Henrietta Street
- This topic has 100 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
I don’t agree that boring is good in this case.
A building of genuine architectural credentials would not necessarily detract attention from the existing Townhouses. It could actually accentuate them – a contrast between old & new. Whats going up at the moment dominates, rather than accentuates anyway, & the resulting contrast is one between good & bad.
The street is already somewhat anonomus to passers-by on Bolton St. This new monstrosity further hides the townhouses from view from Bolton St, as it projects out beyond the townhouses’ facade, to their railing line. Although I believe this does correspond with the boundary line of the previous building on the site, perhaps it was a missed opportunity by DCC to align the facade line and open out the street, giving the townhouses some much deserved recognition.
This may be a bit over-simplistic, but I think that a landmark mixed-use office/residential development here could have sparked a demand for such accommodation in the Townhouses themselves.
The houses are suitable for converting into mixed use office/residential accommodation anyway and surely if a potential demand for this was created, with adequate funding from the LA perhaps owners would begin to upgrade the Townhouses & thereby spark the regeneration of the street.
As it stands at the moment the street is stagnant, & until a financial incentive is created, or offered to the owners to restore the houses, it will probably remain in it’s current shabby state. A sorry comparason to its former grandeur.
I totally disagree. It would not be a good idea to encourage a change to mix office res use , that would enevitably results in structural changes to the buildings ( firedoors , lifts ,etc etc) . You also display an ignorance of the street’s current state. Infact except for the two houses the council is trying to buy in order to restore, and one other house, the rest of the houses are in very good nick on the inside .
The reason that the bricks on the outside look poorly is because noone is very sure how to restore them . You see the bricks were made from the clay dug out to make the basements/foundations for the the terrace. As such they are a little tricky to replace!
A good few of the houses are lived in which is as it should be. Increasing the number of people using the street would totally change the feel of the street. It was built as a cul de sac for the mega rich. It has the same quiet residential feel it always had. ( excepting when it was used as tenements ) . By staying hidden from bolton street it keeps it’s quiet charm.
If the new building was inline with the terrace it would give the impression that originally the site of the ‘new building’ formed part of the original terrace : it didn’t. Henrietta street as originally layed out started where the cobbles start today.
A few people have said that it looks poorly from kings street and bolton street , fine. It looks quite good from henrietta street and that is what actually matters.
The Brickwork bond of the Townhouses is Flemish Bond i think, whereas the new development is Stretcher Bond. The mortar in the Townhouses would not have been as dominant as that of the new development either – it would have appeared as a very thin line. Check out the refurbished houses on the corner of Stephens Green & Dawson St (or is it possibly Kildare St? I really can’t remember)
It’s as if the designer went down the road of Pastiche architecture, promptly did a U turn and designed something else, but forgot to clear up the remnants of the original plan.
The Lego building opposite is also cac and is an unfortunate addition to the street. To justify one against the other is not a great way of looking at the situation.
As a draughtsman, I spent more hours than I care to remember carrying out measured surveys of three of the houses on Henrietta Street between 2002 & 2004, so I’ve a fairly good idea of the street. I’m currently studying Building Surveying in the UK and so only get the chance to visit the street twice a year. To say that most of the houses are in good nick internally is simply incorrect, certainly from what I’ve encountered!! Even things that look ok superficially may be hiding a catalogue of problems.
Of course single family living would be the ideal solution but is probably a bit unrealistic in this day & age – the houses are massive, think of lighting, heating, maintenance. Yes there are a number of the houses being occupied by single families (3 that i am aware of) but i’d imagine it’s more of a vocation than anything else.
Back to office/residential, the city is full of examples of this set-up which does not require the installation of lifts as far as I’m aware. Disabled access regulations do not ride roughshod over Georgian buildings; regs for todays houses cannot be applied to buildings dating back to the 1730s, therefore compromises have to be made when alterations are proposed. Personally, I dont like seeing fire doors and the like being installed, but thats how it goes – the book, Numbers 8-10 Henrietta Street, published by Dublin Civic Trust is very interesting.
Originally there would have been no electricity connection, neither sanitary appliances. They aren’t museum pieces, alterations need to, have been, and will continue to be made periodically throughout the life of these building.
There are professional tradesmen who have the required knowledge, skill & sensitivity to repair spalling brickwork. The trouble is that the cost of carrying out such work would be exhorbitant and probably beyond the financial capability of most owners. Having said that though, apart from some bad examples of innappropriate pointing, the only house with serious problems in this regard is No.3 which does indeed need mass replacing of brick units.
For quiet residential feel, please replace Quiet and Residential with winos, junkies & unrulely school children. Have you spent much time up there!
Re. the new development, please revisit and take a close look at the, windows & sills, bricks, mortar pointing… any element of the facade basically! Surely the poor quality of materials & workmanship negates any positive contribution you may think the building makes to the street.
You’ll have to excuse me for the moment, I’ve two assignments due in for Friday, and I’ve spent most of the afternoon on this feckin website. Bye for now!
i fully accept what your are saying.You have pointed out the basic difference of opinion. I do think that the improvement to the area in terms of new people (who hopefully will get rid of a few winos junkies) and some new shops just about negate the admittedly average building.
Perhaps after years off seeing utter muck built my expectations are too low. Honestly i was surprised that it is as good as it is. Perhaps i should expect better. I just don’t see it happening.
On a more positive note I had the oppurtunity to look inside the house being refurbished by the kings inn and , and Hhhhm hhhhmmm it looks good! Would you agree ?
Who are the Architects?
I’m assuming (please god!) that it isn’t De Blacam & Meagher despite the completely blatant rip offs of elements of both Castle Street (check out the steps out in the facade above the corner entrance), and the Wooden Building in Temple Bar (the rustic arts & crafts style brickwork and lime mortar.).@a boyle wrote:
A few people have said that it looks poorly from kings street and bolton street , fine. It looks quite good from henrietta street and that is what actually matters.
Why is it only Henrietta st that matters. I don’t agree with you that it looks ok from henrietta st, but even if it did, how would that excuse the way it looks from Bolton or Kings INN street. It is just as much on Bolton street as it is on Herrietta, and alot more people are going to see it from Bolton/Dorset/Kings Inn streets so would these views be equally important. I see this building everyday, If I look the window now i could probably strain to see it, but i won’t torture my eyes any further.
Thought it might be useful to see how they wanted it to look. This was the idea. Not exactly whats is delivered.
It looks quite well there, though still hugely overscaled.
a boyle the money ‘not being there’ is not an excuse for such an average project on such an important site – not that I’d believe it for a second anyway. I’d sooner have a derelict site here with the challenging potential still in place for a good building to be built, then what we now have. What has been built is not disastrous, but it is standard fare in the broader context of apartment development, and mediocre for such an important location.
Agreed about the brick used – a good choice on the part of BPA I think. It reflects the general character of the street well without descending into pastiche, nor going into the opposite, often crazed realm of ‘contrast generation’. It’s an attractive contemporary brick, which is largely complemented by the light mortar used (must state an interest of being a fan of that combination), which can stand on its own two feet. Similarly the matching parapet level when looking up into the street is superb – it flows seamlessly into the upper terrace.
But it is the massing, the proportions, and the detailing that is so poor. Knowing little of contemporary design, even I noticed the tokenistic use of De B&M’s cut out corner :). It’s just been applied as a distraction on what is otherwise a giant brown box, as have the balconies and timber cladding.
Looking at their site, one would wonder if this is the first major urban commission they’ve had…
(that first house extension featured on About the House recently).Even the original balconies could have made such a difference:
I did a college project a couple of years ago in which I had to object to the granting of permission for this building, so I became fairly familiar with the site.
aj- DCC did have a conservation proposal for the whole street coming on stream in early 2004, but I don’t know if they followed through with it. I certainly haven’t seen any results.
Most of the opinions expressed here would reflect my own- overscaled, lazy workmanship, cheap materials. (I loved your description of the balconies, Graham, as being “like some ignoramus speaking to you with sunglasses on”:) ).
I agree that the building properly belongs to the streetscape of Bolton Street rather than to Henrietta Street, and should have been scaled accordingly. As Devin said, it should have respected the scale hierarchy of the two streets (see my quote below).
The reason for its similarity to the building on Castle Street was that the planner in question, in refusing permission for the first scheme on this site (if you think what we now have is bad, you should have seen the first one:eek: ), recommended that the architects look at that building for an idea of how to deal with a corner. So it appears that they took him a bit too literally.
(See this thread for a previous mention of this matter, where you’ll notice that I’m also not a huge fan of the Castle Street building.)Anyway, rather than rehash the arguments from my college project I’ll just quote the relevant bit regarding my main objection to this building:
As previously outlined, Henrietta Street is one of the most important urban set pieces in Dublin. Not only are its houses some of the grandest town houses anywhere in the country, it also possesses a feature which makes it unique among its peers. The Georgian era followed a classical model in both architecture and urban design. The rules of proportion and harmony in building design had a wider application in the formal layout of streets and spaces, as evidenced in Dublin by such compositions as Fitzwilliam, Merrion and Mountjoy Squares, and the works of the Wide Streets Commissioners. This rational process was also manifest in the hierarchical design of the streets, where the sequence of main street, subsidiary street and mews lane was reflected in the diminishing scale of the buildings associated with each. Georgian buildings also display a markedly frontal character, the classical symmetry not extending to the rere or sides, and this results in subsidiary streets seeming to split the continuity of terrace facades. This was the case with Bolton Street and Henrietta Street in their original form: standard plots on Bolton Street of a street-fronted house with a rere yard and mews building, divided by the entrance to Henrietta Street.
However, what makes this example unique is that instead of a lesser scale, as would be expected, Henrietta Street is considerably grander than Bolton Street. This is not apparent from vantage points further along Bolton Street, and part of the character of the street is the surprise experienced as this semi-formal set piece is revealed in such an unlikely situation, an effect heightened by its narrow ‘entrance’ at the eastern end.
The proposed development would diminish this sense of discovery by announcing the location of the junction from afar, and would soften the abrupt juxtaposition of scales on which the surprise is based due to its imposing height and volume. While the Planner’s Report argues that ‘The proposal… provides a presence of scale onto both Henrietta Street and Bolton Street, which is essential at this prominent corner location.’ (Evaluation), we would submit that this opinion derives from an understanding of urban form consistent with contemporary trends, but inconsistent with the Georgian tradition of planarity, linearity and sequential hierarchy.
Any development that would serve to undermine the character of this area should be resisted. We realise that the site underwent many subsequent changes throughout the nineteenth century, with the original relationships of scale blurred by infill buildings facing Henrietta Street, and we would generally be in favour of acknowledging all phases of urban evolution. But owing to the uniqueness of this setting, there is a strong argument to be made for re-establishing the original form.‘A [conservation area] scheme…may include objectives for:
…
(c) the renewal, preservation, conservation, restoration, development or redevelopment of the streetscape, layout and building pattern…’ (Emphasis added.)
(Part IV, Section 84, subsection 2, Planning and Development Act 2000)Although the completion of the Conservation Plan may be some time away (currently intended for September 2004), the fact that the process has begun is a positive development for the area. There is a danger that any scheme undertaken in the meantime would not be consistent with the findings and recommendations of such a plan and could compromise the future proper planning and development of the area. According to the Planning & Development Act 2000 (4th Schedule, Section 3), refusal without compensation is appropriate where:
‘Development of the kind proposed would be premature by reference to the order of priority, if any, for development indicated in the development plan or pending the adoption of a local area plan in accordance with the development plan.’ (Emphasis added.)
I had other grounds for objection too, such as refuse storage, inadequate parking, overloking and overshadowing, but they aren’t apparent from an external examination of the building.
Shame it was only a college project, as it got a bloody good mark from a former Board Inspector who was our tutor for the module.
I have pictures of the site pre-development if anyone’s interested. A funny two-storey carpet showroom of no merit, but as has been said there’s only one chance to get something like this right, and if in doubt it should have been left alone.
EDIT: It appears I have already attached one! Sorry it’s in Word, but it’s all I’ve got.
Here are a few more pics. Some may be a little bit dated by now (taken in January 06) but I think they further illustrate some of the points made above. Apologies for the poor picture quality of some – smudged lense due to pesky little cousins 🙂
Incidentally, I’ve heard that Hidden Dublin on Newstalk 106 have recorded an episode on Henrietta Street that is due to be aired in the very near future. I think the shows go out on Mondays/Tuesdays at about 12pm, but it’ll be available on the web via Podcasting in any event.
Photo 001
Photo 003
Photo 005
Photo 007
Photo 004Can someone explain why there are all those doors to nowhere in the walls? Surely it can’t be just for their “good looks”!
@DJM wrote:
Incidentally, I’ve heard that Hidden Dublin on Newstalk 106 have recorded an episode on Henrietta Street that is due to be aired in the very near future. I think the shows go out on Mondays/Tuesdays at about 12pm, but it’ll be available on the web via Podcasting in any event.
On Now on 106fm – http://www.newstalk106.ie
H
Devin wrote:
“The sickening thing is DCC knew there had been earlier objections to it so there was a much greater onus on them to get it right (given that there were no objections in on this one & could be no appeal). It shows you that they will grant permission for almost anything … scared shitless to remove a storey. The city is stuck with this wrong building now forever, because of some stupid planner. I think that after this construction boom, questions are going to be asked about DCC decision making. You just have to look at this building and what’s happening in somewhere like Cork Street ….”
I’m not sure if I have the correct building – but if I have then I beg to differ. A quick search on 43-45 Bolton St/17 &17a Bolton St shows just 5 applications, dating from 2003 (2), 2004 (2) and 2006 (more anon).
Two of these (in 2003) appear to be the effective ‘parent permissions’ and the two 2004 applications were for modifications. Of these 4 three were granted and one was invalidated. They all appear to me to be uncomplicated applications, certainly not confusing.
I know the planner involved (as mentioned on the file) to be very highly qualified and very well regarded.
The main parent permission contained 24 conditions – one of which deals with the need to ensure that bricwork and bonding must be of the highest quality and that bonding should be to the traditional method.
The reality is that the “stupid planner’ (who probably only has 2 or 3 relevant degrees) must address what the “clever architect” designs. It would not be appropriate for stupid planners to design (or redesign) such structures. Rather he (or she) must try to balance the need for renewal with the appaling mediocrity churned out by the (considerable) majority of architects. Generally the best that the stupid planner can do is to mitigate the worst excesses of the architect.
Personally I think that the building is quite typical of the rubbish currently being produced, and is particularly grotesque in this particular setting.
But the stupid planner didn’t design it , the file is not in the least complicated and Henrietta Street has a number of residents who are expert s in the the planning system. Seems (to me) a bit hard to blame the planner? Maybe you should have lodged an objection (I often do).
ps. the latest (2006) application is for an off licence. (and you are too late to object).
pps. I am not an architect 😀
Fair points, publicrealm.
My understanding of the case was that the original scheme was somewhat bulkier and clunkier than the existing one and, through consultation between the planner in question (agreed on his reputation too, btw, from what little I know) and the architects, a new scheme was submitted, with amendments suggested by Conditions (including a reduction in parapet height of approx. 1.5 metres, if memory serves). It was at this consultation stage that the suggestion of taking inspiration from Castle Street was first made. So the planner actually made a poor scheme better, but I still think it falls short of what this site requires.However, I’m somewhat cloudy on whether the revised scheme was submitted as a new application, in effect resetting the clock on the third party submissions process, or if it was done simply as a Further Information type affair, which might have militated against the involvement of interested parties or at the very least might not have been in the spirit of the game, so to speak.
I still stand over my previous point, though, that the planner’s “opinion derives from an understanding of urban form consistent with contemporary trends, but inconsistent with the Georgian tradition of planarity, linearity and sequential hierarchy.” It might sound cheeky, not to say nit-picking, but at this site I think nothing but the best should have been permitted. And as I alluded to above, other areas such as parking, refuse, etc were problematic, in some respects falling below DCC minimum standards.
Publicrealm,
I am not having a go at planners here. I hold the Irish planning profession and everything it stands for in the highest regard. As you will know it has a history of inadequate resourcing and subversion by non-planning local authority staff or other outside interests, but it remains the critical determinant in the quality of our built environment – as has all-too-unfortunately been borne out in case of the Henrietta Street building.
With regard to use of the word “stupid”, I think a sense of perspective is needed. It is the internet and the planner in question is not being named, so I reserve the right to use the word “stupid” if I wish. Worse is said of named individuals in the media every day.
The planner involved may well be “highly qualified”, but they made a grievous mistake in passing this building in its current form, especially as there had been detailed submissions in opposition to it, to plans previous to the one which was passed. I cannot check reference numbers at the moment, but I know that two separate applications for the building were running concurrently – this is why I use the word ‘confusion’.
Some contributors to the thread have criticised the materials and finishing of the building. I wouldn’t have any problems here. I think the brick was carefully chosen for the context and the so-rarely-used lime mortar was a treat (though the brick bonding is not in fact in the ‘traditional’ method as you say (‘Flemish bond’), but is the quicker and easier ‘stretcher bond’). I even like some of the architectural detailing such as the frosted glass balcony panels and their steel frames. I think the timber panelling was well-used. Had the building been at an appropriate scale and articulation, I think its materials and finishing would have been most complimentary to Henrietta Street, and the building as a whole could have been a great success.
But it is a tragically overscaled building. Even by the standards of the planner’s argument (as indicated by ctesiphon’s quote that their “opinion derives from an understanding of urban form consistent with contemporary trends, but inconsistent with the Georgian tradition of planarity, linearity and sequential hierarchy.”) the building not a success. It is monolithic and unbalancing.
The planner, not the architect, was the final determinant of the building that is now on Henrietta Street. You say (sarcastically) that “the best that the stupid planner can do is to mitigate the worst excesses of the architect” – but that wasn’t done in this case; i.e. reduction of the building to an appropriate scale / requesting of an appropriately-scaled redesign. This is a tragedy for Henrietta Street and a blow for Dublin’s Georgian planning in general.
As well as anything could possibly do today, I think Rocque’s map of Dublin (below) – 250 years old this year – illustrates the hierarchical relationship between Bolton Street and Henrietta Street. The consideration of this relationship should have been the starting point for development proposals at the corner:
@publicrealm wrote:
Maybe you should have lodged an objection (I often do).
ps. the latest (2006) application is for an off licence. (and you are too late to object).
As a matter of fact I have lodged an objection to the off license and signage design for a Spar convenience store in the ground floor of the building (Ref. 1199/06).
As a building material is this type of brick gone from grace or is it merely the way it was used that has caused offence?
Photo 002
Photo 011
Photo 030
Photo 078
Photo 084
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
