City Council Flats

I seem to remember that Desmond Fitzgerald was involved.
not sure though will try to confirm

are they the ones opposite Kevin Street tech? And did all council flats have those Sunlight Chambers-esque designs under the balconies?

There a standard design for their period. The flats can be found all over the city – North Strand, off Gardiner Street/ Sean McDermott St… I suppose they were necessary at the time. Low cost option to replace the tenements. They’re pretty dull-looking now.

Compared to some of the super crap that came after them and their age – i think they;re not doing too bad at all.
At least the mosaics show some attention to detail.

The names Liam Boyle and Seamus Delaney come to mind. They were in the Corpo’s housing section in the mid-to-late 1950s. Talented designers, they left the Corpo after winning the competition for the Sugar Company building on Earlsfort Terrace.

Didn’t Finbarr Holland (of bankrupt H. Williams fame) design some of these things around town?

Are’nt they f******g horrible………….now it’s not because some of the residents have lowered the tone of them……..but the dark cheap scorched brick, the way they ignorantly and jarringly address the streets….., adds to the ugliness of these kips.
What a mess…..put these on the demolition list too.
And they are found everywhere too in inner city Dublin…..Gardiner Street, Queen Street, Mountjoy Street/Bolton Street, Camden/ Wexford/ Montague Street, Constitution Hill, Fatima Mansions….etc, etc….. What a disaster

Too right, Dublin doesn´t need these monstrosities. They should be detennanted the same way as the tennements themselves were. There must be a better way (both socially and aesthetically) of providing social housing. And as a resident of the northside, it certainly doesn’t do the vision of the Gardiners et al any justice. I live (when in Dublin) around the corner from Henrietta Street, but have a better view of the Upper Dorset Street Flats. Still, it keeps the rent down…

And you say you have bad City Council Flats… look at some typical portuguese exemples of social housing / affordable appartements:

has anyone noticed the current ‘improvements around the summerhill / corporation street areas…..Much of the proposed improvements will only update buildings that should be knocked..eg Liberty house flats. Apologies to anyone who may live in these flats or areas but this whole area(bar a handful of buildings) should be levelled.

The ones opposite Kevin St are particularly horrendous, faced in those nasty glossy early 60s red bricks that look like tiles. Also, because of the demolition of the corner of Stephen’s Green, they can now be seen from the bottom of Harcourt St and the Green itself, including their washing lines.

There’s no intention to demolish any of these flats as all of their windows are being replaced with charming uPVC.

The flats around Pearse Station/ Lombard St however are particularly attractive (I think they’re the ones you have pictured Paul)

i dont think its safe to dismiss these buildings out of hand. whether we like it or not they are a part of our urban landscape and the most productive thing we can do is strive to make the most of them. adjoing blocks of a complimentary and contemporary nature would solve the problems of gross scale problems and also their blocky mass intruding too much on what is recognised as “acceptable” dublin architecture.

The dressed up block past smithfield with the lego block scheme at the front (murray o’laoghaire?) goes some way to solving this.

if theres a thread going on and on which just points out and ridicules the mistakes of the past (it was haute couture at the time remember, and copied straight from successful schemes of the time in holland) i dont think it constitutes architectural discussion, more derision.

so any ideas how to fix it?

how to fix it? York street, Cuffe street, Kevin street,summerhill.

contd…these are prime inner city residential sites…surely its in the city councils interest to get rid of these eyesores and sell the land to people capable of inivative design and planning…the council can cash in …DO IT.

i suppose on the surface it does….but im not saying move people to some new town in the middle of nowhere, im saying rehouse them in newly developed inner city areas…. The derelict spaces all over central dublin can be developed, keeping the important inner city community and freeing up the current council flat lands for either redevelopment or sale. Many derelict areas are in council hands (eg marrowbone lane) …… doesnt it just seem like a waste to have these areas used as depots for the council.

Best looking Corpo scheme was Mercer House on Cuffe Street behind the Ardilaun centre, looks like some of the better designed ones in London and the Mansard Roof is superb could do with being another 2-3 storeys high though and enclose the rear courtyards

rperse – the developers around this town are very limited in terms of design and the City Council are the ones who do innovate (social) housing.

You can’t keep chucking people out of areas so that they can be redeveloped and sold to investors to fill with a transient community. What this town needs is sustainable development with a healthy social mix (and the abilty to chuck problem tenents out quickly) rather than ghettoising a whole social class.

I lived in some of the “great redevelopment” apartments around town (IFSC, Wintergarden, etc) and there is fuck all of a community there because of the lack of people who want to live their lives in an overprice shoebox (which is what you get from these schemes). Purely there for rental purposes which is unsustainable.

I’d love to live in the middle of the city, but in somewhere of a decent size, 3 bedrooms a separate kitchen and a dining room or god forbid dual aspect but unless I become a lotto millionaire I have no chance of affording this.

Get real! Developments in Dublin are there to maximise the profit of the developer at the expense of the “community” who move in there.

SOMEONE SHOULD GET RID OF THOSE FLATS ON CONSTITUTION HILL – THEY DESTROY THE VISUAL IMPACT OF BROADSTONE AND KINGS INNS. And they are mingin!

I agree Rory W, Mercer House is by far the finest, good design and quality materials used, indeed it’s so good it looks like one of the Iveagh Trust buildings. Unfortunatly, it’s wooded sashes have recently been replaced with cheap & cumbersome uPVC.

The solution to these developments I think is to demolish and rebuild on the same sites, undertaken solely by the CC. There’s a huge amount of wasted space in around these buildings/blocks, that inevitably has become barren wastland, which could be utilised to build at a higher density, whilst not ‘ghettoising’ such developments.

As always, the key is good design and quality materials.

I think the ‘wasted land’ point is quite valid. The idea I am sure was to set the buildings in a garden of sorts but inevitably through poor maintenance and lack of funds its turned to scrub. Enclosed courtyards might be a better option giving residents a bit of open air and privacy/

Agree with the rebuilding on same site context – just an interesting thought though, if the government wants developers to set 20% of a development aside for social housing, should the city council set aside 20% of its developments for private housing, which could be sold at a profit? After all the whole idea is to promote a social mix

CC have done up the flats on Buckingham Street and Empress Place fairly recently and done a very fine job of it too. The central play area is done in astro turf and looks cool. May be the way to go re: scrubland…? All looks good and well maintained for the moment anyway. The original buildings are very well built and designed so they had a good starting point on these.
I love the 20% private housing idea Rory, I’m surprised I hadn’t heard or thought of it before.
Has anyone been into the flats on Jervis street? I always though the idea of living over a toy shop was pretty neat. I hope the sceme is being looked after.

The CC seem to have earmarked some of its housing stock for demolition and rebuilding. Bridgefoot Street flats spring to mind. What they were thinking when they built the original I do not know….

Enclosed internal green and play spaces are a far more appropriate solution for housing complexes of this type, particulary in Dublin.
If the residents choose to make shite of them, then at least everybody else in the city doesn’t have to look at them.
As you said, Bridgefoot Street is the best example of that.
Its ‘front garden’ is potentially the complex’s most impressive feature yet it ends up looking like no-man’s land, except more dangerous.

I have yet to have notice any areas of mass social houseing here in Düsseldorf (albeit a wealthier and smaller city than Dublin), maybe because it seems that most housing is of an above-the-shop nature. Could upper storeys of buildings with ground floor shops be a solution to housing problems in Dublin? I’ve heard something about an above the shop programme, what that all about?

The ‘Living Over The Shop’ scheme….

As far as I can see the only project this seems to have invloved are the two buildings at the (quay) end of Capel St. But you are right Roy – there is loads of potential for accommodation over shop innthe city….Abbey Street is a case in point.

Over-the-shop-living is by far the best solution (well for those who trade) All of those barren units on the Parnell St side of the ILAC are a case in point. Instead of the demolition of many of the fine Victorian and Edwardian bldgs in the area, many of the traders could have utilised the ground floors, whilst living upstairs. Or even the ILAC could have been developed in this way.

Not too many months ago, Dublin City Council admitted that the Living Over the Shop scheme, although a great idea, had not worked out.
The take-up was far too low apparently and as far as I know, it’s being phased out. It was supposed to come to an end in December 2004 regardless.
The original idea was to create around 3,000 housing unit but I think it was used only for two properties at 3 and 4 Capel Street (both of which belonged to City Council anyway).

Were insurance and rental costs the hurdle

To hear such talk of demolition from environmentally aware Architects surprises me.These developments are ripe for refurbishment and extention. To me they are far mor interesting than the absolute crap thats been built some eighty years on (just stand on the Liffey bank outside the Four Courts and look in every direction !), by the current generation of Developers Architects. The problem here is planning. I proposed a pre-planning design for a building adjoining one of these blocks on the canal at Harolds Cross. I wanted to match the height and give reference to the style and upgrade the open space and boundary treatments of the existing CC block, thus maximising the intergration of both communities and Architectural styles. The planner told me the building was too tall and so the scheme falls on its face.
By the way is it me or are those Circular stair wells a sly reference to Konstantin Melnikovs’ 1928 house at 10 Krivoarbatski ,Moccow, just look at the hexagonal windows ?
ps. most of these CC blocks are dual aspect,and many have three beds. if 20%(dotted within the social tennants) were sold privatley, how many of this sites suscribers would buy in ??

I am lost…..

On a related issue, the OPW are to sell their 1 acre yard/warehouse site in the centre of Dublin off Ely Place/Baggot St. It’s expected to raise 15 million at auction for the state, to be used in the refurbishment of local Garda Stations. Yet again, prime state assets are being pawed off for political purposes, no money for refurbishments, sell off some prime real estate now, instant cash, and stuff future generations.

Why can’t the City Council take over this land, 1 acre remember, and develop it for much needed social & affordable housing. At a time when Dublin is sprawling like wildfire to Cork, Galway and Dundalk, and when there is a dire need for building land in and around Dublin for the CC to build upon, it is a disgrace, nonsenseical & crazy to be selling this land off speculatively.