Destruction of Hailing Station

Agreed, phil. The news report mentioned that under the DDDA’s terms of reference (the 1997 Act that established the Authority, I believe), development takes precedence over conservation even where the building in question is a Protected Structure.

I’ve been wondering recently, in light of the steady stream of questionable proposals (Future Systems bridge, Heneghan Peng quay wall jetties, Gormley sculpture, Schwartz square, to name just the most recent ones), whether the DDDA is a bit of an anachronism these days. It was probably necessary in 1997, and almost certainly necessary as an engine of renewal and development in its previous guide of the CHDDA, but how necessary or useful is the organisation in the present climate? Any appearance of forward thinking has been diluted by the progress of the development culture generally in the city in the last decade, to the point where the DDDA planning scheme is considered in some quarters to be unnecessarily conservative, which was hardly the original intention.

Perhaps this belongs in a new thread?

Anyway, shame on DDDA for not trying to apply some imagination to the Hailing Station- demolition should always be read as the easiest, laziest option.

Was no loss. Retention of innocuous older buildings purely for the sake of it is not desirable.
This is not to say I support DDDA and would agree they have become a bit of an anachronism, who just seem increasingly desperate to leave their stamp on the city.

retaining innocuous older buildings gives a sense of place; why, conversely, was destroying it desirable.

I’m obviously in favour of retaining old buildings but don’t believe it should the be-all and end-all. It was a building of very little architectural merit that occupies a significant site.
Obviously, if some horrible block – a la the new Wax Museum building – goes up, then there is a loss to the city. But if something worthwhile is built in its place, then it is desirable.
Take a look at the picture above, which is actually kind to it. Twas even more rundown and actually bore all the appearances of having been constructed much later than it actually was.

@kefu wrote:

I’m obviously in favour of retaining old buildings but don’t believe it should the be-all and end-all. It was a building of very little architectural merit that occupies a significant site.

From reading some of the letters to the editor in the Irish Times about this over the last few days it seems that the issue has more to do with perceived social importance than actual architectural merit of the structure. One of the major issues with regards to the the docklands over the last 20 years has been the degree to which the DDDA (CHDDA) have been so determined to establish a new image for the area that most traces of the past are being eradicated. In this regard no consideration seems to be given to how important structures such as this one are in terms of the social history of the docks.

Yes, and one of the letters suggested that there was some device that used to tell boats about tides or something to that effect – and issues such as that should of course be recognised in the new development.
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head as regards “perceived social importance”. It quite reminds me of the dispute over the 1916 house on Moore Street.
Certain segments don’t seem to care enough to stop buildings like this falling into extraordinary disrepair and do nothing to stop that.
It’s only their actual physical removal that bothers them and I for one can’t understand the sentiment that would prefer to see a decrepit old building of little or no archictectural merit left in situ just for the sake of it.

well the decrepit part could have been fixed: although it lacked architectural merit its retention would have been desirable as a link with the history of the area, it gives the area depth if artefacts from it past are retained. Obviously it shouldn’t be retained at any cost: but what was the cost, why did it have to be knocked. What was it preventing?

No architectural merit. Can’t imagine why it was protected in the first place.

Mind you, it’s probably going to be preferable to whatever the powers that be allow to take its place

@kefu wrote:

Certain segments don’t seem to care enough to stop buildings like this falling into extraordinary disrepair and do nothing to stop that.
It’s only their actual physical removal that bothers them and I for one can’t understand the sentiment that would prefer to see a decrepit old building of little or no archictectural merit left in situ just for the sake of it.

I think that the reason for this is often more related to the fact that we feel so disempowered in terms of decision making that it is only when certain structures are actually gone that we start to seek out reasons for their removal, and who is responsible for such. Of course the other reason is that they are so ingrained in our everyday experience that we take them somewhat for granted.

Much of what seems to be lost in the conservation debate is the degree to which buildings are appreciated for reasons way beyond their architectural merits or otherwise. Whilst an ‘expert’ might say it is of no architectural significance, they might just as easily miss out on other issues that are just as important.

I sometimes wonder about the worthiness of some retentions in dockland and industrial area redevelopments. Of course this type of intensive regeneration has been going on for three decades or so at this point in cities around the world, and we’re all well versed in the typical ‘sensitive’, ‘innovative’, ‘well-meaning’ approaches taken.

Sometimes though I feel it can sometimes be too tokenistic, too themepark-like. All these once-industrial, grimy, dirty, smelly buildings, machinery and infrastructure are usually sanitised within an inch of their lives, stripped down to the core fabric and refitted in chic style, or simply cleaned up as token relics to sit at the side of the road for suits to admire from a smug and assured rose-tinted viewpoint. Maybe it’s just a personal thing, but I often feel more heartened in seeing contemporary references or interpretations of a former use, such as that evocative sculpture of the quay worker hauling the rope up the quay wall at City/SJR Quay.

It depends on mood and level of irritability really I suppose lol. Buildings can always be pragmatically recycled, but other retentions – like machinery – can grate a bit. Especially if not re-erected in the same place!

@notjim wrote:

why did it have to be knocked. What was it preventing?

The U2 Tower.

Funnily, space has been left for the Hailing Station in early images of the tower.

But in later images, and the model below, the tower has been moved right to the edge, so piss off Hailing Station …

https://archiseek.com/content/showpost.php?p=64826&postcount=109

@phil wrote:

Much of what seems to be lost in the conservation debate is the degree to which buildings are appreciated for reasons way beyond their architectural merits or otherwise. Whilst an ‘expert’ might say it is of no architectural significance, they might just as easily miss out on other issues that are just as important.

Well put, phil.

Granted, there is a certain logic to speaking of buildings only in context of their architectural merit. But of the things that are lost when we treat buildings like they are stand alone objects, mere appendages to the landscape, are the things that make cities and spaces interesting: we lose sight of the stories, shapes, and personal landmarks that connect us to a place.

The problem with praising or damning a building by its architectural merit (whatever that means) alone is like judging the merit of a person by the health or disease of the body they inhabit. You may as well look at a medical chart rather than a person. There’s a weirdly eugenic approach to the ‘raze it all and let the architects sort it out’ approach that seems unwilling to even contemplate what other things, rather than shiny new health, buildings are good for.

I like this shed, and I like certain abandoned lots, and I think that any discussion of old v. new ought to consider the possibility that many people, architects or not, have reasons for defending their personal ruins. And of course we don’t think of these things until our favorite little landmark that we assumed would be there forever, is gone, or about to be gone.