ESB Headquarters Fitzwilliam Street
- This topic has 167 replies, 53 voices, and was last updated 12 years ago by
.
- Posts
@DOC wrote:
Sweet baby jesus! I’m sure the IGS would love that one!
Obviously ESB breif for accomodation is probably/possibly more that the site can handle given it’s context.
oh dear. here we go again
Let’s all rubbish the current ESB building while clamouring for some kind of carbon copy or limp pastiche of the past. We need to get over ourselves and accept that the georgians are gone. Georgian architecture is gone. Any attempt to fill the gap using sepia tinted spectacles will result in an infil – and a poor one at that. Just take a look at anything that Robert Adam has done – it’s a short step to Quinlan Terry
The IGS should be reponsible for the conservation and protection of existing buildings. They should in fact be totally against any attempt to copy the past and I am surprised that they have not objected to DCC’s misguided amendment to the development plan
The existing bank of ireland sets up a height profile to the rear of the site perfectly conducive to 8 storeys being adjacent to it, falling to 4 on Fitwilliam
There is a real opportunity here and this kind of lazy backward looking thinking is only going to serve the status quo. And, while we’re at it, maybe we shouldn’t be judging the potential end product by making throwaway comments on schemes that failed to make the shortlist
The ESB are a utility provider and electrical infrastructure contractor; what are they doing acting as a property company at a time when office vacancy rates are in excess of 20% in Dublin?
I agree that a pastiche infill would be wrong; but would also say this proposal should be refused on the following grounds
1. Design style, it is too brash for its setting and would detract from the unity of the Fitz/Merrion mile
2. The set backs would not protect views from Merrion Square
3. There is no need for office space in Dublin due to chronic over-supply
4. The proposal is contrary to government policy on raising revenue from semi state disposals – this would very much damage the appeal and add a lot of risk to a dividend led business model
@PVC King wrote:
The ESB are a utility provider and electrical infrastructure contractor; what are they doing acting as a property company at a time when office vacancy rates are in excess of 20% in Dublin?
I agree that a pastiche infill would be wrong; but would also say this proposal should be refused on the following grounds
1. Design style, it is too brash for its setting and would detract from the unity of the Fitz/Merrion mile
2. The set backs would not protect views from Merrion Square
3. There is no need for office space in Dublin due to chronic over-supply
4. The proposal is contrary to government policy on raising revenue from semi state disposals – this would very much damage the appeal and add a lot of risk to a dividend led business model
you’re judging design on a scheme that failed to make the shortlist.
No doubt the design posted would have reflected the brief; which if the poisin pill defence to preventing the instalation of accountability in the ownership structure is the intention will attract entries that all the points below would be relevant on.
Whatever way you look at this the STW Bank of Ireland sceme is vacant or soon to be vacant and can provide exactly what the ESB require in terms of floor space to deliver a first class energy player; if it were sold or leased to the ESB it would solve two problems. No design in line with an inappropriate brief would be acceptable directly fronting the Fitz/Merrion mile.
@wearnicehats wrote:
oh dear. here we go again
Let’s all rubbish the current ESB building while clamouring for some kind of carbon copy or limp pastiche of the past. We need to get over ourselves and accept that the georgians are gone. Georgian architecture is gone. Any attempt to fill the gap using sepia tinted spectacles will result in an infil – and a poor one at that. Just take a look at anything that Robert Adam has done – it’s a short step to Quinlan Terry
The IGS should be reponsible for the conservation and protection of existing buildings. They should in fact be totally against any attempt to copy the past and I am surprised that they have not objected to DCC’s misguided amendment to the development plan
…
There is a real opportunity here and this kind of lazy backward looking thinking is only going to serve the status quo. …Here we go again indeed. The usual narrow provincial orthodoxy regarding reconstruction. I know of nowhere outside of the UK and Ireland where the idea of reconstruction is viewed by professional architects and planners with the sort of disgust and contempt normally reserved for pedophiles, bankers and The X-factor. All over the rest of the planet reconstruction is considered a perfectly valid option in situations like this. But what would continental Europeans, for example, know about maintaining vibrant cities? (Now where is that sarcastic/rolling eyes smiley I had my hand on…)
In this particular context, it’s an option which deserves very serious consideration in my opinion, not sneering dismissal.
Very good point there jimg,
. . . . . but the fly in the ointment here is that the ESB building is probably just about the best 1960s corporate urban in-fill building we have [ OK that may not be saying much ] so destroying it is itself a very questionable act, irrespective of what you replace it with.
@jimg wrote:
Here we go again indeed. The usual narrow provincial orthodoxy regarding reconstruction. I know of nowhere outside of the UK and Ireland where the idea of reconstruction is viewed by professional architects and planners with the sort of disgust and contempt normally reserved for pedophiles, bankers and The X-factor. All over the rest of the planet reconstruction is considered a perfectly valid option in situations like this. But what would continental Europeans, for example, know about maintaining vibrant cities? (Now where is that sarcastic/rolling eyes smiley I had my hand on…)
In this particular context, it’s an option which deserves very serious consideration in my opinion, not sneering dismissal.
it might help if you could show examples of successful reincarnations of a similar scale “on the mainland” including original scheme, misguided infil and glorious replacement so that us heathens can be enlightened
not sure the “limp pastiche of the past” would be allowed in such a sensitive setting
if it good pastiche can be done in parnell square why not Fitzwilliam street?
The ESB may not have a choice in the matter
http://www.tribune.ie/article/2010/sep/12/neil-callanan-council-backs-faux-georgian-esb-buil/?q=ESB Neil CallananCouncil backs faux-Georgian ESB building
The ESB has been working for more than 18 months on a design competition for the redevelopment of its headquarters at Fitzwilliam Square in Dublin. However the city council may be making the decision for the company.As pointed out ,the repro facades on Parnell Sq opposite the Rotunda main entrance have been completed to a very high standard and cannot be faulted by any reasonable judgement.
There is significant scope for a contemporary block of a substantial size including a decent basement to enliven James St. East with the right roof treatment. We don’t really ‘do’ decent roofs in Irish archticetural practice though imo.
Grafton Architects Ltd & O’Mahony Pike Architects Ltd, have reportedly won this. No word if it actually will ever be built, or renderings yet.
wow – first #1 Ballsbridge, now this. OMP must have a drawing cabinet in their office with a picture of a big white elephant on it
It’s a strange state of being you win a competition but you can’t show your scheme.
Guess changes are being made or goals posts are moving.
So is everyone still against the idea of forcing the ESB to reinstate the entire terrace with high quality Georgian replicas?
I grew up fairly close to this location, most of which was built on marshy land basically reclaimed from the sea.
I remember hearing, as a child, that certain works carried out on the original buildings had put extra stress on the wooden piles which supported them. The wooden piles would have been fine under the structures which had earlier been in place, but these extra works eventually necessitated the removal of the original buildings and their replacement with the current structure. Is any of this true?
If Germany can rebuild most of its historice urban centres with a high degree of autehticity after the war to make up for the cultural destruction of that conflict surely it is possible ot reconstruct fitzwilliam street to make up for the cultural destruction of unbridled urban reconstruction.
True. IMO the best of Dublin as an identity is as a Georgian City. I’d hate to see what they are doing around the North Docks encroaching more and more into the whole city especially the relatively small Georgian spaces that are left.
I was in the ESB building offices many years ago and it a maze of small cubicles with no air – truly hideous. I’d imagine it is horrible to work in.I had a stroll around “former” Georgian enclaves in North Dublin City recently. Its a truely depressing and dismal sight. When in a way makes a mockery of ABPOs refusal of the NCH on the grounds that it is a historic area.
I a sense though, the scale of destruction wrought in the North City makes it all the more important that what remains is consolidated and preserved. If ever there was a case for sensitive reconstruction (not pastiche a la Mount Street in the 70s/80s) this is it. A historic wrong would thus be corrected. Frankly, given how attitudes had changed, I was rather surprised that the ESB pushed ahead with this project.
C
It will be interesting to see how this pans out. Will it be a touchstone for the growing interest in Dublin’s Georgian area?
ESB to tear down Dublin block that ruined ‘Georgian Mile’
New development will not see restoration of Georgian facade – by Olivia KellyAlmost 50 years since the demolition of 16 Georgian houses in what was described by conservationists as one of the worst acts of vandalism in the history of the State, the ESB plans to redevelop its headquarters on Dublin’s Fitzwilliam Street.
The company intends to knock the offices designed by Sam Stephenson and Arthur Gibney and apply to Dublin City Council for permission for a scheme double the capacity of the existing building.
However, it does not intend to comply with the council’s policy that it should restore the lost Georgian facades of the street.Mansion House protest
Plans announced by the ESB in the early 1960s to break up what was Dublin’s longest Georgian facade, from Mount Street to Leeson Street, resulted in a resistance campaign which culminated in nearly 1,000 Dubliners attending a protest meeting at the Mansion House in 1962.
Dublin Corporation heeded the protests and refused permission for the demolition. But on September 30th, 1964, the day before the new Planning Act which established a national planning system came into force, Neil Blaney, then minister for local government, signed an order overturning the corporation’s decision. Protests continued but destruction of the 16 houses went ahead.
In the 1990s the ESB made an attempt at amends when it considered a plan, also by Stephenson, to re-establish the Georgian facade as a Millennium project. But this was deemed problematic and rejected.
The company, four years ago, announced its intention to rebuild its headquarters. Since that announcement a new city development plan was passed which gave councillors the opportunity to ensure the ESB would have to include restoration of the 16 facades in any new development on the site.Restoration policy
Fianna Fáil Cllr Jim O’Callaghan, who proposed inclusion of the restoration policy in the development plan, said the company’s new scheme fails to take the council’s policy into account.
“This is the last opportunity to reinstate Fitzwilliam Street . . . Some effort should have been made by the ESB to reinstate the Georgian facade.”
The ESB conceded that its new design by Grafton Architects and O‘Mahony Pike Architects does not involve full facade reinstatement but said it “re-interprets” but “respects” the surrounding architectural heritage.Background: Widespread opposition to ESB’s 1962 plan to demolish houses
The announcement by the ESB in 1962 that it planned to demolish 16 houses on Lower Fitzwilliam Street provoked widespread opposition from conservationists, but it also got some support from architectural students who wanted to see modernism enshrined in Dublin’s Georgian core.
Opponents included the new Irish Georgian Society, leading actor Micheál MacLiammóir and artist Seán Keating, who warned that “the next move will be to feed the books in the library of Trinity College to the boilers of the Pigeon House” – then an ESB power station.No doubt the current design ‘re-interpreted’ and ‘respected’ the originals as well
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
