Dublin Quays …latest addition.

You’re a very hard man to please Graham. It’s not often that architects get given out to for going up in standard! The stone finish here is a much higher spec than brick . . and it oozes quality, which is not what most recent city centre developments have oozed.

@GrahamH wrote:

The office park character of the building, meanwhile, suggests a lack of imagination and ambition, and an inability to deal with challenging design concepts which so sorely need to take infill architecture in Dublin to a new level.

One selectively quotes Graham at their peril . . . but, I don’t see a lack of imagination here . . . (apart from in the funky spacing of the opes in the outer frame, which, to be kind to it, is a little stiff, and maybe in the vertical strip windows, which don’t really complement either main facade approach, and perhaps in the Tegral brochure aesthetics of the recessed penthouse storey) . . . I think I see a genuine exercise in restraint.

And getting commercial clients to pay for stone is a lot harder than it looks and deliberately losing floor space (behind the facade) in the interests of depth in the architectural expression can’t have been an easy concept to sell either.

I think that the presence of a Georgian block between this building and the Four Courts is enough separation for the contextual use of brick not to be crucial here and, in any case, there’s no way the building would have turned out as refined as it did if they had gone done that route.

My only fear would be that, if we like it, and we’re all bitter and twisted, god only knows what the award citations are going to say about it!

@gunter wrote:

I think that the presence of a Georgian block between this building and the Four Courts is enough separation for the contextual use of brick not to be crucial here and, in any case, there’s no way the building would have turned out as refined as it did if they had gone done that route.

That’s the key point in my opinion and why I disagree with some of Graham’s argument here

I quite like this, but the rear elevation to Ormonde Square is banal in the extreme and does nothing for itself or the square. The pavilion ontop is awful, created from standard pieces from a catalogue.

What a tiresome arguement, Rourke. It requires little response, other than to note the fact that the idea of reworking traditional forms and materials in a contemporary manner conjures up notions of pastiche and fairytale architecture, speaks volumes about the type of architectural thinking that has so stymied good infill architecture in Dublin.

@Rourke wrote:

its easy be a critic. those who cant do ….criticise. And what is it with armchair architecture critics obsession with all things brick when it comes to infill in Dublin. All the grim ‘brick’ buildings in those photos are mediocre to average and of no significant architectural value.

I have never in my life heard of architectural critics being in favour of brick buildings – if anything, quote the opposite. Indeed within Dublin city centre, I would rank but a single modern brick building as being of real architectural excellence, namely 1 Castle Street. Little else compares (although there are some close exceptions).

I fully agree that the Ormond Building is accomplished in many respects; in fact I’d be raving over most of it at another location (take the site of Shay Cleary’s new building on South Leinster Street for example). The spec of most of the facade is of a very high standard, the detailing is elegant, and the deep modelling of the eastern wing a very successful interpretation of adjacent fenestration patterns. The facade design is for the most part very well considered.

Just, a high quality exercise in brick was cried out for on this strategic site. This would have reinforced the character of the quays leading up to the Four Courts, creating a pleasing uniformity of character, while also expressing distinct individuality. It would also have set a new benchmark for the infill of sensitive sites in the city. I see what people mean about the Georgian brick terrace providing a buffer beside the Four Courts, but we’re not talking weak compromise here. In my opinion, the best that this site warranted was nothing less than a brick composition which robustly contributed to, defended, and by all accounts helped generate a-new, a distinctive identity for this stretch of the quays, as much for its own sake as for the Four Courts further upstream. Instead, it is now unduly fragmented, with a straggling remnant of Georgiana on the corner, a day-glo, somewhat insular cube next door, and then a return to a reasonable exercise in 1970s-interpreted brick Georgian. It all simply does not add up, which is just not good enough a result from the infilling of a key site, involving an architectural competition, whose direct purpose was to restore coherence to the quayside.

In my mind, a brick design would have been a far more challenging, innovative and ultimately more satisfying project. Whilst accepting that other cities may have a more coherent look, one cannot imagine a Citywest style composition landing itself in the middle of Amsterdam et al without at least modifiying itself to the accepted dress code.

Rourke: apart from the uncomfortable fact that brick is the Dublin vernacular historic building material (apart from major public buildings). Brick is in part what makes Dublin Dublin from an architectural point of view; what is needed is a competent, confident new brick vernacular, not whimsical renderings of some vague ‘international’ (or should it be ‘global capitalist’?) style.

Don’t feed the troll.

Yep – it’s a very distinctive characteristic.

@Rourke wrote:

but why brick here?. chances are the exisiting buildings to the left side will be demolished in the near future now that this building has upped the development ante a notch. good riddance i say. Its likely that they wont be brick or ‘in keeping ‘ either. that leaves the little non descript pub between the 4 courts and the new building to which all newcomers must bow. Why ?
the Donnell Tuomey brick building is one of the best in Dublin. But theres no specific reason why the infill buildings should be brick on any site in Dublin other than on an otherwise well preserved Georgian street / row.

You see, this is the problem. Brick for some reason is deemed by many in the architectural profession, just as it oozes from your post, as being a compromise, or a sop to conservationists, synonymous with pastiche developments of the 1990s. It has an image problem in Dublin, which is really quite farcial given the city inherited by the 20th century was one almost exclusively built of brick. For this characteristic to be almost completely abandoned by modern architects in favour of a globalised international ‘anywhere’ palette of materials as mentioned by johnglas, does a grave disservice to the identity of the city.

I couldn’t give a hoot if the established brick buildings which require complementing are 200 years old or 50, 20, or 10 years old. It is not heritage-dependant (though this does play a role) – rather it’s about being confident enough to build on the distinctive characteristics of a city in new and dynamic way, using established materials where it is appropriate. When one sees the (at times, overly) strenuous lengths gone to in Bath to ensure a consistency of material across the city in new-build developments, it really is a joke in Dublin that barely anybody uses brick for standard infill buildings within the city core, with that number approaching zero when it comes to it being put to a creative application.

All I’m saying is that brick would have been highly desirable as a facing material at Ormond Quay, and it is a grave disappointment that architects did not see fit to employ this over a showy, chic, but ultimately insular, stand-alone composition that does little to reinforce the character of the quayside other than fill an unsightly gap.

There are a couple of problems.

Firstly, brick buildings in this country generally just follow patterns laid down in provincial architecture in Britain. So there’s nothing distinctively Irish or Dublin about it.

Secondly, everything built in brick in Dublin in the last fifty years is crap.

Either somebody is hiding the secret of modern red brick from the rest of us, or red brick does not suit modern buildings. One of the reasons traditional brick buildings seem beautiful to us is their old-fashioned aesthetic principles and their attention to detail. In modern contexts, especially where brick is employed in a minimalist fashion, you end up with awkward, ugly boxes. THE AGE OF BRICK IS OVER. Unless somebody can formulate an entirely new paradigm for red brick in Ireland, then we must stop littering our cities with badly designed, aesthetically repulsive brick buildings.

Is the present architectural profession so starved of talent and imagination that a distinctively Irish modern style cannot be contemplated?

The first element of such a paradigm should be aesthetic, rather than intellectual, quality. Sometimes I think architects are so taken in by the architectural ideas that they are blinded to what actually looks good. And that building beside the Four Courts looks a lot better than a red brick box would.

if they wanted to do modern, why didn’t they?

Glad to hear you appreciate the qualities of brick, Rourke!

@Rourke wrote:

My argument is that there is no rational reason why architects must defer to surrounding buildings or use a certain material because the surrounding buildings incorporate them.

I do find this quite an extraordinary statement. While noting your last comments about unified streetscapes etc, there is every reason to make reference to the surrounding landscape of building materials (and again I’d argue that ‘defer’ has a negative, subordinate connotation). This promotes a satisfying sense of harmony and coherence, while on an ‘intellectual’ level stimulates the eye in noting the varying stylistic approaches to the expression of a similar ideal. 1930s modernist infill and Amsterdam school buildings were particularly adept at this practice (and built at the time when the greed of pile-em-high additional storeys and annexes did not compromise their composition). These buildings were often beautifully crafted from local brick, expertly detailed and thoroughly complementary to their settings. They also age extremely well. Of course every building must not ‘conform’ – that would be daft – but as a baseline for most buildings it is a desirable goal.

@rumpelstiltskin wrote:

There are a couple of problems.

Either somebody is hiding the secret of modern red brick from the rest of us, or red brick does not suit modern buildings. One of the reasons traditional brick buildings seem beautiful to us is their old-fashioned aesthetic principles and their attention to detail. In modern contexts, especially where brick is employed in a minimalist fashion, you end up with awkward, ugly boxes. THE AGE OF BRICK IS OVER. Unless somebody can formulate an entirely new paradigm for red brick in Ireland, then we must stop littering our cities with badly designed, aesthetically repulsive brick buildings.

Is the present architectural profession so starved of talent and imagination that a distinctively Irish modern style cannot be contemplated?

Fully agreed that aesthetic takes precedent over abstract or intellectual notions, which is perhaps why the Ormond Building is more a matter of taste than stepping into the realm of what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. However, this development was the result of an architectural competition – a formula which aspires to tailor a building to every facet of its context. The fact that this was a modest infill site in the wider ensemble of the quays, rather than an isolated stand-alone site which demanded a more confident, individual approach, practically hones down the function of the competition exclusively to that of interpreting context. In my opinion, 50 per cent of this was achieved, through the matching of parapet height and the distinguished use of staggered fenestration modules. The other 50 per cent failed unacceptably – namely the arbitrary and ill-conceived roofscape, and the choice of facing material.

I could not disagree more about the age of brick being over. If anything, it’s quite the opposite, with O’Donnell & Tuomey and DeBlacam & Meagher in particular championing the material to beautiful effect. The former’s new Timberyard social housing scheme on Cork Street is easily amongst the top three buildings erected in Dublin last year, and one of the finest of the past decade. It is precisely this model of structure which would have been more appropriate for Ormond Quay, which makes it particularly galling that this is precisely what they submitted into the competition.

© O’Donnell & Tuomey (rear elevation)

http://www.odonnell-tuomey.ie/webpage/orm/orm.htm

Okay, the two-part quayfront approach and roof gardens probably didn’t win over the judges, but the material and arguably the finer grain of detail would have been infinitely more appropriate for the site (and the elevation to Ormond Square much more satisfying).

Brick is not a clinical, harsh material, and most ceertainly does suit modern buildings when used appropriately. It does not have to be all-engulfing – indeed one of the best applications of brick is its use in conjunction with other materials such as sharp expanses of glass and softening timber. Again, these options could have been employed at Ormond Quay. Instead we have a building that in terms of material expression appears to have landed from outer space. An incidentally, I am convinced that had the site in question been the corner site of the Georgian terrace, we would have ended up with precisely the same building.