Farewell the Ormond Hotel?

Originally posted by J. Seerski
It is indeed a fitting example of how expendible PVC windows are in this case. They were only installed in 2002 so they were a huge waste of money – pure short-termism (if there is such a word). Can one speculate that if the originals were intact that this may have hampered the planning application to demolish??!

Interesting point J. Seerski – maybe the inverse psychology was applied of having the PVC installed to devalue the building prior to a demolition app.

In case anyone is wondering An Taisce did appeal the demolition. I think there were 3 appeals against its demolition altogether. The An Bord Pleanala inspector agreed that it shouldn’t be demolished because of its contribution to the Quays, but the Bord itself overturned the recommendations of the inspector.

Forgot to mention that Architectural Conservation Areas also protect against demolition of older buildings, so had the Quays been an ACA there would have been a stronger argument for maintaining the Ormond (there’s only one ACA in Dublin so far – the O’Connell St. IAP Area).

The only hope is that if the owners decide not to go ahead with that horrific new building!

That building is really horrendous, not only the design of it, esp the windows – their style, number and placement, but the fact that it makes no attempt to integrate into the quay and existing stock. It stands purely for its own sake – the very worst kind of architecture for the quays.
And those ledges in the central bay give it a distinct Costa Brava quality that is equally unfortunate.

Single pane sashes seem to be correct alright as the originals – not only are the PVCs inappropriate, so are their design. The Georgian grid is totally unsuited to so many windows. The fact that the window is by far the foremost architectural feature of this building, it is no wonder it now looks so terrible with the new frames.
Hotel and accomodation owners so often replace their windows simply to improve efficency and practicality in the bedrooms, with complete disregard to the building itself – so much better to have shiny PVC with handles, than have customers complaining about rickety old sashes that won’t open or close, or that stick. This is a huge issue around the country – from hotels, to pubs to B&Bs.
Somehow, the easy restoration and maintainace of sashes has to be more widely advertised.

Originally posted by J. Seerski
A point to note – surely it is not unreasonable to believe that parts of the Ormond predate 1700 – As Ormond Quay was developed during the 1670s-90s? As far as I am aware, a building that can be proved to pre-date 1700 is declared a National Monument – therefore cannot be demolished.

To my knowledge, the Ormond Hotel is a facade retention of 1902; the facades of 5 Georgian buildings were retained & amalgamated for the hotel – see attached pre-1902 picture below – I’ve marked the extent of the current hotel facade. The 3-bay facade at the end may have been rebuilt, as the window levels are different, but I’m fairly sure the four 4-bay ones make up the current hotel facade.

From the picture, these buildings appear to be typical late-18th or early-19th century brick quay houses, like no. 6 Upr. Ormond Qy. which is next door on the east, which you are probably aware is a late-17th cen. house with a 19th cen. brick re-facing. So, right enough, the buildings in the picture may have been much earlier houses with later brick re-facing (cos early brick was very soft & crumbled away etc.). But all that would be left now that is possibly of late-17th cen. date is the core brickwork of the facades behind the outer brick face, which of course was plastered over in turn for the 1902 hotel conversion.

Even though they were demolishing 5 earlier houses, the hotel builders made sure that the facade looked good, with its window architraves & string courses, & was in scale with the rest of the quay as Punchbowl referred to earlier.

Actually, I’ve seen a picture of Upr. Ormond Qy. from roundabout the 1950s – I couldn’t lay my hands on it now – and the hotel has a scroll-y stucco decoration in the centre of the parapet and I think small urns at the extremities – it looked even better! I wish I could think of where it was I saw that photo.

I took this picture of no. 6 Upr. Ormond Quay (the late-17th cen. house with later brickwork) in 2000. You can see one bay of the Ormond Hotel on the left. You can’t see them very well, but those windows are the 1-over-1 paned timber sashes, before the silly PVC insertion of 2002. You can also see that the hotel had a tasteful paint job, before the brash bright painting of now.

Who was to know things were soon to take a turn for the worst – first the PVC windows & brash painting and now the demolition order and bad replacement building? Like people have already said, that stretch of quayfront is relatively good & the Ormond is sited in the middle of a decent terrace of old stock. Since ‘Sin E’ pub was restored, including the replacement of its PVC windows with nice timber sashes, there is no PVC (other than the Ormond) on that entire block between Capel Street and Arran Street (see photos posted by Graham earlier), which is unusual for an area outside the Georgian squares. The Ormond should have been restored! – with a discreet extra floor if necessary.

Bad decision DCC! Bad decision ABP!

If anyone wants to see the file at DCC planning desk, the Ref. no. is 2342/03. Copies of the appeals & ABP decision should be in the file also.

http://www.design-unlimited.ie/

Ironic name I suppose.

Apparently the original submission was even more ghastly. The images posted here are of a revised improved offering!

Interesting stuff there Devin – and the urns atop seem appropriate too, given the date and the fact that McBirneys has them!

I don’t agree that the current building is crap, it looks so alright, but structurally isn’t.
If the facade was painted a sand/tan colour, that would match the tones of neighbouring stock bricks, contrasted with crisp white matt stucco detail it could look fanatastic, esp with wooden sashes put back in and the removal of that lift shaft/water tank yoke on top.
Combined with a natural stone or timber ground floor facade it would be the making of this quay.
To have the potential that’s in this building over-taken by that proposed structure would be just madness. For the building’s sake, the quay’s sake, and that of the riverscape of the city.

What happened to the Church in the First of Devin’s pictures?

The Hotel shouldn’t be knocked and the replacement is dodgy but taking down a Church of the Quality is a crime.
😡

I’d like to see the Ormond kept, but I don’t think it should be kept at all cost. But to justify its demolition, a new building would want to be of outstanding contemporary design quality, which the approved one emphatically isn’t.

It’s awful but, when you look at the architects’ website you can see why. I’m reminded of an old cartoon by Helman in the AJ where the client turns to the architect and says:

“I want it quick, I want it cheap and, by God, I want it ugly”