ILAC centre
- This topic has 153 replies, 48 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 4 months ago by
hutton.
- AuthorPosts
- November 23, 2005 at 11:54 am #731963
GregF
ParticipantI thought the same too when I saw the huge hole that was left in the street. I thought those days of such occurences were long gone. No doubt they will be replacing it with something more contemporary and ‘in yer face’ in competion with Roches Stores and Pennys recent makeovers, as well as Arnotts continuous expansion. Just hope that all the shops along the street dont have the same idea, for the street will be ruined. It’s surprising that they got permission for the total demolishment. The facade could have been kept to keep the uniformity of the street.
November 23, 2005 at 3:46 pm #731964urbanisto
ParticipantI agree. I was thinking when Graham mentioned the case for a redbrick and limestone facade that that is exactly what was there prior to demolition. I just could remember clearly….such a shame really as I think we’l get an infil that will look as bad in 30 years as the Arnotts infill looks today. I think the quality of the ILAC revamp is very mediocre. Its certainly wont reinvent ILAC in my mind. Have a look in H&M, it looks like the cheapest thrown together creation ever (a bit like there clothes LOL). Im dissapointed. To say nothing of the fact that the ILAC still covers too much land for the actualy size of the centre..its a complete waste,
November 24, 2005 at 2:26 am #731965GrahamH
ParticipantAgreed about the Ilac redevelopment, it doesn’t seem to be anything great – not even the standard of the Jervis designed nearly ten years ago now. Perhaps it’s unfair to judge at this early stage though as the final surfaces and finishes do make all the difference…
As for the Mary Mall, God I’ve a head like a sieve – do not remember it being double height at all, and it’s only a few months since work began! Was it really always as high as it is now?!Likewise regarding the Dunnes site 😮 – that is unbelievable these buildings were permitted to be demolished, a scandal by all accounts. This is one of the finest commercial terraces in the entire city, if not the finest of its period!
Alas none of it is protected, and the whole terrace is literally ten paces away from the boundary of the O’Connell St ACA, with the terrace on the other side of Moore St included 😡Surely this is not being replaced with a new build – perhaps there was a structural problem that necessitated the deconstruction and reassembly of the facade?
Always been a favourite streetscape – looks fantastic in the early morning sun:

Anyone else hold the Ilac chimney as something as a landmark?
Not quite so sad to see it go though as it scared the crap out of me as a child 🙂
November 24, 2005 at 11:37 am #731966GregF
ParticipantThe forerunner of the Spire!
November 24, 2005 at 12:42 pm #731967jimg
ParticipantAnyone else hold the Ilac chimney as something as a landmark?
What was that thing? Surely it wasn’t a decorative addition?
November 24, 2005 at 7:24 pm #731968GrahamH
ParticipantPresumably the centre’s boiler chimney. The Mater Private has an even bigger scarier one 😮
November 29, 2005 at 2:40 pm #731969murphaph
ParticipantJames’s has a bigger one on it’s bioler house, right on old Kilmainham there.
Wasn’t the Mary Mall, “height-and-a-half”? It certainly wasn’t as clautrophobic as the Parnell Mall, but I don’t recall it being that high!
Remember the old “bullet” lifts in the ILAC, they scared me silly going up in them as a kid, especially when you shoot up trough the glass roof! Whoosh!
November 29, 2005 at 7:15 pm #731970-Donnacha-
ParticipantHow come that chimney stayed clean and shiny after all those years , yet the spire was manky almost immediately? Anyway, it’s gone now!
November 30, 2005 at 3:14 pm #731971fergalr
ParticipantBloody good question!!!!!!
November 30, 2005 at 3:23 pm #731972Paul Clerkin
KeymasterI assume it was chrome plated… or similar
March 2, 2006 at 1:14 am #731973GrahamH
ParticipantThe new Ilac facade to Mary Street is very disappointing – essentially a blank wall fitted with the usual blank windows to relieve what is little other than a cliff face, and clad with the equally ubiquitous stone tiling – all of which can be neatly ripped off again in ten years time and replaced with the latest trend in urban wallpaper.
No attempt is even made to conceal the tiling for what it is, with lazy gapng joints everywhere and capped off with delightful silcone sealant :rolleyes:. The stone is also cheap and vulgar looking – the same Spanish style muck used in every shopping centre being built nowadays.Some nice forms in the H&M section, but the Liffey Street end is very poor, and tops that street’s vista exceptionally poorly.
As for the demolished (with hopefully to be rebuilt facade…) Dunnes Stores on Henry Street, Dunnes are constructing what will be their flagship city centre store on the site as replacement to the current Ilac store on Moore Mall.
It will be over a huge four levels, featuring a ‘foodhall’, i.e. a supermarket :rolleyes:, a huge clothing area, and of course an expanded homewares section in all its beige ‘n brownness. It will be accessible from Henry Street and from the Ilac which it is going to entend into, consuming some of the existing units there. As if to make up for the loss, the existing shop in the Ilac is to be demolished and up to four large new units created from it. So big changes afoot.Work is to get underway on the Moore Street facade in April I think, with all of the facade works of the whole building finished by Nov/Dec this year. Red and tan brick is already peeping through the scaffolding on Parnell Street…
Some pics of the facade to Henry/Mary/Liffey Streets:
March 2, 2006 at 6:01 am #731974Bago
ParticipantAlso they’ve chopped the tree in your first picture.
March 2, 2006 at 2:32 pm #731975fergalr
ParticipantTo be honest, I’m not displeased with the entrance to the ILAC..while critiques to urban “wallpaper” can be warranted, the curvy bit is a refreshingly funky change from the linear perspectives of the street. And look, it’s better than the atrocious “who needs windows?” Roches Stores beside it.
March 2, 2006 at 2:36 pm #731976GregF
ParticipantGood photos again Graham of the shoddy work………plenty on the snag list. Those gaps left in the joints of the cladding are atrocious. But still I kinda like the makeover. That curved glass window does it for me.
March 2, 2006 at 3:46 pm #731977a boyle
ParticipantEnough of this moaning. Roches stores is beautiful.I am thrilled every time I see it.
March 2, 2006 at 4:46 pm #731978Maskhadov
Participantit could be a lot worse in fairness
March 2, 2006 at 11:08 pm #731979Devin
ParticipantSince it was unveiled I’ve felt that that new Ilac facade does not combine very well with Roches Stores, especially as you are approaching from Mary Street. I think the problem is that the canopy bit was carried along too far towards Roches.
March 3, 2006 at 12:42 am #731980a boyle
Participant@Devin wrote:
Since it was unveiled I’ve felt that that new Ilac facade does not combine very well with Roches Stores, especially as you are approaching from Mary Street. I think the problem is that the canopy bit was carried along too far towards Roches.
Yes i do agree. I am reserving my final judgment until this side is totally completed. It might be that the addition of one well placed tree would make all the difference. You are right though. Roches looks great by itself. The ilac/h&m front looks ok by itself , but it just doesn’t fit quite right.
March 3, 2006 at 1:37 am #731981GrahamH
ParticipantI think the H&M section suggests what sadly could have been for the whole facade. Instead we’ve that nice distinctive curved wall to one end, and then what looks like a completely different building to the other – as flat as a pancake, four storeys high with blanked out windows. Why even put in windows if you’re going to shove shelving units up against them? Hopefully they were only temporary as these pics were taken a good few weeks ago. Also the posting of the last pic above was not intended to suggest that that was the finished product (!), rather it just shows the nature of the cladding system.
Agreed about the shortening of the canopy, as well as the interaction with Roches who’s quality of finish, whatever about the scale of the place, is simply superb. The Ilac looks like a cheapo beige 80s bathroom next to a designer suite.
March 3, 2006 at 2:06 am #731982a boyle
ParticipantWell put Mr. Hickey ! my thoughts exactly! By finished product i meant that each time i have passed it the shops and the pavements didn’t seem finished ( it’s been a month or so) . I also would not be surprised if some of the current tenants moved. They might use the window space better. I feel that a building needs a least a year before it can be fully trashed or praised.
Perhaps the we will grow to like the look in future ( not bloody likely ! )
- AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

