Georgian infilling in Dublin.

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.

@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?

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.

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.

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?

@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 🙁

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.

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

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.

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?