Georgian infilling in Dublin.

Home Forums Ireland Georgian infilling in Dublin.

Viewing 82 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #710302
      shaun
      Participant

      The 50 years of the Irish Georgian Society should be marked with a new thread.
      I never cease to be amazed by the streets of Dublin, the long terraces, this first modern architecture with its straight lines and grids and squares.
      From the 1940’s to the 1970’s many Georgian streets and houses were demolished. The infilling that has replaced these is mostly shocking and astonishing.
      This one is listed for demolition.

    • #805327
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Hahehhh, yeah, kill it

    • #805328
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      So does anyone have any examples of infilling done well, in a georgian terrace. Can’t think of any off the top of my head.

    • #805329
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Eh, I think you’ll find that those are two different buildings; the top two snaps are of Fr. Scully House on Gardiner Street where it meets the SW corner of Mountjoy Square, the third snap is of another social/ health service related block on Belvidere (note the “i” :D) Street, off the NE corner of Mountjoy Square.

      Demolition of Fr. Scully House is underway – however afaik I know there is no cash for the building that is supposed to be replacing it. Some reasonably decent brick extensions were put on the back about 8 years ago and these are also gone/ going.

      While it certainly is no oil painting of a building, I fear that there maybe a danger that if it is demolished without cash to immediately replace it, it maybe left as a derelict site for years to come 😮

    • #805330
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @Blisterman wrote:

      So does anyone have any examples of infilling done well, in a georgian terrace. Can’t think of any off the top of my head.

      Mater Hospital’s most recent infill on Eccles Street, Morrison Hotel on the Ormond Quay.

    • #805331
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      I think the Hugh Lane extension works very well.

    • #805332
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @archipig wrote:

      I think the Hugh Lane extension works very well.

      Whats with Architects and glazed walls think out of the box will ye

    • #805333
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      What about the Cigar Box on North Great Georges St.!

      http://www.architects-dba.com/cigarwork.html

    • #805334
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @archipig wrote:

      I think the Hugh Lane extension works very well.

      It´s an awful extension and it has ruined the symmetry of this once fine, unmolested building. Very evident in GrahamH´s pic here.

      Can´t anyone see how wrong this looks? It´s fucking awful.


      (c) GrahamH

    • #805335
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Agreed,
      …the “transparent” glass box, you won’t even notice it’s there…
      It’s one of those lazy clichés of “modern” architecture and lazy architects.

    • #805336
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      I agree, they should never have added this on to the exterior of Charlemont house. It’s destined to be removed at some time in the future.

    • #805337
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @Morlan wrote:

      It´s an awful extension and it has the ruined symmetry of this once fine, unmolested building.

      perhaps the other side could be simlarly molested to bring back the symmetry 😉

    • #805338
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @alonso wrote:

      perhaps the other side could be simlarly molested to bring back the symmetry 😉

      Wouldn’t that be at least preferable to the current situation?

    • #805339
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @alonso wrote:

      perhaps the other side could be simlarly molested to bring back the symmetry 😉

      That would be a massive improvement.

      Look, if you really have to butcher this protected building, at least make the alterations symmetrical.. and PLEASE don´t use marine-blue glass tint.

      This below would be a vast improvement, but I would prefer nothing at all.


      (c) GrahamH

    • #805340
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      oh wait, it’d work. I didn’t think the exact same block would fill in that gap so satisfactorily. Is it flush with the building to the left? I thought it would mangle it further. I retract my wink

    • #805341
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @Morlan wrote:

      That would be a massive improvement.

      Look, if you really have to butcher this protected building, at least make the alterations symmetrical.. and PLEASE don´t use marine-blue glass tint.

      This below would be a vast improvement, but I would prefer nothing at all.


      (c) GrahamH

      Commission this boy up asap 🙂

    • #805342
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      For what it’s worth, I thought on my recent visit that the extension wasn’t as awful as I thought it would be (and the inner water-feature courtyard garden is a nice touch).However, there’s no doubt that the restoration of some kind of symmetry would be good (with a bit more articulation and less nursery lettering on the glass facade). And while they’re at it, why did they leave the two exposed adjoining gables in that awful dull grey cement rendering? It may be authentic, but it looks awful. Since both buildings are in old red brick, either a refacing to ‘match’ or a sympathetic coloured render would be imo better.
      There is the potential for a little civic square between the HLG and the National Monument; traffic could still be allowed, but the road surface could be repaved to suggest an open space in front of the gallery.

    • #805343
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      I’ve always liked the Concern offices on Camden Street Upper…

      [/IMG]

    • #805344
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Tom de Paor’s (sp?) little intervention on Welly Quay I like. Works well and would be interesting in any modest georgian terrace in the city imo (if it was kept clean).
      Jayz it’s sad not to be able to rattle off a half dozen decent examples-considering the wealth of eras of architecture you get in the likes of a Ghent city terrace for example…

      There’s some serious failures also, were conceptual intervention/reinvention is evident but just doesn’t work out – I would be thinking mostly of the Wejchert HQ on lower Mount st. of the top of my head.

    • #805345
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @hutton wrote:

      Commission this boy up asap 🙂

      I appreciate that very much, hutton 🙂

    • #805346
      admin
      Keymaster

      @Morlan wrote:

      It´s an awful extension and it has ruined the symmetry of this once fine, unmolested building. Very evident in GrahamH´s pic here.

      Can´t anyone see how wrong this looks? It´s fucking awful.

      It wasn’t set back far enough, its almost flush with the main facade and that was the primary mistake imo. Had they kept it 3 or 4m back & and not gone for the crazy tinted glazing, it could have been as discreet as i presume was intended.

    • #805347
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      here’s our entry for the Henrietta Street Competition
      http://www.openofficearchitects.ie/projects/comp_henrietta/splash_page.htm

      Our proposal seeks to mediate between the conflicting desires which seek to preserve that which is culturally significant while also promoting a sustainable urban centre.

      We suggest that contemporary buildings must fight for the privilege of existing alongside culturally important buildings by offsetting the negative environmental contribution of these monuments to a carbon fueled civilisation.

    • #805348
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      That monstrocity was your doing? Oh no, no…

    • #805349
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @spoil_sport wrote:

      That monstrocity was your doing? Oh no, no…

      Yes, that “contemporary apartment block” is absolutely hideous.

    • #805350
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      God, guys, you’re hard, you’re hard…

    • #805351
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @johnglas wrote:

      God, guys, you’re hard, you’re hard…

      Indeed.

      While I’m not a fan of the resulting images, it should be remembered that it was an ideas competition, as stated upfront on the Open Office website. As such, I thought there was some interesting food for thought in there.

      Since the brief was concerned with generating discussion rather than a finished product we chose to develop a polemic which addresses not only Henrietta Street but also the historic city centre as a whole.

    • #805352
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Well at least Morlan was being tongue in cheek – I think, since the “contemporary apartment block” he mentions is the one on the corner of Henrietta St. we’ve all had a good moan about already – nothing to do with OpenOffice’s competition entry. Ever hear of “constructive criticism” spoil_sport? 😉

      I actually think the idea of a series of utilitarian”energy towers” interspersed throughout the historic city is very provocative indeed – Just what an “ideas” competition is all about really…

    • #805353
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Contrary to popular belief, there is such a thing as a bad idea, and the Open Office Entry was just that. Architectural ideas CANNOT be based entirely on concerns of sustainability, because, well, then you get rediculous things like that proposed by Open Office. An architectural proposal, or idea should be able to stand on its own merits, without all the quasai OMA b.s.

    • #805354
      Paul Clerkin
      Keymaster

      @hutton wrote:

      Commission this boy up asap 🙂

      See I disagree – whereas the extension to one side does upset the symmetry, I think that the second version makes the mansion look like an exercise in facadism

    • #805355
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @spoil_sport wrote:

      Contrary to popular belief, there is such a thing as a bad idea, and the Open Office Entry was just that. Architectural ideas CANNOT be based entirely on concerns of sustainability, because, well, then you get rediculous things like that proposed by Open Office. An architectural proposal, or idea should be able to stand on its own merits, without all the quasai OMA b.s.

      Well maybe I should have bolded this phrase: ‘Since the brief was concerned with generating discussion’? Whatever the merits of the project, it’s really the only one that has stimulated any debate on here so far.

      Also, not that I necessarily agree with your assessment of the idea, but it should be remembered that even bad ideas can be useful starting points for a debate. I know, in my case, that occasionally I’ve posted stuff on here to get people’s debating juices flowing.

      On topic- one infill building in a Georgian area I’ve always quite liked is the medical centre on the west side of Fitzwilliam Street Lower (opposite the ESBHQ, if I recall correctly)- a two storey building, partly gable-fronted, built of a pinkish brick. It’s not infill in the sense of filling a gap in a terrace, but it does fill in a site in a Georgian area.

      I also agree with the Concern building posted by DJM above- far better than the muck it replaced.

      *** *** ***

      Paul- I agree, but I think that’d be largely solved by a setback as suggested by Peter.

    • #805356
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Well, actually there was a whole thread dedicated to this Henrietta St competition, which i don’t think even mentioned this project.
      I don’t like the project or the idea, and it annoys me that they saw it fit to wrap it in so much superfluous bullshit….. If that’s the resoponse they were aiming to provoke, then, well done, success, but surley there should be more to it than that?
      I pass the concern building regularly, can’t say it ever did anything for me, but then I don’t remember what was there before it. Still the projections feel somewhat arbritary, lacking a level of refinement.
      (I’m really not trying to be antagonistic, I will attempt make some positive posts in due course)

    • #805357
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Henrietta street must not be altered, that’s just the beauty of this street, it’s complete.

      The state of the houses is totally derelict and and most still look like they are tenements but that’s what Dublin Georgian is all about.

      Just around the corner at the back of Henrietta street on a curving lane is this great example of Dublin flats.

    • #805358
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      I think your missing the point completely with the open office proposal…

      I think they are trying to say that on average most people/businesses that live or own Georgian property are richer than the average joe…
      This in turn relates to influence in polite people and power and spikes…
      Which may suggest that some benefit from ungeorgian development..
      If you look at the amount of mulher going around for heritage its quite a big slice…
      There is no new hands on georgian to compete with, bricks have been designed out…
      There are no rewards for good architecture or R&D for new georgian or paddy style…
      which may make for biased heritage funding…

      tax incentives for world class architecture??? or houses for everyone???

    • #805359
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Look, I get it. My objection is, it’s not an architectural proposal, architecture is about experience, not about what is written about it nor conjecture nor contrived graphs. This project is simply a statment, a cartoon of an idea, which is not backed up by sufficient architectural exploration. (Exploration of the “ungeorgian development” which is perhaps what they are getting at in a round about way.)

    • #805360
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      It’s a wind up. It has to be.

    • #805361
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      I know that I’m laying myself wide open here but as co-author of the proposal I must agree with spoil sport – it’s not an architectural proposal – but then again no good polemic ever is.

      Our intention was to comply with the brief of the competition – which for an Open Ideas competition is more about asking questions than supplying definite answers.

      Anyone who reads the proposal as a set of plans to construct a 134 storey tower in Henrietta Street is missing the point. We simply ask what the future holds in store for buildings/city districts which place an ever increasing demand on their host city in terms of energy and space. To preserve them as is may prove economically and environmentally disastrous – to upgrade them may compromise the original artefact.

      I appreciate the discussion – both positive and negative – it’s why we entered the competition in the first place.

    • #805362
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Protected structures are the decadent remnants of a wasteful past, surviving only at the expensive whim of a romantic bureaucracy whose primary objective should be to ensure the prosperity and efficiency of the city.

      I don’t even know where to begin with this ludicrous statement! But since you bring up prosperity, how do you propose to replace the €2b/yr in revenue brought into Ireland by tourists who visit, amongst other reasons, for the culture and heritage of Ireland which naturally includes the built environment?

      Why do we continue to ask comtemporary interventions to respect a built heritage which show increasing disregard for the concerns of our society?

      Speaking personally, one of my societal concerns is the exact reverse, why does society show so little regard for the built heritage?

    • #805363
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Speaking of infilling on a Georgian street has anyone any images of what is currently going up on Harcourt Street in place of ‘The plant Store’ – just caught a glimpse of an image on the hording as I was passing the other day, looks fairly modern but surely if there ever was aplace in Dublin for pastice this was the place?

    • #805364
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      It’s an extension of the hotel, sorry no pics though

    • #805365
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      “I know that I’m laying myself wide open here but as co-author of the proposal I must agree with spoil sport – it’s not an architectural proposal – but then again no good polemic ever is.”

      I have to say I find that to be a cop out. The issue of sustainability of “protected structures” or more broadly speaking existing urban fabric, is not a new one, and it something any responsible architect will grapel with when dealing with such a project. Which is why I find your project, whether it is litterally a “134 storey tower in Henrietta Street” or not, unhelpful, perhaps even less so if it is not meant literally. To say it is just about asking questions is too easy a stance on the matter, your pose a senario but you must also take some responsibility for the consequences.

    • #805366
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Protected structures are the decadent remnants of a wasteful past, surviving only at the expensive whim of a romantic bureaucracy whose primary objective should be to ensure the prosperity and efficiency of the city.

      The south Georgian area of Dublin is a model of high density development which has stood the test of time and is a highly sought after commercial location. Therefore the hundreds of “wasteful decadent” protected structures in this area are a model of sustainability.

    • #805367
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Sorry if the following seems a bit unclear, but what about various earlier examples of in-fill development? One that springs to mind is what I think is now a HSE building on North Great Georges Street. Looks to be from the early 1940s. Distinctly ‘of its time’ yet clearly attempting to respect its surroundings.

      Of a very different era, but it might also be worth mentioning Stephen Court on St Stephen’s Green? Further on, what about the likes of the Lisney Building and its neighbour (recently saw a photo of the latter in what looked to be a dark green, and it looked alot better than it does now)?

    • #805368
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @Rory W wrote:

      Speaking of infilling on a Georgian street has anyone any images of what is currently going up on Harcourt Street in place of ‘The plant Store’ – just caught a glimpse of an image on the hording as I was passing the other day, looks fairly modern but surely if there ever was aplace in Dublin for pastice this was the place?

      Ask and you shall receive!

      Given the row that took place over the two adjacent Georgians a few years back, this seems like a bit of a slap in the face to them, no?

    • #805369
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Wow. That looks…. mediocre. Please god the colour of the masonry in the render is a printing mistake. If it were brick or closer to the colour of brick it might just avoid being completely hideous…

    • #805370
      admin
      Keymaster

      would have to agree with Rory that really a georgian facade should have gone in here, the glazed atrium on the corner is acceptable enough as it caps the terrace but this brash effort smashes its continuity & challenges its neighbours.

    • #805371
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Phil,

      My guess is that you mean this building, I’ve always thought it fits in very well. Good example of appropriate infilling.

    • #805372
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Yeah, that is the one Shaun. Thanks for posting it.

      ps, I had found an old black and white photo showing the street before that building was there, but now when I go to look for it I can’t find it any more! I will post it as soon as I manage to find it though.

    • #805373
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @BTH wrote:

      Please god the colour of the masonry in the render is a printing mistake.

      I was reminded initially of the Shay Cleary office building on Dawson Street, but the similarity’s not as strong as I thought.

      Also, re North Great George’s Street, whilst I like that building, I’m not sure I’d hold it up as an examplar of sensitive infill in a Georgian streetscape in any way except regarding the materials, which work very well.

    • #805374
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      It is nothing flash, but I don’t think it detracts from the street as a whole. As it was replacing what looked to be a walled garden, I don’t think it had to be of the same scale as its surroundings.

      I suppose I would advocate the use of similar materials in situations like this, while not ending up with a pastiche solution. On a broader level, I often admire the variety in styles of doorways on the Georgians on the North end of Merrion Square (for example). There is also some subtle variations in window styles, with the RIAI being a prime example. This is something that the pastiche solution never seems to be able to pick up on (unless of course they themselves become a sought after ‘style’ of their own merit in years to come!:)). Maybe this should be the challenge for building within the context of a largely intact Georgian terrace?

      Incidently, the doorway/porch of the North Great Georges Street building looks like it was taken from somewhere else and placed there more recently than when the the building was built. Anyone know anything about it?

    • #805375
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      You know where the Garda HQ is on Harcourt Street, wasn’t there a 1940s in-fill there, between Georgian terraces, that was quite well regarded? I think it housed a premises called ‘The Television Club’ or some such. I can’t think of where I would have seen photographs. I may be getting mixed up.

    • #805376
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @ctesiphon wrote:

      Given the row that took place over the two adjacent Georgians a few years back, this seems like a bit of a slap in the face to them, no?

      That looks fucking ghastly. Darn had I been aware that such schlock was getting let through, I would have lobbed in the objections myself 😡

      I know there are those that may criticise facadism, but if ever there was a case for infill in the vernacular idiom, this was it.

      Why oh why do we get this constant shove by architects that every single new city building must be “iconic”, “landmark”, blah blah? Build every building as a “landmark” in a terrace and you end up with no landmarks.

      And there was me for years waiting for the infill to take place on what historically has been an underdeveloped site – complete the terrace as it were…

      I can only hope – as suggested by another poster – that the render does the scheme poor justice… and that’s stretching it 🙁

    • #805377
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Just after looking over the planning history of this. The design is by Arthur Gibney and Partners 😮

      Unless this render is particularly misleading I just can’t see how Arthur in more recent years would have conceived this… Given the setting it’s about as appropriate as ESB on Fitzwilliam Street!

      A couple of applications were declared invalid prior to this, eh, ‘streetscape scar’ getting through in late ’07…

    • #805378
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Yes I remember reading this planning file a while back, with the planner being quite harsh in criticising the initial proposal. If the above is the revised scheme, one can only imagine what the original design was like! :eek:. I do distinctly recall the planner noting that red sandstone should be employed and me thinking no no no. If ever there was a case for a clever brick infill, this is it. Reproduction would work equally well (for some reason it doesn’t seem quite a pressing here – perhaps because the rest of Harcourt Street isn’t that visible at this point with the sharp curve). It’s such a shame that Zoe and Cosgraves et al gave brick such a bad name in the 1990s. Short of the odd DeB&M offspring, there isn’t a single example of a quality modern brick building in Dublin. An extraordinary and damning indictment of just how incontextual architecture can be in Dublin.

      The guiding measure with which to assess the Hugh Lane extension is quite simple: did Chambers design Charlemont House with a three-storey glass wall to one side in mind? Well then. Just as you don’t arse about with the Baggot Street Bank of Ireland with a balustraded parapet and classical infill walls between the blocks, you don’t hamfistedly extend a neoclassical manion with multiple sheets of aquamarine glass sheathing the rump of a glorified fire escape.

      Unlike Foster’s magnificent roof at the British Museum where the essence of the buildings and the courtyard has been retained – if not in fact enhanced – Charlemeont House has quite simply been mauled. And with the adjudicating planning authority also being the client, there wasn’t a hope of an alternative opinion on this.

      btw excellent work Morlan 😉

      Shay Cleary’s Joshua House on Dawson Street is probably my favourite infill in Dublin of the boom years. The alternating from reticent fawn stone for the main block to avoid dominating over the Mansion House, to the crisp matt red sandstone of the adjacent brick terrace is clever, modest and thoroughly contextual. The only downers are the top-up storey ,which lends an over-bearing heaviness to the ensemble, and the rather bizarre array of seemingly retained gate piers and reproduction railings, generating confusion on pretty much every level.

    • #805379
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Well it’s up, and man does it suck. Seriously this is terrible, Another bunker building in Georgian Dublin. How does it connect with the street and passing trade.

    • #805380
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Sorry those shots need rotating. Here’s the entrance again. Really has no relationship with the street.

    • #805381
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      That is truly horrific. Sigh.

    • #805382
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      I passed this shortly after unveiling a fortnight ago, and frankly I hadn’t the heart to post another damning assessment of yet another lost opportunity for intelligent, stimulating infill in Dublin.

      Words defy the bewildering, sputtering, jaw-dropping reaction induced by this astoundingly ignorant piece of commercial trash. On two occasions, what is effectively a 1960s curtain wall of factory-churned powder-coated aluminium windows, was refused by way of planning condition. Why they are still there – never mind ever proposed by persons claiming to be accredited architects – is beyond me.

      This is not architecture. This is not a structure worthy of debate. This is a project not worth expending energy, never mind passion, on. For something of this character to be erected on probably the most famous infill site in the capital, and by a firm with supposed architectural conservation credentials, sadly encapsulates everything that is wrong with architecture and planning in Ireland.

      Shameful.

    • #805383
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      wonderfully put GrahamH – with so many young architects out of work at the moment this would be the perfect target for some archi-activism. Surely a mob could be mustered to demonstrate against such anathema?

    • #805384
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Just a thought: there is a view that contemporary students of ‘art schools’ basically can’t draw, paint or sculpt (hence ‘installation/conceptual/performance’ art). Is there a parallel in contemporary architecture?

    • #805385
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Cheers for the pictures – it is absolutely awful – these pictures hide the worst part of it though – in classic modern Dublin style there’s the most horrific looking setback storey at the top, visible from the Green. Adds insult to injury.

    • #805386
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Ali (the city architect) has a snappy definition of what is ‘good architecture’:

      ”Architecture that is clear, generous, appropriately ordered and scaled, positive to context and well crafted”.

      OK, it’s not that snappy, but we’ll use it for marking this Harcourt St. in-fill.

      Clear: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . you’d have to say 9/10, I mean it is pretty fecking clear!
      Generous: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . more greedy than generous, I’d say 3/10
      Appropriately ordered and scaled: . . . oops! in big trouble here, 2/10
      Positive to context: . . . . . . . . . . . . . .no, no, thumbs nose at context, 2/10
      Well crafted:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . maybe, but coppied straight out of the facade cladding brochures, 4/10

      that comes out at 40%, . . . . so scrapes a ‘D’

      Comments: . . . . . Johnny is a pleasant student, but to be honest, he hasn’t open a book this term.

    • #805387
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Clear: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1/10 It is clear in the sense that it is clearly an insult or that a child could clearly have designed it. A previously respected architectural practice should aspire to something more.insult
      Generous: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0/10 The only generosity (or apathy, stupidity perhaps?) lies in the planning approval for such muck. insult
      Appropriately ordered and scaled: . . . 0/10 scale deals with more than adjoining parepet heights with a set back. insult
      Positive to context: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0/10 insult
      Well crafted:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . if i had as little respect for numerical structures as this building has for its built context i would give a minus figure here.

      This is quite possibly the most poorly crafted facade to be found within the canals in the last 5 years and the fact that it is on Harcourt St. makes my mind boggle. even more so that Gibney’s are behind it. it is a truly shocking subtraction to the cityscape.

    • #805388
      Paul Clerkin
      Keymaster

      I cannot believe how bad that is – the glazing in particular is spectacularly kack-handed and ugly.

    • #805389
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Looks even more ugly in person. And the set back is easily the most horrendous thing I have seen.

    • #805390
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Desperate, just f-ing desperate 😡

    • #805391
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      It is of considerable concern that a development of this kind can still pass through the system unchecked, never mind that a site of such importance can be so disfigured by professional architects.

      Reading through the planning files relating to this site (and a particularly convoluted history it is too), what strikes one above all is the backwards nature of the planning system, whereby the design of a facade – i.e. effectively an entire building in the case of an infill site – is deemed to be of such insufficient worth as to be amended simply by way of Additional Information, rather than the proposal being rejected outright and redesigned. This is extremely common, symptomatic of the planning system at large, and a practice which exhibits its ill-effects in spectacular fashion in cases such as this. Indeed, the system is such an ass that this proposal appears not to have even been caught at the first hurdle of a pre-planning consultation.

      Proposals for the site varied from the use of bright Jura limestone and granite cladding with staggered fenestration, to the executed incarnation of a half-baked stone frame filled with proprietary windows. It was planners meanwhile, who suggested the use of ‘sandstone or brick’ as a cladding material, and insisted on the use of timber windows in place of the aluminium curtain wall. How these radical (if worthy) modifications could possibly translate into a coherent design simply by way of Additional Information (presumably with little or no further pre-decision consultations or thrashing out of ideas) is anyone’s guess.

      Indeed, this confused and conflicting manner of conducting affairs has directly led to the mess we have now – the architects’ initial justification for a starkly different cladding to the surrounding context being: “In our choice of materials we have deliberately avoided colour tones close to those of the surrounding brick buildings in order that the new infill will read distinctly.” Whatever one’s opinion on the doctrine of compare-and-contrast, at least this option would have led to a legible streetscape. What we now have is a diluted concoction that is about as satisfying as navy on black, directly as the result of planners’ intervention.

      The choice of red sandstone cladding is crass, uncomfortably luxurious and historically incongruous on a modest brick street, and clashes in the worst way possible with its immediate neighbours: effete dusty pink layered on robust claret red. Eye-watering. The building screams compromised gap-filler and exhibits nothing of the weight required to confidently sustain the cliff-like massing in a sensitive fashion. The overlap on the right-hand house at parapet level is jarring, while the vertical band of white render below, transplanted from a developer estate in a field in Tullamore – even if possibly yet to be finished – is arbitrary and ham-fisted beyond belief.

      But nothing, nothing, compares to the window system employed. Words simply defy the ignorance of such a nasty piece of work, disregarding the arrogance of the wider framed concept in the first instance. The vista of visually polluting sticky-out windows – not even casements to ease the pain – when approaching from the Green is grotesque. Their use by any architects in any principal elevation in this day and age, never mind on a city centre commercial building, on one of the most challenging infill sites in the city, in an historic context, on a Georgian street, on a curved Georgian street where the entire gracious effect is dependent on the semi-profiled vista, and on a building forming the important introductory stretch of one of Dublin’s most elegant thoroughfares, simply beggars belief. Just astounding.

      Even the very last planning exchange, from as late as August 2008, expressly stated:

      c) The powder coated aluminium windows shall be omitted and replaced with timber joinery as shall the stainless steel channel proposed by way of additional information on the 24/10/07.

      Ivy Exchange eat your heart out.

    • #805392
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Well said Graham,

      I stumbled on this gem from the planning files.

      3.Prior to commencement of development the applicant shall submit details to the planning authority for written agreement of how it is intended to treat the private landing between the railed areas of No.s 4 & 6 Harcourt Street. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development within this Conservation area.

      I take it we feel this is not “a satisfactory standard of development within this Conservation area”…

    • #805393
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @Service charge wrote:

      Apart from the lack of finesse in the front windows, I have no problem with this bit of infill. It is broadly in the context of the modern hotel at the corner.

      The changing of the cladding by the planners was a wise move. The original proposal was bright stone, eek. What is it about architects? They always want their own building to jump out.

      Btw, sorry if I said this before BUT, we love picking over development on this site once it’s done. SmithfieldResi recently put up a live proposal for demolition of a significant historic chapel at St. James’s Hospital. That’s the time to talk about it. We’re getting out of hand with lengthy picky reviews of completed jobs on archiseek lately.

    • #805394
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Quite the opposite Devin – there hasn’t been nor is there enough. As far as I see it, too much – if understandably so – has been put on the shoulders of the planning profession on this site over the years. Architects, bizarrely, have relatively speaking escaped assessment when it comes to new development such as the above. We need more analysis of architecture in Dublin, not less.

      I agree so much criticism (by that I mean assessment) transpires after the horse has bolted, and I fully concur that any civil society must play a part in shaping its planning process, but quite frankly if architecture and planning professionals cannot even resolve such a critical infill site with so much as a modicum of competence, then I really don’t see what else can be done. It shouldn’t be up to citizens to steer such projects, and even if you did, you wouldn’t be listened to by supposed professionals. Paying out a further €230 to have basic standards enforced by real professionals in ABP is simply not sustainable or realistic for most people.

      @Devin wrote:

      Apart from the lack of finesse in the front windows

      The facade is the windows! There’s virtually nothing else! There is no parallel to be drawn to the elegance of the glazed corner. It’s an entirely different league. I agree the change in colour of stone was worth doing, but only relative to it being white or cream as proposed, i.e. the best of a bad lot. It should never have been stone.

      This is a shockingly poor piece of design which I refuse to waste energy on. Even located down on Mayor Street this yoke would look ungainly and shoddily detailed. On Harcourt Street it is simply horrific.

    • #805395
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Can’t agree more with the lack of sensitivity this dross shows to an otherwise beautiful street. I had been watching the Plant Store vacant site for many years waiting for its demolition and I assumed it would be an opportunity to reinstate the missing part of the Georgian facade. I was wrong.

      Devin it’s justifiable to complain about this even though it’s complete because we expected so much more from the architects and they delivered nothing, and also it seems they didn’t comply with the directions they were given from ABP.

      Seriously, someone needs to be punished for this.

      The only upside its that the replacement building is so awful that it hopefully won’t last more than 20 years.

    • #805396
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Interesting piece in the Irish Times today:

      Search for ‘small bang’ designs for inner city

      OLIVIA KELLY

      A COMPETITION to find new architectural designs for the sites of former Georgian houses demolished in Dublin city centre will be held by Dublin City Council on Saturday.

      Some 17 groups of architects and architecture students have been asked to design replacement residential buildings based on individual plots of former Georgian houses on Dominick Street which had been demolished over the 1950s and 1960s and replaced with social housing flats. The complex, built in 1970, was one of five due to have been redeveloped through a public private partnership (PPP) between the council and developer Bernard McNamara.

      Following the collapse of the PPPs last year, the council decided to go ahead with the redevelopment of social housing on the east side of the street in 2011.

      It will release sites on the west side for private development at a later date.

      City architect Ali Grehan said the competition resulted from concern about the poor design quality of many “infill” schemes for former Georgian plots in the inner city and loss of appropriate scale when several plots were accumulated for a development.

      “Some developments in the historic core over the last 10 years have been out of scale with their plot size, particularly where plots were accumulated for larger development and it has resulted in a loss of rhythm of the streetscape.”

      The council was not seeking a pastiche replacement of Georgian Dublin, but it should be possible to insert contemporary buildings that respected the Georgian streetscape, Ms Grehan said.

      “We have to keep the door open on every option for the city, but we’ve had the ‘big bang’ large chunk development, so maybe it’s time to look at incremental development – the smaller bang.”

      On Saturday morning, each team of architects will be allocated a plot based on the 1909 Ordnance Survey map of the west side of Dominick Street.

      They will have until 4pm to make a model of a primarily residential building that could accommodate several apartments or be a single house. It may or may not have commercial space on the ground floor.

      The designs that emerge may not necessarily come to fruition, but will be just one option for the future development of Dominick Street or other infill sites of its kind in the city, Ms Grehan said.

      The Dublin House competition will take place at Block C in Smithfield Market, the resulting designs will be on view in Smithfield as part of Innovation Dublin week.

      Now this is a step in the right direction, is it not?

    • #805397
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Just as regards the building people were commenting on back in May – there’s an almost as hideous one of these as infill on Georgian terrace on O’Connell Street in Limerick. Bing maps link.

      I consider it nothing less than vandalism to stick something as awful as these into the middle of fine buildings.

    • #805398
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Any feedback on this? . . . . . or does gunter have to go to every single event

      This could have been a really worthy exercise, if it generated debate about alternatives to the urban regeneration models we’ve been using up to now, but if the information doesn’t filter out into the wider community, it’s not going to generate much excitement!

      There were a couple of photos on the Architecture Foundation website, but even these focused mostly on the participants, rather than the actual work and, God help it, for all it’s interactive aspirations, the IAF website is like watching trendy paint dry.

    • #805399
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      gunter, what is “this”?

    • #805400
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      And Gunter, where is “this”?

    • #805401
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Do you guys refuse to read back on threads?

      ”Search for ‘small bang’ designs for inner city”

      17 groups of architects and architecture students have been asked to design replacement residential buildings based on individual plots of former Georgian houses on Dominick Street . . . .
      City architect Ali Grehan said the competition resulted from concern about the poor design quality of many “infill” schemes for former Georgian plots in the inner city . . . “Some developments in the historic core over the last 10 years have been out of scale with their plot size . . . . and it has resulted in a loss of rhythm of the streetscape.”

      The council was not seeking a pastiche replacement of Georgian Dublin, but it should be possible to insert contemporary buildings that respected the Georgian streetscape, Ms Grehan said.

      “We have to keep the door open on every option for the city, but we’ve had the ‘big bang’ large chunk development, so maybe it’s time to look at incremental development – the smaller bang.”

      This event happened three or four weeks ago. It souned like a brilliant idea, . . . . a worthwhile exercise to build on the Henrietta Street competition initiative of last year.

      I was just wondering if anyone had any more information on it,

      . . . . . I should have known better :rolleyes:

    • #805402
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      I’m sick of small bangs I want big bangs

    • #805403
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @gunter wrote:

      Any feedback on this? . . . . . or does gunter have to go to every single event

      This could have been a really worthy exercise, if it generated debate about alternatives to the urban regeneration models we’ve been using up to now, but if the information doesn’t filter out into the wider community, it’s not going to generate much excitement!

      There were a couple of photos on the Architecture Foundation website, but even these focused mostly on the participants, rather than the actual work and, God help it, for all it’s interactive aspirations, the IAF website is like watching trendy paint dry.

      i thought this was by private invitation only

    • #805404
      Anonymous
      Inactive
    • #805405
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Thanks for posting that Richview link what?

      . . . . . but, at the risk of going over old ground again, . . . . in terms of architectural communication, exactly what information does that convey?

      Ok we know the kids had some fun with glue, but what were the ideas?

      Did anyone come up with any new in-fill typologies?

      Is the lift access block still the only way to address Part M?

      Are we still relying on the same mix of miserable balconies and remote roof terraces, for amenity open space?

      What have they done with Ali?

    • #805406
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      what? were any of the building regulations challenged? for this small banger…
      or was it more about the “pastiche journey” modernity is pastiche…

      what is modernity?

      Would it be good to make a book about banned international terrace house types in Ireland?

    • #805407
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Excerpt from Frank McDonald’s article in the Irish Times from October 22nd:

      Denis Byrne himself was in Smithfield on Saturday, where he was one of the adjudicators for a day-long competition to design new living spaces on a city council site at Lower Dominick Street, in response to an informal brief by Ali Grehan.

      “The general thought was about how people could live there, rather than a geometric exercise,” she said.

      Seventeen teams of young architects and students took part in the competition, drawing up plans and making models in a vacant retail unit on the corner of Haymarket.

      According to Alice Clancy, of Now What?, passers-by were really intrigued by all the activity: “What’s going on in there? Why is everyone working so hard?” they asked.

      Outside, a flashing digital sign posed the provocative question, “What is the spirit of gracious living anyway?”. It prompted more questions about the role of architects in Irish society and led to discussions about the need for collaboration with engineers, planners and artists, with older and younger generations working together, Clancy said.

      “We thought originally Now What? was going to be a summer thing. But everyone involved was so dedicated that it became something else.

      “It also showed that there’s a need for a workshop like this in the city – more rough than Darc, a place that would allow people to experiment with art, photography, architecture and design.”

      The Dominick Street competition, for prizes of books rather than actual commissions, was jointly won by architects Michael Pike and Grace Keeley, who produced an exquisite model in balsawood, and three fourth year students from DIT School of Architecture in Bolton Street: Jamie Conway, Cormac Nolan and Elizabeth Gaynor.

      More remarkable perhaps was that the runners-up were three Italians (Gessica Cozi, Federico Scoponi and Luca Trufarelli), only one of whom is an architect – and they had heard about the competition on the grapevine.

      Their project dealt with the grain of the city, instead of concentrating, as others did, on the design of an individual plot.

    • #805408
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      One of the problems with developing individual plots during the Celtic Tiger was that the quality suffered. There are a number of examples of this on Meath Street, Dublin 8; perfectly fine units of development on traditional building plots in a loosely contemporary style but the materials and finishes are unfortunately cheap looking, Collectively we lost interest in small scale repair of the city during boom and, when it was done, hearts were not in it.

      The returns from a 4-floor building on an old plot seemed to just lose their appeal when there was a flashy 9-floor glass & titanium monster to be built providing 8,675 sqm of net lettable.

Viewing 82 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Latest News