a terrible proposal – the remnants of the church look tacked on like a rolls royce grill on a mini clubman.

    Better to dismantle the remains and move them to a garden / park somewhere.

    #778297
    hutton
    Participant

    @PVC King wrote:

    Someone jumped on Mashkadob for saying it should be cleared; you were right as I’m sure he felt landfill for the portico was the way to go. I can’t see this portico ever working at this location given the prevailing surroundings and the architects on this scheme have obviously regarded it as no more than an inconvenience.

    I think that the portico should be taken down and reassembled as a folly in a city park such as St Annes or the Phoenix Park or even Mountjoy Square as it is after all local heritage.

    The proposed treatment is however the worst of both worlds

    Well I should fess up that I was reluctant to face up to the new reality… but its clearly too late now and the context is gone 🙁

    That said, it should be a priority that any redevelopment here funds the cost of the RPS-listed structure being fully restored at a new location in the area.

    Just to return to the current proposal as depicted in that odd montage, having re-examined it, I can now only describe the depiction as laughable – the illustrator has not even bothered to unblock the front door of the concrete blocks currentl en-situ.

    Having looked over the elevations on the DCC website, what is proposed isn’t much better – the central doorway is to be a window, while perimeter railings outside are to “later detail”… It all really does seem much of an afterthought, almost as if the architect only discovered the existing structure after designing the glass box.

    It is also interesting that the proposal schedules demolition of a small part of the structure, which albeit not of great significance in itself, should imo only be appropriate in the context of a really good development.

    Ultimately the original context is now low lost and anything even vaguely sympathetic would have required a hand a lot less clumsy than that which has already mauled the setting. As with Pauls, Stephens and PVC’s suggestion, a park setting in the area may be the most appropriate.

    So where should the facade be located? I’ll throw in my twopence to begin – what say Blessington Street Basin; if the facade was to be erected on the island, facing directly the entrance as one enters from Blessington Street, it could look wonderfully theatrical. And, if suitable, perhaps the basin could used for events on special occasions much as Georges Dock is used for the Spiegal tent – what a wonderful backdrop the facade could be 🙂 *hutton dreams on…*

    As is:

    @GrahamH wrote:

    The facade is needless to say in dismal condition – the main entrance:

    One of the delightful flanking doorcases – tiny little things (this is taken from the ground!)

    #778298
    hutton
    Participant

    @Devin wrote:

    There’s a plan to consume it within a glazed building. Planning Ref. 1174/08 :

    From DCC website:

    Full Development Description

    Planning permission for development on the lands known as Convent Lands. The development will consist of the provision of 179 no. residential units (27 no. 1 bed, 89 no. 2 bed, 61 no. 3 bed, 2 no. 4 bed) and 18 no. live/work unit in five blocks, one of which is the refurbished Main Convent Building 3,112sqm local area office for Dublin City Council; 901sqm of office space incorporating the portico of the Scots Presbyterian Church/Cornmill site (Protected Structure) fronting Sean McDermott Street; 216.1sqm of office space for the Crinan Project on a site measuring 0.891 hectares. The development will comprise the following; Demolition of 77 Sean McDermott Street Lower; Construction of Block A, an eight/nine storey apartment block with terraces and balconies fronting Railway Street, consisting of 70 no. units (7no. 1 bed, 35 no. 2 bed, 27 no. 3 bed, 1 no. 4 bed); Construction of Block B, an eight/nine storey apartment block with terraces and balconies fronting Railway Street, consisting of 73 units (12 no. 1 bed, 33 no. 2 bed, 28 no. 3 bed) and a 2 storey Crinan Project of 216.1sqm of office/workshop space; Construction of Block C, a six storey apartment block with terraces and balconies central to the site, to the south of the existing Convent Building (Block E), consisting of 23 units (10 no. 2 bed, 12 no. 3 bed, 1no. 4 bed); Construction of Block D, a six storey apartment block with terraces and balconies facing onto Sean McDermott Street Lower, consisting of 13 units (6 no. 2 bed, 7 no. 3 bed); Refurbishment of The Convent Building (Block E) into apartments consisting of 18 units (8 no. 1 bed, 5 no. 2 bed, 4 no. 3 bed, 1 no. 4 bed); Construction of Block F, a three/five storey building bordering Gloucester Lane to provide Dublin City Council with a Civic Centre/One Stop Shop (three storey at Sean McDermott Street, five storey at Railway Street), with a gross internal floor area of 3,112sqm; Construction of Block G, a four storey 901sqm office building incorporating the portico of the former Scots Presbyterian Church (Protected Structure) fronting Sean McDermott Street Lower; provision of 181 no. car parking spaces in a single level basement accessed via ramps from a new access point on Railway Street. Existing access into the site will also be retained from Sean McDermott Street; All associated site development works above and below ground required to facilitate the development, including the provision of landscaped public open space along Gloucester Lane and private and semi-private landscaped open space within the development and roof gardens and construction of an ESB sub station and switch room.

    #778299
    johnglas
    Participant

    Hutton; Who are the architects responsible for this miscegenation? I think we should know.
    You’re never wrong to dream – but I think the BB’s a bit too far away and out of context. Why not locate it at one of the very generous road intersections in this area? It could be read as a modern urban folly – why should the aristos have all the whimsy?
    Seriously, whatever is done it needs treated with respect as part of the area’s patrimony (is that gendered language?) – at the developer’s expense of course.

    #778300
    notjim
    Participant

    Silly to move it, this fragment has lost so much, to loose its location to; besides, the BB is going to be full of this lido and the Browne doorway in Eyre Sq is a lesson in how old entranceways don’t work as freestanding follies. The proposal is appalling, but surely if we are to dream, a clever modern building could incorporate this remnant in an artful and exciting way.

    #778301
    Praxiteles
    Participant

    @notjim wrote:

    Silly to move it, this fragment has lost so much, to loose its location to; besides, the BB is going to be full of this lido and the Browne doorway in Eyre Sq is a lesson in how old entranceways don’t work as freestanding follies. The proposal is appalling, but surely if we are to dream, a clever modern building could incorporate this remnant in an artful and exciting way.

    Praxiteles agrees!

    #778302
    hutton
    Participant

    @johnglas wrote:

    Hutton; Who are the architects responsible for this miscegenation? I think we should know.
    You’re never wrong to dream – but I think the BB’s a bit too far away and out of context. Why not locate it at one of the very generous road intersections in this area? It could be read as a modern urban folly – why should the aristos have all the whimsy?
    Seriously, whatever is done it needs treated with respect as part of the area’s patrimony (is that gendered language?) – at the developer’s expense of course.

    The applicant is Kimtor Ltd, while the site notice was signed off by Tiros Resources of 10 Lower Hatch Street, D2.

    From the IT:
    @Irish TimesOffice and apartment scheme for Sean McDermott Street

    The Greek-style portico of the former Scots Presbyterian church fronting Sean McDermott St is part of a planning application by Kimtor Ltd which says it will form part of the façade for a four-storey office block. The protected structure is believed to be mid 19th century but was abandoned early in the 20th century and later used as a store before being burned down in the 1980s leaving only a façade.

    Kimtor Ltd also wants to build 179 apartments on former convent lands between Sean McDermott St and Railway St and Gloucester Lane, as well as 18 live-work units in five blocks up to nine storeys, one of which is the refurbished main convent building with 18 apartments. Around 216sq m (2,325sq ft) of office space is proposed for the Crinan project. A three to five-storey block would provide Dublin City Council with a civic centre/one-stop-shop.

    @notjim wrote:

    Silly to move it, this fragment has lost so much, to loose its location to; besides, the BB is going to be full of this lido and the Browne doorway in Eyre Sq is a lesson in how old entranceways don’t work as freestanding follies. The proposal is appalling, but surely if we are to dream, a clever modern building could incorporate this remnant in an artful and exciting way.

    Ive seen the BB proposals, and I must say frankly Im not convinced – there is a danger that the “lido” could become a failed gimmick imo; all in all the proposed intervention seems tokenistic in the context of what should be a really good redevelopment of Phibsboro and its adajacent areas. The real challenge up there is how to get the former canal to actually function as a linear park; former railways in Paris work very well in this regard, yet the current situation up there is bleak… Imo, BB should really only be approached in a manner that is in keeping with the already existing architectural genres of the area – as opposed to the disasterous reinterpretation a la Wolfe Tone Square.

    Also while the Browne doorway is now out of vogue, did it really not function in an urban context? As far as I recall it was never a centre for anti-social behaviour in the way the Anna Livia/ Floozy-in-the-Jacuzzi became. I am open to correction, as indeed I am also open to persuasion on re-incorporation of the Greek facade – but I would caution you as to the scaled-down “mini-monumental” nature of the structure being an obvious hurdle to what should be a relatively high-dense dev on that site, given the now city-centre nature of that location… Is it really compatible or feasible anymore to keep that facade there? 🙁

    #778303
    notjim
    Participant

    Browne’s doorway just looks silly, it doesn’t make sense as an object: it doesn’t present well as a sculpture because it was created to be an entrance, it has odd proportions standing alone making it painful to the rhythm of the urban landscape it stands in. Whenever I see it I wish it has been incorporated into a building. Galway oddly has two of these things, it also has Lynch’s window.

    I understand that the building around this facade fragment is going to the mini-monumental, but couldn’t a stone fronted building without a flat facade and strong vertical elements manage to incorporate it in a playful and striking way.

    [Well we shouldn’t discuss it here but I think the lido is a terrible idea: all BB needs is a bigger entrance on the linear park end, a bit more maintenance (maintenance to the standard of a south side park) and a more visible warden. The linear park on the other hand is a disaster. If there is to be a lido it should be in one of the grand canal basins, these are used for swimming anyway and are big enough.]

    #778304
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    The location wouldn’t give a budget to do the portico justice in relation to the facade it will front.

    The choice here is simple have a lego standard scheme in a terciary location fronted by a Doric portico left in as an inconvenient after thought or have a condition inserted to have the portico moved to a location where the portico has some context; I’m sure that somewhere the symmetary exists to mark an entrance to a park or other civic space where this feature could be admired.

    I do agree that an open Plaza is never the place for an entrance door / portico as there will always be a poor reverse view from open street; imagine the arch at Stephens Green in Eyre Square :rolleyes:

    #778305
    notjim
    Participant

    You are right of course, so now we have it: use the portico as the entrance to the BB from the linear park: the reverse side, facing in to the basin can have ivy trained up it.

    #778306
    hutton
    Participant

    @notjim wrote:

    I understand that the building around this facade fragment is going to the mini-monumental, but couldn’t a stone fronted building without a flat facade and strong vertical elements manage to incorporate it in a playful and striking way.

    My apologies – I should have made myself clearer, I actually meant that the portico is “mini-monumental” in scale, not the glass yoke thats proposed.

    Imo the problem with using the portico as the entrance to BB from the linear park is that it would be lost, in that wheras one approachs the basin directly from Blessington St, the linear park runs perpendicular to the basin and is very tight. Its only a few weeks ago that I was up there, and I had forgotten how confined the space is. Imo the portico should really address/ form part of a vista.

    #778307
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Why not put it out in Dalkey, in bits, in the back garden of Daithi Hanley’s gaff, where it could repose in the orchard, next to the facade of d’ould Abbey? :rolleyes:
    K

    #778308
    Praxiteles
    Participant

    Perhaps a solution could be found here:

    Do not forget the architect responsible for the Classical Revival in the United States of America.

    http://www.thomasgordonsmitharchitects.com/

    Thomas Gordon Smith has designed exquisite churches, a major seminary, and a monastery, plus he has groomed leading lights in the Classical Revival. Thomas Gordon Smith has remodelled the American Neo-Classical wing at the Metropolitan Museum in New York. Absolutely first-rate! And what a sterling gentleman!!

    With the Celtic Tiger roaring in full pride, Thomas Gordon Smith ought to be getting calls galore to assist in the restoration and revival of Georgian Architecture. He brings joy and vitality as well as erudition and expertise to all his projects. Floreat!!

Viewing 20 posts - 41 through 60 (of 97 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.