Farewell the Ormond Hotel?
- This topic has 70 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
Another loss that was of architectural interest to the city. Notice those flower baskets too around the lamps (and the Ormond Hotel to the left, why the fuck are they gonna knock it!)
Note that, that was during our impoverished Catholic guilt ridden backward times.An interesting view of the church is in the earlier pic, with the contrast between the Roman bulk of the Four Courts and the Gothic spires of the church adding interest along the quays.
Those flowers are great – so parochial. They look like they’ve been arranged by a priest’s housekeeper 🙂
They look surprisingly good all the same, esp as they don’t conceal the seahorses – something to consider for the summer.Sorry about the poor quality of the last image. The original is very crisp and sharp – you could almost step into it.
Anyone any suggestions for minimising deterioration of image quality in scans?
Not sure where I got a fire from but some info on the church.
Designed by E.P. Gribbon
The presbyterian congregation moved to this church from Usher’s Quay in 1948 and remained there until 1938 when they combined to form the Ormonde Quay and Scots Presbyterian Church in Lower Abbey Street. It may have been the result of an architectural competition.The church was sold to a developer who proposed a nine storey office block for the site.
Originally posted by Paul Clerkin
A fire I think, and the facade was taken down to first floor level. The office block there has marking on the facade which can be read as “Presbyterian”Its amazing how convenient a can of petrol can be to some developers who are told not to knock churches, Merrion Hall now the Davenport Hotel is another one.
Does nearly every hotel in Dublin have a dodgy acquisition history?
At least the owners of the Royal Dublin Hotel have decided not to destoy no 41 and have placed on the market Guiding 5m, although they did back away from their 9m renovation project as well.4/1/2005
An Ormond splurge from one of many travel site links:
“The Ormond Quay hotel is one of the city’s oldest and best known hotels. Purpose built in 1900, The Ormond Quay Hotel is steeped in history boasting a proud tradition with some of Dublin’s most famous characters, most notably, James Joyce, who wrote his Sirens chapter of Ulysses whilst resident in the hotel.
The Ormond Quay Hotel lets you discover the past and experience the present. As one of Dublin’s oldest hotels we have evolved with our fair city, remaining true to our historical links while adding to that all the modern comforts and conveniences of the 21st century”
Funny that…
Graham Hickey wrote:4/1/2005An Ormond splurge from one of many travel site links:
“The Ormond Quay hotel is one of the city’]
Well the moral of the story,
illegally erect the ugliest plantroom that you can and then argue that you are not exceeding the height when you submit a taller structure designed on autocad.
The Ormond Hotel decision was one of the worst of 2004
Hi all, I never participate in architectural wars, but in this case I think a campaign is warranted.
For those not in the know, the Ormond (in Dublin city centre) is due for demolition. An unremarkable building many would say, but its understated nature lends to the build up to arguably the greatest vista in the city (the dome of the fourcourts towering above the city terraces). Also, the building, while ostensibly Georgian/Victorian from the outside, may date back to the late 1600s, as most of the terrace of Ormond Quay was constructed at that time.
It holds an important place in Dublin’s social and literary history. Apart from its place as the setting for ‘The Sirens’ in Joyce’s Dubliners, it was the location for many a controversial, often significant political rallies from the Larkin lock-out of 1914 to blueshirt rallies in the early thirties.
It is an inoffensive, unpretensious building, inspite of inappropriate changes to fenestration, it stll maintains a calming presence on the quays.
What is proposed for its replcement is a typically bland ‘inn’ type motel structure, wholly inappropriate for such a critical location on the quays. All the more worrying is that this has gotten planning permission and thus the future of the Ormond looks bleak. Who knows when the buldozers will move in….
However, inspite of the go-ahead for demolition, there is still time for the owners to re-consider. They will not only be removing forever part of an unassuming terrace leading up to the glorious Four Courts, but eradicating a hotel of considerable heritage value, something that any new construction cannot hope to have. Hospitality dervives from traditions, and with the smashing of the Ormond, yet another tradition is undermined.
In saving this building the owners could create a spectacular hotel within the confines of a deliberately modest bulding. In replacing it, they will add yet another monotonous, inappropriate, and shallow complex onto the historic quays, which, in spite of decades of conservation pleas, is continuing to be chipped away till there will be little authentic remaining.
If anyone would like to help me in getting a campaign going on this please send me a private message onsite. I will be lobbying as much as I can on my own, but time is of the essence. This building is vital to the future coherence of the quayside – its demise would be a tragic loss. Any help would be appreciated.John
……..I’m on your side even if I’m over here.
Did anyone opposed to the demolition of this building contribute at planning or planning appeal stage?
The first I heard of this demolition was when it was granted permission – An Taisce appealed it, and lost. Nonetheless, I am still hoping some sort of awareness may change the developers mind – it would be a tragic loss to the streetscape and to the quays as a whole. It would appear this development is related to tax breaks for the hotel sector which expired on December 31- development for development’s sake really…
If I had known of the demolition naturally enough I would have objected. This is about saving a part of Dublin’s quays which is reasonably coherent – think of it this way – it has almost the impact as the demolition of the Fitzwilliam Street terrace for ESB offices, something which architects and conservationists lament to this day…
I hope your point isn’t to poke out the fact that I am only campaigning now – I was only aware of this development AFTER it passed An Bord Pleanala – which can happen, many awful planning ideas only come to general public knowledge only after the decision is made. The decision was wrong and EVEN planning bodies do make mistakes. I am hoping that public pressure would make the developers realise they are demolishing something that is of commercial and historical/architectural value to the city.
This project has gone through the correct planning process AND has been appealed and had that appeal examined. Is it not a little immature to start making noise now because the findings of AnBP are not to one’s liking? Personally I do not like the proposed development for this site, but I do respect that having gone through the necessary hoops this project should be allowed to proceed. Otherwise the whole system will descend into Vincent Salafia type objections.
but d_d_dallas, the point being made is that the owners, though obviously entitled to demolish the ormonde, would be unwise to do so, they will swap a special, historic and handsome hotel for a bland and generic one, the sort that can easily be built on any brownfield site. perhaps an appeal to them on this grounds would be effective, espessially with a glut in hotel rooms, new build hotel rooms, likely in the near future.
Couldn’t put it better myself. It would be, in the longer term, in Dublin’s (and the developer’s) interests to preserve it.
Bewleys was preserved (no architectural comparison whatsoever) due to the public outcry, inspite of the owners being perfectly entitled to do what they liked with the building (in terms of usage).
I know… and the new design is dross but I was just pointing out that the time has passed and despite the projects shortcomings, it succeeded in getting approval. I was questioning what validity the entire process would have if we can’t abide by the approvals.
Besides – maybe from a window in Wood Qy the Ormode is a tremendous eyesore in need of removal?!?No doubt with that plant room on top.
I agree that any form of representation to the owners on this one is worth a shot; just because the planning wheels have stopped doesn’t mean the owners couldn’t do with a little persuading.
Did this application come about as a result of a sale of the hotel to developers, or is it a purely cosmetic project?
The incentive scheme J. Seerski mentions is suggestive of the latter.A fair point you make Andrew, but I don’t think anyone here was aware of this project until not just after, but quite a long time after the decision was made, let alone when it was up for public scrutiny.
yeuch!!!!!!
http://www.design-unlimited.ie/ormond_quay_hotel.htmlsympathetic my ….
😮 😮
I think you’ll find it’s ‘sensitive’ J. Seerski 😉
That is the worst view yet! How could they possibly deem that fenestration to be in anyway compatible with the quays, whatever about the building’s grotesque scaling and facade treatment?!
Don’t know which to be more offended by – the demolition of the Ormond or the erection of this yoke.Design Unlimited indeed. Design Unfinished more like.
@J. Seerski wrote:
yeuch!!!!!!
http://www.design-unlimited.ie/ormond_quay_hotel.htmlsympathetic my ….
Christ, that’s fn awful 🙁 Please god don’t let that be built. Can’t they at least use red brick? Much of their work is highly depressing.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
