Department of Finance, Merrion Row – Grafton Architects

I agree they could have moulded the parapet intersection considerably better.

Critically the view from further down the Green will be ok by virtue of it being comparable in height to Hugenot House and an image taken from the Dawson St gate of the Green towards Baggot St where it is most exposed would illustrate that point.

On the whole I like the design and I think that the sort of maginot line style suits the Dept of Finance quite well!

Maybe it’s just the fancy schmancy CGI pics there, but does it not look more like the Wax Museum’s trendier bastard offspring more than anything else?:confused:

No?

the parapet if not uniform height with nextdoor.

the tax payers wont like this one.

my god, what a monstrosity……

looks like one of these stuck to the side of the building….

demonstrates the worst of computer aided design , IMHO….

@GrahamH wrote:

The only gripe about the whole composition is the irritating breach of parapet level to the right-hand side. Surely this could have been better resolved?
.

Hmmmm – as it stands it appears that the parapet line is continued on by that recessed slot across the facade, so it probably doesn’t look bad in elevation or from the green. I think it will work out okay. We have to have some sort of variety in heights.

Yes I noted that, it’s a nice reference alright. Agreed we need variation in heights, but such a marginal deviation I think is a bit irritating. It’s nice when buildings respect their neighbours – and I don’t mean because they’re old – but because a seamless blending of different adjacent structures, and especially when old and new, works really well, and doubly so when the addition then flows into such a proud punctuation mark at the end. It could have made it that bit more elegant.

What can make this type of protrusion plain annoying is that it’s often used just to create a wall of a garden for execs on top! Sweeping views of the Green over espresso anyone? (though in this case it looks like it may be needed to accommodate the service layer)

4/10/2007

Well the new building is just about complete, with the scaffolding down about a month now. It fits in very well with the existing building line; an appropriate termination to the large scale of the Green and a dash of colour and confident form to the sombre brick surroundings.

While quite austere to the public street, it becomes much less frosty on the side elevation – if only for its own ends in availing of views of the adjoining cemetery.

I’m not convinced this arrangement of busy, playful side facade and formally dressed principal works that well: there’s a sense that the austerity to the front isn’t very sincere – a token nod to the current trend for stoical solidity. A bit like a dress suit with a t-shirt hanging out the back.

But attractive deeply modelled treatment nonetheless.

The limestone detailing is simply beautiful. Exqusitly refined and politely subtle.

The junction of the side elevation and soffit of entrance setback.

The building is separated from the cemetery by a darker stone wall, with horizontal brick-like slab treatment continued in its construction.

Throughout the building and associated structures, there is no sense whatever of budget appliqué as seen across the city at the minute – rather everything looks like it’s been hewn from a solid block of limestone, and up close as if every block is a load-bearing support for the structure above. A tribute to the design and contractors involved.

The junction with the terrace of Merrion Row.

Again a shame I think that it doesn’t flow into the adjoining parapet, moreso for the new building’s interests as it would have made its ‘tower’ all the more prominent and crisply defined.

The gorgeous deeply incised lines are the icing on the cake.

And the subtle little setback at the junction with the terrace a nice touch.

All in all, a worthy contribution to the corporate and ceremonial heart of the city.

Agreed – it’s an excellent addition to the area – the finish quality seems to be way above average. The facade to the cemetary is wonderful. Cannot wait for the removal of the hoarding to get some good photos of it onto the site.

Grafton architects do it again!

Fabian Burgos – Lineas Paralelas (series).

This building would be perfect for Belfield (and no, that’s not damning with faint praise- I like Belfield), but I’m not sure how well it works in this location (better than what it replaced, no doubt, but we’re surely entitled to more than the ‘better than a pile of crap’ argument by now).

Graham- the ‘subtle little setback’ you mention is only a setback because the front wall projects beyond the building line. Power games, pure and simple. And the ‘buffer strip’ approach is the lazy answer to an admittedly thorny design conundrum.

Also, I way prefer the front to the side.

A power game perhaps, but also a valid design concept. As a signature building, it has claim to a subtle deviation from the established rules. The difference in depth the ‘buffer’ creates adds texture and definition to the streetscape, rather than a bland continuum of levels we would otherwise have had. Also at ground floor level there seems to be a return to flush near the skirting, resolving the discrepancy that bit further. We shall await the finished product.

Agreed about the side elevation. While I love it in itself, it’s that bit too busy for this cluttered location, and arguably somewhat insensitive towards the cemetery, relative to the street anyway – ironically the reticent front elevation is far more suited to the dignified treatment desirable for a facade facing such a site. Once the windows are cleared of hoarding and other clutter though, things might improve.

It’s classic Grafton design treatment though isn’t it. Overall a beautiful job and an appropriately simple design (though deceptively so) for this location. No qualm at this end as to its suitability for the location – it needed something fresh and different.

Nice solid bookend … was quite worried about the variation in parapet height from the render, but the finished product is strong enough to warrant a break in line.

Does the mid way detail line actually line up with the parpaet ? looks offset to me…

I’ve no real problem with the side elevation, but it does seem a little voyeuristic given the sensitivities that would normally be afforded such a neighbour. The Huguenots are no longer in a world of their own 😮

Thanks for the pics Graham.

Are the windows supposed to resemble headstones?

I recall speaking to a young lady from Navan once and when asked what she thought about the solas centre her reply was: ”its an awful eyesore, isnt it”.

This looks like something straight out of the 70’s.

My first reaction when I saw this building wasn’t very good. It hasn’t improved with time. It looks out of place, out of character and reminds me of a rubrics cube in motion. The quality might be impressive but I’m not sold on the design at all.

Neither am I…

I just feel although it looks fine now, it’ll become mediocre and boring after it’s first decade of being!

Lovely addition to the city and nice to see something that not only lives up to – but actually supercedes – the plans and drawings. I don’t believe this will date and this type of facade along with Nat Gall, Roches etc will long be seen as the predominant style of good 1990s/2000s Dublin architecture.

Yes I agree kefu. I think its a smart little number. Well done Grafton Architects.

I think it’s awful. A bad mixture of the OPW’s dole office in Cobh and Manuel Aires Mateus’s hotel planned for the docklands. Although the original buildings had been demolished putting something like the original facade with a modern design to to the back would have been much more meaningful even if pastiche. Given the criticism of Dunnes and the terrace on Henry Street in another thread – a criticism I very much agree with – I’m surprised people are so positive towards this. What was there was terrible but this will be viewed as being as bad within two years in my opinion.

it’s pig ugly

How could a heritage facade to the front and a modern block to the rear be described as meaningful, jdivision? Surely the direct opposite is the case.

Justification for this ‘individualistic’ design in my view is derived from the long history associated with this part of the city of unremarkable stock being replaced by signature buildings. The Georgians demolished old-fashioned Dutch Billys and early-18th century stock for grander classically-inspired mansions, the Victorians demolished similar – what they deemed ‘average’ – Georgian stock for all-consuming iconic structures, while the mid-20th century did likewise; all combining to make up the fascinating jumble of stock that we see on the Green today, notably on the commercially important northern side. It is equally notable that only ‘the strongest survived’ on this side – there is very little of modest stock remaining on this part of the Green.

By today’s standards, the former red brick National Museum building was deemed thoroughly average and if anything an eyesore on the street – much as a Dutch Billy would have been an affront to a late Georgian with notions. And so in time-honoured tradition, a vernacular building has been replaced with a signature building that reflects its time, much as Andrew Devane’s Stephen Court does, or the nearby Shelbourne. Of course the difference in our attitude to older vernacular stock today is that there is a heritage value attached, so naturally there is a desire to retain for example the adjoining Merrion Row buildings. As such, the Museum building provided the ideal opportunity to make a 21st century statement in this part of the city without losing heritage stock or unduly compromising adjoining buildings, and I think this has been achieved in this instance.

However the more I see the differing elevations of the new building, the less coherent it unfortunately becomes. I think the design concept of the structure as a whole is substantially diluted with such conflicting treatment.

My problem with the dual facade treatments, as has been touched on above, is primarily the lack of respect shown to the graveyard. It’s treated simply as a visual amenity space for the benefit of the building, regardless of the impact the building has on the graveyard itself. The quality of the graveyard as an element of the streetscape was largely due to its hidden nature, something that was stumbled on when approached. This facade announces it from afar and dilutes the planarity of the street fronts. The site should never have been treated as a corner site with the usual ‘3-D / in-the-round’ sculptural approach that that implies.

Graham-
I still disagree with your ‘signature building’ argument. It’s only a signature building because it was designed as a signature building. There was no a priori case for putting a signature building here. So to say ‘As a signature building, it has claim to a subtle deviation from the established rules’ sort of reminds me of Sean Dunne’s approach at Jury’s which, in essence, comes across as ‘We have decided that X is required, therefore X is required’.

For the record, I do quite like the building- as you say, the quality of the materials and craftsmanship is undeniable. I just think it’s in the wrong location. Is it too late to transplant it to Belfield? It’d sure be better than the crud proposed by Supreme Leader His Eminence President Doctor Brady.

Yet again a nice design, but in the wrong place. Perfect for the dock’s, not in the middle of Georgian style Dublin.
😡 It is really starting to annoy me now how city centre designs DON’T EVEN BOTHER to reflect it’s surroundings into the buildings design.

I think it’s the limestone grey that is out of place here. It would have been interesting with the same design but different materials. How about recycled weathered looking red bricks for example ( there should be plenty around from all the Georgian/Georgian style buildings that have been knocked in recent times) or some other material that make it blend in more instead of the current thinking of ‘let’s make the building stand out as much as possible’. :rolleyes:

While I wouldn’t quite go along with that weehamster, it certainly could have been interesting to have brick used in a crisp modern fashion along the lines of deB&M’s new Cork Institute of Technology building. Indeed the decorative use of brick in an almost-blind elevation would have been treatment enough for the side facade, given gable ends rarely received architectural treatment in Dublin and so would continue to highlight the unique nature of the site, but nonetheless acknowledging that the facade is deserving of some treatment with a brick dressing.

Yes I think you cleared up neatly the problem of the side elevation, ctesiphon, both in itself and relative to the front facade. Indeed the busy all-consuming side facade does the exact opposite of what it should: essentially turning this secondary part of the building into the principal elevation – working completely against the grain of the street pattern and the sensitivity deserving of the location. The vast volume of windows looks greedy and uncouth – by contrast, the elegant and restrained ‘I’m not really looking’ tall vertical windows near the corner offer a clue as to what could have more considerately been used on this elevation. Essentially the front is appropriate to the side, and the side, well, appropriate to neither.

I agree with your whittling down of the ‘signature’ argument – there is indeed nothing worse than a case being made based upon an assumption. But I think this site is capable of adopting a signature building: ‘signature’ simply in terms of height and modernity which by definition is going to stand out at this location, not an ‘iconic’ design. The site is capable of an extra floor, the pleasing contrast in scale between the cemetery and its surroundings is heightened – and it in itself made more enclosed – and it achieves a better density. I think the scale is appropriate, the idiom of design is appropriate, the materials likewise, but the execution of the concept specific to this location is not.

Out of interest, why do you not think the building is appropriate to this location, ctesiphon? What would you have like to have seen – as with those who do not like it?

Took some time out of my busy weekend :rolleyes: to have a look at this today. As said in earlier texts, the craftsmanship is certainly impressive. Three things jar with me however:

(a) The change in the parapet line. While it may well be true that it needed to be at that height for services to be fitted in, it was calling out to be recessed, even if only by a couple of feet, so that some consideration was given to continuiing the existing line.

(b) There is a nice interplay between the relatively sober street facade, and the almost-random abundance of glass to the side, but neither makes any attempt to interact with the rhythm of the windows in the nearby buildings. It’s almost as if it exists and interacts only with itself, oblivious to its any context.

(c) The lack of context also carries into the choice of a grey stone for the facade. Again, while there is nothing wrong with this in itself, it ends up clashing with the materials on the rest of the streetscape, both in colour and dimension.

Any one – or even two – of these items I could happily live with. The three of them make it a much harder one to call. Still, I’m going to come down on the positive side – if only for the quality of the finish and the materials used. It’s just a pity it wasn’t standing somewhere on its own….

@GrahamH wrote:

How could a heritage facade to the front and a modern block to the rear be described as meaningful, jdivision? Surely the direct opposite is the case.

.

Probably the incorrect word to use on my part. But basically a redbrick facade would have kept the terrace together rather than giving it a jarring sudden termination when walking towards St Stephens Green. From St Stephens Green the view would be of the the more modern block which would have allowed room for a more modern treatment

10/2/2008

The Department is complete.

Texture, sharpness, clarity, simplicity – the front elevation borders on the sublime.

A striking bronze railing has been erected along the basement void, soaring to two storeys in height to form the entrance.

The basement railings continue the beautifully crafted pattern.

They conceal the basement void behind, paved in more crisp limestone.

The join with the red brick terrace of Merrion Row.

The opposite end of the site deftly handles the awkward angle adjoining the Huguenot cemetery by means of a striking single-storey atrium.

However the side elevation is unfortunately as unsuited to its context as it was the day it was unveiled.

Busy, loud, dissrespectful to the cemetery, and lacking in understanding of the wider streetscape. A shame.

And purely for its own sake, it looks as though the elevations for two different buildings got mixed up and amalagamated.

By all means the side elevation is of merit, but not at this location.

A blemish on an otherwise supremely accomplished building, the artistry of which we have not seen in Dublin in quite a while.

You must have been up early Graham….not a humanoid in sight

Ugh – can’t be doing with pesky people, less still them actually interacting with a building. The very notion!

A quietish Saturday morning and a matter of waiting 😉

Some great shots there Graham 🙂

@GrahamH wrote:

However the side elevation is unfortunately as unsuited to its context as it was the day it was unveiled…Busy, loud, and lacking in understanding of the wider streetscape. A shame.

I’ll watch this building collect a rake of prizes I know, but at the same time yours is a fair assessment – it really is a tale of two buildings, and the building with todays gimmick of zig-zag windows will date 🙁

One area, so far not discussed, where I have concerns are the interesting preimeter railings. Without becoming a health-and-safety freak, am I alone in being perturbed that these railings, with their horizontal bars, make a perfect climbing frame – and that there is a danger that this

could inadvertantly lead thru to such a massive drop as this –

Should these railings (all be they visually interesting) really be left so finger-friendly for small children (or drunken rugby oafs) to climb?

Its a fair point hutton….if a little depressing

@StephenC wrote:

Its a fair point hutton….if a little depressing

Thanks 😮

Well it is! No criticism of you but its an unfortunate feature of modern design that so many aspects need to be in some cases overly-vetted for safety, or vandalism or juvenile behaviour.

All together now in your best swedish accents;

“Money Money Money”

I can’t help thinking that this building looks very familiar somehow. Wasn’t there a comtemporary Roman baths or a spa or something by Peter Zumthor about ten years ago that used great blank areas of grey stone wall and frameless large windows, or am I thinking of something else?

I did a quick search, but I couldn’t find the one I’m thinking of.

I’d say you’re thinking of the thermal baths at Vals in Switzerland-

http://www.reflected.ch/index.php?showimage=91

That’s the one. Thanks ctesiphon. My god, that is tasty.

Aside from the overall architectural merits/ demerits, the detailing is superb here- how did they form the panels to the cemetery side is hand laid masonry?? (someone told me Polish brickies were used so I am discounting that they are prefab panels of stone)

I noticed an early pic here showed a cast insitu conc. inner leaf with small projections and offsets- there must be relieving angles fixed to these walls with stone mechanically fixed/ adhered to the underside of these to give a monolithic appearance. The masonry is built off these. I also noticed on Stone Developments website the masonry units were 100mm wide (sanded Galway Limstone) and Grafton stated in their article in IA that the overall thickness of the wall is 425. Apparently the openable (recessed) glazing slides into the internal reveal to create a balcony like situation. So we are probably talking about 100mm ex. stone, 100mm cavity (with some form of insulation) 150mm inner ‘leaf’ of insitu concrete cast off the floor slabs and 75mm internal stud inc finishes….

The glazing is by Sean Billings (BDA ltd), who have done all the good glazing jobs in Ireland (and around the world it would seem- eg Michael Hopkins house in Hamstead), according to his website each panel is a ‘pod’ unit with integrated insulation and downpipes. This may be how they got around the tricky jamb detail in terms of insulation. The reference to downpipes may be how they have weathered the exposed tops of the glazing but I don’t have a monkeys where the water goes to! It remains to be seen if it will weather well in the long run, I have seen streaks and water marks on the flush windows every time I pass it, the stone colour may help however (unlike the new Trinity Long Room Hub in Fellows Square- which although good will be less forgiven than Grafton’s exercise in checkerboard).

Where are the chess pieces?

It found to be great form for me wat a detailed info very nice work…..i want daily updates…

Without a shadow of a doubt one of the best buildings done in Irish Commercial architecture and will like Carrolls be lauded for decades to come; sadly like Carrolls the occupants of the building really did not understand the bigger picture of the job they were engaged in or maybe they did but were unwilling to stick their heads above the parapet to call stop; if more attention were paid to the health and safety of the system versus errecting what are quite attractive railings……

One hopes that when the pick up happens that less speculative ‘back office spec’ development occurs at edge city and that high profile sites such as 65/71 Stephens Green, VHI on Abbey Street and Findlater House on OCS can receive a similar treatment to this plot; there are a lot of the mistakes of the 1980’s still to be unwound on Dublin’s Streets.

There are some great architectural practices in Dublin capable of very good work lets hope that the next round of FDI has an appetite for their work and are not funnelled into decentralisation mecca’s such as Cahersiveen and Trim.