Farewell the Ormond Hotel?
- This topic has 70 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
I read with sadness that ABP have given the go ahead for the demolition of the Ormond – for over 100 years part of the diverse make-up of buildings that made the quays a remarkable tapestry of 18th and 19th century buildings. I think this decision is a dangerous precedent – after so many years of progress in architectural conservation, is the clock beginning to turn back?
The Ormond, while not a particulary significant work of architecture, is worth preserving for its historical associations with the area: notably as the setting for The Sirens short story in Joyce’s Dubliners. It was also the focus for a major Blueshirt rally in the mid 1930s, addressed by Gen Eoin O’Duffy which prompted the government to take action against uniformed groups that
threatened the state.The fabric of Dublins heritage is under greater threat than I previously suspected if such an integral part of the quays can be demolished without much controversy. Is it too late for the owners to change their minds and realise that having a building of character and distinction restored or improved is better than starting from scratch – inspite of new facilities, any new structure would lack the soul of the previous hotel?
-
-
-
This one also surprised me,
I know that whats there aren’t particularly wonderful must retain buildings but they are a good mix of pre 1900 buildings. What is replacing them is not of any great quality and certainly is not in scale with the existing grain of the block.
I think that this scheme will be particularly obtrusive from Grattan Bridge and the urban design is really a bit ‘anywhere architecture’ to be honest.
But ABP have made their decision and thats the end of it.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I hope that whatever replaces it is not goind to stick out like so many other eyesores in Dublin.
The better solution would have been to upgrade and retain the existing facade which blends nicely with the unremarkable buildings around it.
I don’t think the quays as a whole are a particularly strong point in Dublin’s architecture anyway.
If the Ormond’s replacement is some ultra-mod glass and steel structure, then it’s going to look totally out of place along there.
The City Council’s decisions on city development are terribly hit and miss 😡
-
To be glib, with those windows you can knock it!
Ah, no – it’s unfortunate the state of this building, the windows, the dated colour, the nasty ground floor – they all make the building quite ugly to be honest. You can only wince at the rows of horrendous modern window frames, esp with their lights sticking out.
Admittedly I though the hotel was a bit further west than it is, with modern infill round about it but it’s not – rather it’s sited in the middle of a decent terrace of old stock.Where a number older buildings exist, that create a certain character, this should be maintained I think. I’d welcome decent infill in the many vacant or rundown sites, and indeed entire terraces of it elsewhere on the quays, such as Arran Quay, but this is not the place for it. The Ormonde could look fanastic if restored properly. McBirneys is such an example.
Here’s the view from Grattan Bridge at the moment:
-
-
-
-
-
The installation of the plastic Georgian windows in the current Ormond Hotel in 2002 highlighted the weakness of the ‘Conservation Area’ designations in the current City Development Plan. They are just an objective for the protection of the character of historic areas – there’s no legislative power like there is with Protected Structures or Architectural Conservation Areas.
An Tais. made a complaint to the Council when the windows were installed but nothing could be done. Nice single-pane sashes dating from the 1902 hotel conversion were removed ‘n all.
The Quays need to be designated an Architectural Conservation Area, as well as several other streets like Capel Street, Thomas Street, Pearse Street and probably Grafton Street, where there’re a lot of nice old buildings but not all would be deserving of Prot. Struc. status; The streetscape and external features of the buildings would then have protection.
-
-
-
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??!
I think this building as in the picture will have a hugely negative visual impact on the quays – As much as I decry the disneyland nonsense at Bachelors walk, it does not interrupt the shabby beauty of the quays, foiled only by the splendid Customs House and Four Courts. If there was a ghastly building at the Ormond at the moment I would not hesitate to replace it. The old Laughter Lounge was hideous, for example. But as the Ormond was unobtrusive it should have been left well alone. With a few repairs the Ormond could yet be a spendid hotel – in demolishing it, it will become another non-descript hotel akin to those dreaded motorway inns…
This has to be the worst planning decision on Dublin in the last ten years.
-
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!
-
Originally posted by Devin
ghastly, isn’t it?Wow! that really does look unbelievably terrible.
-
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. -
-
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.
I dont want to get passionate, but I really am convinced that this demolition will destroy the rythm of the quays from the Four Courts to the Customs House. Yes the Ormond was not a great Hotel – but that is not what is at issue here- will its demolition and replacement enhance the quays? So much of the quays have been destroyed that it should not be long before there will be no buildings of any historic value fronting the Liffey – it should be noted that architectural historians consider the quays make-up of un-uniform (though similar) enhance the great Gandon buildings by acting as a foil to this grandeur.
:confused:
-
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Devin
ghastly, isn’t it?Jesus…..this is an awful concoction….the rendered image itself is absolutely terrible….it does’nt sell the development in any way. i don’t know how it got planning permission. Would have been better in this case to retain and restore at least the facade.
-
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!
-
taste-limited?
Crap from the Jury’s Inn school – the current building is shite and should be knocked (special hatred for the lift projection from the roof) but this is the sort of rubbish you would find in Sheffield or some other 3rd division city in the UK. Can’t believe it got permission.
Risable is about the only word that sums this up.
-
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. -
-
-
-
-
I think in this instance it would be best to keep the original facade at least, and have it somewhat restored. A mansard roof could be applied to add height. It would continue the flow of the quays and have some connection with James Joyces Dublin. Obliterating the original building totally and replacing it with a banal mediocre infill is wrong. The architects must be ignorant half-wits who design with building templates.
-
-
Here’s a better view of the Presbyterian Church – a real gobsmacking loss alright.:eek:
Didn’t know about the fire. Only info I have on it is that the Presbyterians sold it to a developer (a “fire” would be plausible in that case) in 1959 who demolished it with the intention of building an O’Connell Bridge House-type office block but never did.
Looking at the surviving ground floor facade today (incorporated in the 1989 Grafton Architects development over), you can see that the cutting, tooling and jointing of the stonework is of very high quality, which makes its demolition even more incredible.
IMG NEXT POST
-
-
-
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. -
-
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:4/1/2005
An 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.
-
-
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.
-
@Graham Hickey wrote:
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
Ahem:
-
-
wary smilie 🙂
Got me there Andrew, and would also have to admit to remembering that thread too, only cause of Ewan’s remark though 🙂
Wasn’t aware of the building at the time though, and your definition of it as an ‘ugly’ structure (agreed) probably made most people gloss over it even more as being just another pile of rubbish on the quays.Good prediction re the design quality.
-
@J. Seerski wrote:
For those not in the know, the Ormond (in Dublin city centre) is due for demolition.
John, just to prove it wasn’t lost without a fight, here was the An Taisce appeal.
Incidentally, I heard that the current owner didn’t intend to go through with the redevelopment himself when he sought planning, and that he may have just wanted to sell it on with approval for a bigger new building…..but don’t count on it…
-
-
-
-
-
The Sunday Business Post
Developer buys Joycean hotel on Ormond Quay
08 October 2006 By Neil Callanan
Developer Bernard McNamara has bought the Ormond Hotel on Ormond Quay in Dublin 7.The hotel is near the headquarters of his company Michael McNamara & Co and is believed to have been acquired as part of a land banking operation.
McNamara is based at Grattan BridgeHouse,3Upper Ormond Quay, and the hotel is between 4 and 6 Upper Ormond Quay. Planning permission was granted in 2003to demolish the existing four-storey over-basement hotel and increase the size of the hotel to 155 bedrooms.
The redeveloped hotel was also to have a bar, restaurant and conference facilities. The application was made by Haskari Properties and, after planning permission was granted by Dublin City Council, it was appealed unsuccessfully to An Bord Pleanala.
The Ormond Hotel is famous amongst Joyceans as the location of the Sirens episode of Ulysses when Bloom drops in for an afternoon drink and something to eat.
-
-
Whatever about the architectural right-to-life of the current building, that illegitimate love-child of polyvinylchloride and moulded concrete that they hope to spring forth from the rubble of the old building is as ugly as it is obscene. Upon seeing the ‘render’ I thought of an idea, if the builders of this execrable edifice get through and they have a respectable Ailesbury Rd house, their house should be demolished and replaced with a concrete Borg Cube.
I love the ormonde Hotel anyway, whenever I’m coming in on the bus from my west Dublin residence its always a landmark for me to get off. To lose that building would be to lose my enjoyable trips via bus into Town.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
