National Gallery Extension

Yea – it looks great alright – I cant wait to see it when it finishes.
Has anyone any idea when it is opening?
I would say they will do well have it finished this side of Christmas.

Actually to answer my own question – I got this from the National Gallery’s website( http://www.nationalgallery.ie ), regarding opening of the extension…

The construction and design of the National Gallery of Ireland’s 4,000 sq m Millennium Wing is now nearing completion. To manage the final critical stages of the project, it will be necessary to close the Gallery to the public for a projected period of two months prior to Christmas, ahead of the opening in January 2002. This period will allow for a re-hang of the collection and an opportunity for the redecoration of the existing galleries.

Anyone else think the projecting screen and opening look overscaled?

state of the building on saturday 22nd september…..

Declan, it does to me also, but remember until the conservation lobby had their way, the victorian building next door was to be demolished and the facade was to be longer. It was saved to protect the small Georgian ballroom to the rear of the house which i now believe is going to be a small pavilion inside the new gallery space..

I thought this brutalist stuff was long gone out of fashion……Huge minimalist slabs of windowsless concrete. Wait till this gets weathered too it will look just crap.

MG the ‘Victorian’ building which you refer to dates from around 1770 and is almost entirely intact internally, the ballroom is a little later.

Bloody old buildings – always getting in the way. We should knock the lot!!!

[This message has been edited by James (edited 24 September 2001).]

This looks overly obtrusive in the streetscape ……trying to emulate the Guggenheim?….will be on a par with the ESB offices on FitzWilliam Street in years to come on reflection.

Quite a bit of Denys Lasdun, circa 1960, in that. Which is a compliment, if you like Lasdun.

……Does’nt it pick up on the nuances of the original main building……echoes of the rather ugly interpenetrated columns with block……is that the same type of stone used too in the cladding……however I’ll say the interior will be good.
By it’s outward appearance this would be an ideal gallery space dedidicated solely to the cubists.

[This message has been edited by GregF (edited 25 September 2001).]

Greg, with galleries you do not want a whole lot of natural light. Direct light isnt great for the paintings.

Really James? I was in the building years ago when it was Maptec and the Drawing Centre was underneath. Upstairs was in poor enough condition even then. What are they going to do with the building now? Administrative offices?

That’s true MG…but I did’nt really mean direct natural sunlight…but rather ‘cheeriness’ as opposed to it’s rather ‘austere’ exterior

[This message has been edited by GregF (edited 25 September 2001).]

I follow ya. I do quite like the austerity of the building myself. Most of the galleries in the current gallery are completely uninteresting spaces so hopefully this new extension will add a focus / people space for the ensemble.

A city needs contrast and Clare Street is reasonably intact (with the exception of the rather bland pastiche Gov Dept building) but South Leinster Street is full of bland uninteresting buildings – think of the two awful blocks before the Georgian building. I think it will act as a full stop to the street just as it runs into Clare Street.

I passed by this builing recently and i thought it looked odd but kind of nice and impressive. Not sure it will look quite so hot if it is allowed to become black with grime.
I hope that the bottom right corner of the facade as seen on the photo above uses a lot of glazing ‘cos i think it would be a nice contrast to the rest of the building. If it were all plainish wall like what can be seen now however, it would look as if a box had been dropped into the terrace which would not look very nice streetwise.

[This message has been edited by DARA H (edited 25 September 2001).]

I like the extension – especially as the model proposes it to be; however, it looks like a rather less successful relative of their Museum of Scotland; the scaling and compostion used for an Edinburgh streetscape seems to have just been transferred across to a very differently composed Dublin streetscape.

Arthur Gibney and Partners have been appointed architects for the adjoining ‘retained’ building, No 5 South Leinster Street, which is to be restored under a separate contract.

The reason it doesn’t blend in as well as the museum of Scotland is that the stone is in contrast to the surrounding streetscape (brick) whereas the Edinburgh building uses the same material as the surrounding buildings

exactly what i was thinking.
In design we talk so much about context and respect for surrounding buildings, yet so many of us have to be FLASH. Aparently in design, material isnt part of the nature of a place. Our own building is somehow more important than the rest and therefore aparently deserves to be distinct (i.e. stick out or not fit in ) at least material wise.
Well o.k. maybe the national gallery is a worthwhile exception,
Otherwise, if the inside is goingto be like the model and drawings i’ve seen, it’s going to be a pretty fabulous place.

From AJPlus

Construction is about to begin on the £17.5 million extension to the National Gallery of Ireland in Dublin, designed by Benson & Forsyth. The design, which had to be changed considerably to accommodate a listed building, is in three parallel zones running north to south. The most easterly of these houses the larger portion of the temporary gallery on the upper levels with ancillary accommodation below. The central zone comprises a full-height orientation space plus the bulk of the building’s circulation. In the westerly zone is a full-height conservatory space plus coffee and resturant facilities and additional gallery space above.

I like the Museum of Scotland, but I’m not so sure about this matching-stone business. Modern buildings seldom model stone in the same way as old ones did – they merely use stone as a surface material.

Consequently, identical stone on a new building can look very different to that of its neighbours. Given which, a contrast may well be better than a match.

– same applies to brick. New British Library is suposedly the same red brick as 19th century St. Pancras Station next door. Even with the station cleaned, it looks nothing like.

Even when old-fashioned mouldings are used, matching stone still doesn’t necessarily work. Think of Norman Foster’s South Portico in the British Museum Great Court. The French limestone is actually identical to Portland stone, as used on the 150-year old surrounding facades. But Foster’s portico is brand-new and looks it. Not least because it hasn’t been weathered for a century and a half.

There is an interesting use of stone facing/cladding on the new office/retail building beside the Mansion House, Dawson St. Two different colours are used, a creamy coloured sandstone (possibly?) and a reddish coloured stone, both contrasting but fitting in with the red brick on one side and the lighter coloured Mansion House on the other.

Interesting point re: new stonework – however the facts are somewhat different re: ‘old’ stone:

Since the widespread advent of brick as a building material in the 1500’s most stone faced buildings are actually clad in stone over brick structural walls – (Actually the Romans started this form of construction – see the Forum etc – all brick).

Most stone faced buildings in Dublin are either of brick construction with stone facing or of rough calp construction beneath a stone skin.

PS – as to Foster’s British Museum – in fact the French ‘portland’ is quite dissimilar both geologically and visually. It is worth noting incidentally that the grand court was covered in almost from inception – there was no weathering of the existing stone – the effect referred to is simply that of a poor choice of stone on the part of the contractors.

Re: Brick – a lot depends on the pointing perhaps even more than the brick tone itself.

Pedantry time: Walls of Great Court were in fact exposed to the weather – not covered in as James says, although much of the floor area of the court was indeed covered in bookstacks. A gap was left open to the elements around the edges. You can clearly see the effects of water on the facade surfaces down the years.

As for Foster’s famous “Anstruther Claire” stone portico, my understanding is that this is the same geological bed as Portland where it surfaces in France. Which is not to say that the Museum wasn’t diddled, only that the end result is the same.

There’s a lot of xenophobia in the hysterical response from some quarters – what, French stone in our glorious imperial museum? (nobody ever talks about the smooth new Spanish limestone now cladding the Round Reading Room in the centre of the Court).

I have seen a sample of “real” Portland set against the new portico, and there is no discernible difference in texture or colour. Though I admit you’d have to have a very large sample – like, a complete second portico – to be absolutely sure.

Indeed, elsewhere in the Great Court, new “real” Portland has been used for patch repairs (and in a new band just beneath the new glass roof). This looks identical to Foster’s supposed “wrong” stone in the portico. Because it is new.

Others have pointed out that, since any stone – particularly a sedimentary stone such as limestone – differs from layer to layer, there is no hope of ever getting an exact match anyway, since the areas being quarried now are far removed from those which sourced the original stone for the Museum.

So it’s a real storm in a conservationist’s teacup. But – personally, I’d like to know – what’s Foster doing producing a classical stone portico anyway? As the original had long vanished, a good case could be made for a modernist equivalent, or none at all.

But Foster can (just) justify the huge expense and weight of the South Portico on good modernist functional grounds: it is the grandest of grand liftshafts. No, I don’t think it’s much of an excuse, either.

Removing my anorak of stone, I see that this thread is meant to be about the National Gallery extension in Dublin by Benson and Forsyth.

Your anorak dos’nt fit you too well Hugh:

Firstly the French stone, not only does not originate from the same geological bed – it isn’t even a close geological match – hence the difference.

This is somewhat akin to arguing that the Chinese Granite used for paving in Dublin is the same as Irish Granite because they both are Granites.

Secondly the Great Court was enclosed up to cornice level – check it out in Fosters own promo literature.

I visited the Museum last winter and this summer – the differences are fairly obvious. The job of work carried out by the architects is pretty good but the French ‘Portland’ is a bit of a disaster.

There is a strong argument for a portico to be realised in a modern idiom – however Fosters rightly assessed the situation as one where the majority of the underlying structure and form survived and sensibly enough opted for re-cladding.

If you contact English Heritage’s technical support service they will be able to ‘put you right’ and further clarify the position regarding the stone.

Pedantry apart (and I’m not sure that it is pedantic to try to match materials correctly when carrying out restoration work) the point here is that local stone can be of use (as can any other ‘local’ contextual material) in tying together new and old. I think this is fairly obvious and cannot imagine that any sensible architect would have much difficulty with such a concept.

The situation in Clare Street is somewhat different – the materials used are not characteristic of the street (to the greater detriment of the new museum) – however it is a decent if somewhat brutalist piece of work and will probably ‘weather the storm’ fairly easily.

In fact, in the end of the day my only major quibble (brutality apart) is that perhaps it might have been more sensible to use a lighter cladding material as the exterior feels somewhat ‘ponderous’.

Sorry James, there was indeed a lot of clutter in the BM courtyard around the Round Reading Room – not least the bookstacks of 1857 often referred to as the “iron library”, and later accretions – but “enclosed up to the cornice”? No.

Aerial pictures before the Foster work clearly show the gap around the edges. As do construction site photos as work began, looking across the court, showing the elevations to the courtyard very clearly. Exposed to the elements, and well weathered.

You’ll find these and much else in “Building the British Museum” by Marjorie Caygill and Christopher Date, published by the BM itself.

It’s always best to cross-check what comes out of the Foster publicity machine.

So what do people think now?
I see Shane O’Toole (yesterday Sunday Times) and Frank McDonald (saturday Irish Times) both seemed to like it…

I think the interiors look intresting but that they may have succumbed to the same over-designing that weakened their Museum of Scotland scheme in Edinburgh. While the spaces in the Scottish building are undoubtedly impressive, the architects have a tenedency to cover every surface (lift shafts, reception desks as well as principal walls) with these ‘random’ slits and openings. In some cases they frame views and work quite successfully bit they generally give the impression of being far too arbitrary and tend to dilute the overall sense of space by distracting the eye. I see from the photos of the Clare St. extension that these seem to feature porminently again but I hope that they won’t weaken it to the extent that they do in Edinburgh.

……Can’t wait to see the new National Gallery extension and the new Impressionist Exhibition it houses too, all the big guns are there ….Monet, Renoir, etc…..great for the city of Dublin, making us feel that bit more European.

Looks great of the outside, a really lovely thing, I smile every time I see it. I amn’t sure about the red light gantries they have fitted to the front by Clare Lane, are they going to hang banners off them?

bit of a turn around Greg?, was kind of dissapointed to hear Pat Kenny say on Friday’s Late Late (yes apparently i am actually that sad to watch it) that “you’d never know you were in Dublin”, guess it kind of says a lot in a way…I think its a great building, and have no reservations about it standing up against the other georgian buildings on Clare street…i have found myself nearly go out of my way to walk past it recently, and so i reckon that any building that has such an effect on a person (granted its only me, and i’m certainly no expert) is a very worthy extension to the NG.

No U turns here…..I was more or less commenting on the interiors, space, lighting and the exhibition itself….the exterior is still debatable within a Georgian streetscape…..especially when it gets dirty and aged….the newness impact will wear off. I guess it is the spectre of the ESB offices on Fitzwilliam Street that haunts me.

[This message has been edited by GregF (edited 22 January 2002).]

I have just seen it. It looks magnificent on the inside. It is a real surprise to see just how much space there is in the atrium. The space flows very nicely from the entrance to the main staircase, which is very generous in size. The strange geometry of the windows and alcoves is very odd, but not unpleasant. Some of these spaces are functional [for housing brochures, leaflets or as passageways] others seem entirely decorative.

Immediate highlights for me of the building were
1 – The dramatic contrast in apparent scale between the entrance and the inside – it is quite disorienting and surprising to see how big it is inside compared to its appearance from outside on Clare street.
2 – The diagonal walkway near the ceiling. What agreat idea to paint it red !
3 – The staircase – I dunno, I just like it.

i have just been to the museum of scotland, and have not yet physically seen the finished gallery yet.

it certainly seems impressive, its architecture a new (confusing, original???) blend of brutalism and PoMo.

but i hope it does not weather as badly as its edinburgh cousin. unlike most of the stone in the city it appears to be going green, detailing gone wrong??? i hope the architects did not apply the same formula in dublin

Cant help thinking we could do without the Georgian Building and ballroom though! – Sorry conservationists

Originally posted by nono:
i have just been to the museum of scotland, and have not yet physically seen the finished gallery yet

Heading over myself to Edinburgh over the next few days and going to go see the Museum first and then visit the National Gallery early next week.

Nothing wrong with stone going green – Fountains Abbey in Yorkshire has an amazing “Green Room” where all the internal stonework has gone bright green with algae or whatever.

On the other hand, that’s because of the lack of roof owing to Reformationist zeal. I doubt whether the Museum of Scotland stone was meant to go green. Still, enjoy the happenstance…

You’ve got funny ideas about stone Hugh. The museum of scotland extension is clad in clashac stone, it’s beautiful and very colourful: pink, orange and amber and I can’t imagine that anyone was really hoping it would go green and slimy. I also share BM’s concern way back there about self conscious and overworked detailing of the interior, I find it hard to spot the exhibits in the Edinburgh museum, the building keeps getting in the way.

On the topic of museum extensions – does anyone know of the progress on libeskinds brilliant plan for the V & A museum, London?

What’s wrong with entropy and decay, I say. But I agree – the Museum of Scotland stone cladding when fresh was very beautiful.

I think the new building has a very Stephen Holl look to it( http://www.stevenholl.com )it looks great, a breath of fresh air and a nice departure from some ‘mock georgian’ buildings of recent years. I can’t wait to get a good look around inside.

fair enough Greg, i see what you mean about the facade, right now though i think it looks great, i guess time will tell…

I’ve just seen the National Museum in Edinburgh and was very impressed…. loved the internal spaces… sure some rooms detracted from the exhibits but those were in a minority i felt… got some great photos and the roof terraces are excellent

really looking forward to a wander through the gallery now for comparisom

The Museum of Scotland certainly is impressive, even if some of its details and design appear rather pointless (or perhaps I am living in a minimalist dreamworld)

It is a very easy and engaging building to wonder around for a couple of hours, even for a ‘non-architect’. I hope the Clare St. gallery has the same effect.

Please note that in designing this extension and the edinburgh building the architects hand drew all the plans and detailing. Fair play in the technoloogy age

[This message has been edited by graham (edited 31 January 2002).]

[This message has been edited by graham (edited 31 January 2002).]

Maybe…but what’s the point

RE. Museum of scotland
I walked around the building for two hours before getting kicked out at closing time,
I’d probably have stayed there another two if I was let. Every corner you turn is a new surprise, floor voids, veiws through walls to other spaces beyond,slits employing glimpses to the outside world, niches in the wall with places to sit, like one huge sculptural piece , amazing….. one strange thing i found was one place where you had to climb two floors of stairs to arive at… just toilets…..as regards dodgey detailing.. i certainly couldnt find any… though the huge wall thicknesses in places was something i questioned…..
and after all that i could hardly tell you what the exhibition was about.
Personally I havent been as impressed with a building in quite a while.

Dodgy detailing… i am being a little harsh. i passed by the Muesuem of Scotland again today and i have to admit it is not as green as i originally supposed. I am not convinced of how well it look in time, but it is a wonderfull place to wonder around.

Many of the ‘slits’ etc. do not work as well as many people would like to think. it is a strain to look through many of them, or at least a very conscious effort. It probably betrays the architects intentions. some of them are so small and are difficult to clean, filled with rubbish from uncaring public. the architects fault???

yeah i suppose i would tend to agree there alright.

[This message has been edited by quirkey (edited 01 February 2002).]

this building is pathetic….a good idea gonde bad…really bad…..i have seen better details at burger king…..and the spaces aren’t big enough to exhibit shoes, let alone art.

…fair dues – this is probably the first building in recent times in Dublin with anything close to a wow factor (even if all those “quirky” angles began to look a tad flouncy)…it was worth it just to see jaws drop as people walked in the door…hopefully it might convince the general public to start questioning all those dreadful georgian pastiches and stop equating “modern” architecture with Ballymun..

I have not been in Ireland for some time, and these are the first images i have seen of it. It really is quite impressive isn’t it?? It does not appear to be as ‘over designed’ as its Scottish cousin.

The preservation of the ballroom really raises quetions about how far ‘conservation’ measures should be taken. It appears from the photos to look absolutley awfull.
There seems to be a very poor relationship between it and the contemporary gallery surrounding it.

Can anyone who saw it enlighten me please???

Actually it works quite well, it is a gallery after all and the old buildings, the back of number 5 and the ballroom, are like an exhibit. It reminds you of, for example, the Met in NY where they have recreated various interiors and courtyards.

Couple of comments,
Gordon Benson is a true high modernist, his sole influence is Le Corbusier, as self professed, if you go to one of his lectures it is practically a read through of Vers Une Architecture.

Museum of Scotland was paraded as a unique building, a new Scottish vernacular, if so how do the Dublin Gallery & it bear so striking a resemblance:
Same red steel work bridge effect
same window details
same Ronchamp windows (interior)
Identical stair (open tread terrattso)
Identical ‘courtyard’ and roof glazing
Both have very weak entrances
Both have the extraordinary mix of extremely Expensive and extremely cheap detailing side by side
Both completely detailed to death.

Both buildings were designed simultaneously but the similarities are just too much to bear taking in mind the ‘uniqueness’ of both buildings as stated by the architect.

However, I prefer the Dublin Gallery to the Museum of Scotland. The main circulation space is without a doubt the most exhilerating space I have ever seen since Ronchamp and this is possibly Dublin’s greatest architectural achievement, but it could have been better.

Funny to think that we criticise (rightly I think) Georgian pastiche or fake Victoriana and yet hail as a masterpiece what is essentially a pastiche of the work of Corbusier (and not a particularly well thought out pastiche – Ronchamp meets Chandigargh meets Shodhan and gets it off with Garche!!!) I do like Benson and Forsyths work but it looks pretty dated and pointless to be re-hashing the same old motifs and ‘iconic references.

Methinks this is the Post modernism writ over!!!.

Also to be honest the building has a major flaw – it is essentially a series of retail and cafeteria spaces with a somewhat isolated series of galleries up top.

When I visited it was packed – but there was little to show of paintings. I had to re-enter (via a fairly tortuous route) the ‘old’ Galery to actually view an exhibition that had any coherence.

To follow up MK, the other extraordinary similarity between the Benson & Forsyth buildings in Edinburgh and Dublin is that they are both extensions to buildings by that interesting Victorian engineer-designer, Capt. Francis Fowke.

Had B&H won the competition to extend the Victoria and Albert Museum in London (and they came close) they would have pulled off the hat-trick: Capt. Fowke again!

I now think that the entrance is just a little too small and dark. I know its to create impact when you enter the large interior space but still.

First opinions.

Not at all bad. As others said interesting effects.

Already showing signs of wear and tear, the curse of the stuck up sign is in evidence. Dont fancy those steps in leather shoes on a wet day. A nice, artistic & dry shortcut from Clare St to Merrion Street too which introduces a new rat run for me.

On the whole I like the building but the details…. I hate the door they have used to section off areas. they are extremely ugly and I think glass would have worked much better. the look like that cheap wood used in MFI kitchens. Another problem area is the connecting gallery with the 1970s building (Milton Wing? I thought it loked really amateurish. But the overall effect of the building is a superb addition to Dublin’s collection of public buildings

I agree too with BM’s reply about the over-worked and self-conscious interior with it’s slits and slashes and holes here there and everywhere. In my opinion anyway it is maddening as the big idea is immense and very powerful but the execution destroys it. Not content with tinkering the interior to distraction they do it to the exterior facade also, plus the finishes are very poor in places but this is a problem I feel they brought on themselves. The feeling of the spaces and big entry scale are fabulous but why couldn’t they have had the confidence to keep it simpler and inject some siza-like calm, cool modesty? Still it’s good to see real architecture growing ever more large and acceptable (even liked!) in the public consciousness.

Edinburgh was more successful because the niches, cuts, and deep walls were a post modernist reinterpretation of poche within the Scottish Tower house. Likewise the scaling, mass and urban composition worked better in Edinburgh than Dublin (overscaled gestures within a Georgian street compared to a large scaled prominent corner in medieval Edinburgh). The fact that the architects were forced to maintain the adjacent building doesnt excuse the fact that the elevation is poorly composed. The detailing is a virtual return to the fussiness of the Baroque (and badly finshed by the Irish builders in Dublin). All said though, the handling of space and light is superb (cheers Corb).
Supposedly Benson claimed the influence of Ulysses and Dublin lore in the design of the building (cant say I got it)- can anyone throw some light on this?

It’s interesting that, after investing fart all cash into this highly successful project, the government, Sile de Valera is preparing to pump EU15 million into a crude pastiche extension to Collins Barracks. Doesn’t it instill such confidence in the powers that guide our arts and culture in this country!

I must also agree with BM’s remarks about the ‘random slits’, which I found completely distracted from the overall building. I felt sheer frustration that excellent simple spaces were left looking like a spotty teenager. Maybe they’re onto something I amn’t aware of, but I just thought Benson & Forsyth were trying to be too clever architecturally by half. The spaces are superb and should have been left to convey their power simply and modestly – like so many of Siza’s works. My great sympathy goes out to the contractor for his having to finish and deal with all these bits – though I don’t think he is, or should be, finished with them yet! Don’t get me wrong I still think it’s an excellent piece of work, and very importantly brings modern architecture ever more centre stage with public life in Ireland, but I feel that the spaces would have benefitted so much more from a ‘less is more’ approach.

Devil in the detail…
Would i be the only person that thinks that the traffic lights plonked right in front of the building looks pretty awful & cheap? I think even a simple measure such as painting the grey pole in a gloss, black paint would make it look more visually palitable in its position. An all-black pole/lights may even look like an interesting ‘oddity’ set as it is in front an (all white)contrasting building. This gallery is meant to be ‘national’ building so, the protection/ enhancement of its appearence should not stop at its front door.

[This message has been edited by DARA H (edited 03 April 2002).]

Okay, I finally made it in.

Build Quality
The build quality of the galleries, especially the top galleries seems excellent, I saw one spot which looked like the wall have developed acne but in general it was good. The public spaces seem to suffer from poor finish however, especially corridors like the one that links to the Milltown wing. Its like the curators kicked up a fuss and the decision was made to get the galleries right and the rest would do.

Galleries
I loved the top floor gallery, lovely light and space and I didn’t feel that the building got in the way of the paintings at all – a point that has been made about the Museum of Scotland (I disagree with this as well). I like the hidden seats and little places to stop and look out, features I enjoyed in the Museum of Scotland.

The elevated walkway.
Arggggghhhhhh the dirty Irish, the roof of the ballroom is covered in litter, even a paper plane when I was there last week. The room across the walkway is the room with the bad dose of wall acne just inside the doorway.

The circulation spaces
Dramatic certainly, especially when looking back from the top of the overly steep staircase (it will need a central handrail for safety). I do think that the ‘winter garden’ is wasted on a fitzers restuarant. Such a fine space and such a boring use. Would have made a great sculpture gallery and would allow more to enjoy it as we cannot all afford to be buying lunch.

The shop
Massive, a decent selection of architecture books

The coffee
Dire and overpriced.

My overall impression?
Slight disappointment, I just cannot put my finger on why. While its a lovely building, maybe its because I’ve seen it before (in Edinburgh) or maybe it was all the hype before hand. Walking in, I did go “Wow” but it hasnt left that impact on my mind that say the underground segments of the Louvre did or even the Edinburgh version. I do think though that the circulation spaces in our version are better and more dramatic than those in the Edinburgh version.

“The shop
Massive, a decent selection of architecture books”

True,
but it is very very dark. Would have been better in the cafe spot.

12/4/2008

There’s a few threads this topic could have gone into, but here seems the most apt. Indeed what an excellent thread this was in its day – I’ve just spent 20 minutes scrolling through enjoying the many sharp observations. It’s a level of debate that’s relatively unusual here; it seems they come crawling out of the woodwork for the big ones 😉

Well this is just a note to say ‘the National Gallery House’ as it’s generally become known has finally been unwrapped after years of apparent scrabbling for funds and various delays. Arthur Gibney & Partners, who were appointed as architects to the project years ago now, have pulled off the conservation job with trademark panache.

The building is to serve as the new administrative HQ of the National Gallery of Ireland.

Thankfully Gibneys know better than to get sucked into this current trend for returning Victorian sheet sashes to original Georgian specification (though of course merited in the right circumstances). In this case all Victorian additions, as cumbersome as some may be, have been respectfully preserved. Indeed it’s so much more interesting to observe the panels on the internal shutters revealing all in conforming to the original Georgian glazing pattern, than a batch of repro windows pretending to be something they’re not. Thus the fabric has been retained, and the pernickity conservationist/scholar can rest assured on provenance, basking in the warm glow of smug self-assuredness 😉

The brickwork has also been cleaned and tuck pointed.

(The reflection is the scaffolding of Trinity’s buildings across the road).

The grandiose chimneys beautifully are re-rendered and the stucco repainted (sneaky cable running under the frieze there ;))

These robust railings are great – decorous yet elegant.

It would appear some of the granite has been redressed. What’s going on with this corner I’m not sure. You’d expect it to be the original Georgian plinth for a large railing corner piece, but there’s no holes…

The only thing I’m iffy about is the doorcase. It seems to be of reconstituted stone, as at Parnell Square west. At the very least it’s machine cut and polished.

It’s almost like ceramic, and not altogether pleasant at close quarters. A plasticy look and feel to it.

What happened to the original I wonder.

Similarly the spoked glazing bars of the fanlight appear unduly clunky and angular for such a late Georgian house. Maybe a later alteration.

Beautifully fresh paintwork and exposed granite cills which look new.

Although the doorcase looks a bit washed out in the wider expanse of the ground floor – indeed the paint to the quoins and parapet does seem to lean towards the Dulux Weathershield end of the scale (the ground floor is softer). Perhaps it’s mimicking the industrial Victorian paint that was originally used. Dublin grime will tone things down fairly quickly either way…

It looks great adjacent to the Millennium Wing, which I didn’t have time to snap given the traffic.

Not only would the loss of the house have been unfortunate as the whole Millenium Wing project was originally proposed, but in fact I much prefer the modest, narrow, square-like quality of the Millennium facade as built – one of its greatest attributes actually. It’s quietly subtle, and if anything greater design consideration probably went into its smaller form than had it been sprawling along the streetscape. It also slots perfectly into the rhythmic quality of the small units marching along this part of the street.

As an aside, I can’t remember if it’s been mentioned already, but a stainless steel handrail has been inserted down the centre of the dramatic entrance hall stairs. Personally I think it compromises the entire design concept, and especially its execution in tubular sections which just jarr as a factory solution in the starkly angular surroundings. The po-mo painted classical pedestal with floral display at the top of the flight caps it off to unfortunately prissy effect.

The railing is a health and safety measure. They had three or four compensation cases relating to tumbles from the beautifully wide staircase and found it very hard to defend them. Unfortunate but another inevitability in our litigious society.

But it was clear from the start the stairs were dangerous; they should designed them to be safer rather than have an ugly rail retro-fitted. I hate the way the extension is gradually deteriorating, partly through poor maintenance, please fix the doors, repaint the doors, get the inappropriate change box out of the foyer etc and partly because it doesn’t work: the untreated render scuffs to easily, the stairs was dangerous and the circulation is terrible.

@GrahamH wrote:

12/4/2008

Well this is just a note to say ‘the National Gallery House’ as it’s generally become known has finally been unwrapped after years of apparent scrabbling for funds and various delays. Arthur Gibney & Partners, who were appointed as architects to the project years ago now, have pulled off the conservation job with trademark panache.

The building is to serve as the new administrative HQ of the National Gallery of Ireland.

Thankfully Gibneys know better than to get sucked into this current trend for returning Victorian sheet sashes to original Georgian specification (though of course merited in the right circumstances). In this case all Victorian additions, as cumbersome as some may be, have been respectfully preserved. Indeed it’s so much more interesting to observe the panels on the internal shutters revealing all in conforming to the original Georgian glazing pattern, than a batch of repro windows pretending to be something they’re not. Thus the fabric has been retained, and the pernickity conservationist/scholar can rest assured on provenance, basking in the warm glow of smug self-assuredness 😉

You can’t nail your colours to the mast like that and not expect people to take pot shots.

I grant you that the Victorians did some great buildings (although not too many in this country), but why did they have to go round tarting up other peoples buildings?

The whole design philosophy behind these Georgian houses was their strict severity, enlivened only by finely detailed doorcases and the elegant proportions of their windows, further articulated by their obsessive refinement of their glazing bars.

For the National Gallery to ‘conserve’ a Victorian tart up version of the upper facade of this house, complete with plate glass windows and frilly strapwork quoine icing detail, and then install a dubious ‘Georgian’ rusticated render ground floor treatment in place of the Victoria’, fully glazed, shop front and generous granite step at street level, is a gutless fudge IMO.

If you’re going to restore the Georgian facade, restore the Georgian facade, don’t nearly restore it and leave it half restored and half disfigured by retaining half the Victorian alterations!

I don’t know where they got those railings, they look like something Trinity had left over from knocking down something on Westland Row.

is it this building or the one next door that is supposed to have a ballroom on the first floor? would be great to see it come into some kind of public use if it is in this one…

This one had the ballroom in the backgarden, it is the building in the middle of the ground flood eatery.

It’s been under scaffoldiing for so long that I have trouble remembering – but didn’t this have a decent Victorian shopfront?

My memory is that it was a full, wall to wall, glass shop front, with rounded granite steps up to a central door. I think it looked like it was designed to be one big shop, but it had been crudely divided into two shops, one of them an iron mongers called Davis something.

I can’t locate any photographs just now.

Ahhh – well that cetainly puts a different spin on matters. Certainly explains the dubious doorcase. I also thought the chanelling looked a tad weak and very fresh, but let it go. As with Paul, it’s been under wraps for so long I just imagined the ground floor to be like that of the adjacent Tegral house – seems to be where they’ve taken their cue from for the door anyway.

The only record I can find of the building in former times is Shaw’s Pictorial Directory of 1850.

However, if the shopfront was beyond repair and/or significantly altered, a case could be made for its removal and replacement with a form suited to its new use, namely offices. In this instance that would naturally take the form of the original Georgian ground floor facade.

The removal of upper floor additions is not justified in those cirumstances in my opinion, and have rightly been left alone.

Yes the railings are idential to Westland Row, gunter. I couldn’t place where I’d seen them before.

The ground floor was an art supply / drawing board shop at one stage…..

Graham:

I’m 95% certain that the shopfront, as shown in Shaw’s, was replaced by a simple all glass affair with a narrow glass door in the centre, but I could be thinking of somewhere else.

If this was the front I’m thinking of, it could have made a great gallery book shop, but, I suppose they didn’t want to diminish the impact of the actual gallery entrance by having a, more visually open, side way in.

Your photographs show that they’ve done a thorough job on the house, my main issue with it is with the selective retention of bits of Victoriana, when the thrust of the effort seems to have been towards the restoration of the house in it’s original Georgian form. I was pretty much of the view that the strapwork details and the big Victorian shopfront (if it was there) all went together, so if You were getting rid of one, why would you not get rid of the other. The same applies to the glazing bars, are we doing Georgian?, or are we doing Victorian?

I don’t know anyone else who shares this view, but I have this real nagging feeling that this generation has lost it’s way on conservation. We seem terrified of being accused of Disneyfication more than anything else. Every conservation project seems to need to scream out ‘Look I’m not pretending to be original’ when we should all just relax a bit and have a bit of confidence in our ability to restore something that’s obviously valuable, when restoration is the logical option.

There’s nothing to stop an architect from putting a small plaque on the front of a restored building, explaining exactly what bits he’s restored, if he thinks there’s any chance someone in the future will be deceived and offended by the high quality of the work.

It seems clear to me that, in contrast to every other branch of contemporary architectural practice, conservation has become dominated by the international charter codes of conduct, and that these sets of predetermined prescriptions have replaced common sense and informed judgement as the tools of the practice.

I could be wrong, but I think this National Gallery House is another example of conservation idealogy getting in the way of conservation common sense. There are bits here to please everyone, as I think you suggested yourself, but, to me, the stand out feature is the compromise. It suited the client’s requirements to close up the ground floor, so the’ve gone down the restoration road, but then, to keep on-side of the Burra Charter, they’ve stop short of removing a few trinkets of the 19th century revamp.

It is a decent job, the property is renovated and finally back in use, but I don’t see a fine Georgian house restored, I don’t see a Victorian make-over reinvigorated, and I don’t see a contemporary statement made. Any one of the above would have done me.

gunter, I understand where you’re coming from. Indeed I agree with nearly everything you say (as expressed in other threads). However from what I’m seeing across the city, as most evident in fenestration, the opposite is increasingly the case with regard to conservation ethics. Everywhere you turn reproduction Georgian sashes are going back into townhouses and public buildings. Similarly other later additions are regularly being removed and restored back to their former state, often involving replication. Frustratingly, given the countless examples I’ve encountered, none immediately spring to mind save this case in Dundalk where Victorian plate was unnecessarily returned back to Georgian grid (and hideous mock-traditional shopfront applied).

Why retain the c. 1900 shopfront and ironwork but ditch the sashes?

Of course every circumstance is different, and should be treated as such – not in a faddish fashion as is so often the case at the moment. For example plate glass fanlights should generally be returned to their original form where possible, sheet sashes in attic storeys ought to be replaced if it unifies a house, render ought to be stripped if negating from the character of a structure etc etc. By contrast sheet sashes if just a feature of the principal rooms of the typical townhouse generally ought to be retained as an example of both social and engineering change. If however they were installed as part of a heavy-handed institutional use, a case could be made for their replacement. Similarly at Dublin Castle all Victorian sheet in the State Apartments was rightfully removed between the 1960s and the 1980s, thus restoring the wider Upper Yard to its late Georgian appearance. Real commitment to architectural purity was also demonstrated in the removal of the 19th century attic storey from the Bedford Tower, one of the few – if not only – examples in Dublin of such scholarly thought and plain hard cash being invested in a conservation project (even if the storey was also causing structural problems). The reopening of Robinson’s arcade in the 1960s reconstruction a more modest and often unremarked upon example of such considered thought.

Every case is different, and I think a conservation ethos has to be carefully devised according to the scenario faced, but always balancing historic fabric with what’s right for the character of the building, as subjective as that may be.

I believe the correct route was taken regarding the National Gallery House. Just because the shopfront was lost/had to be replaced did not mean the entire house had to be altered accordingly. That would be extreme, unnecessary, and wasteful of both money and extensive historic fabric. If the Victorian alterations had been less all-pervading, a better case could be made.

@GrahamH wrote:

I believe the correct route was taken regarding the National Gallery House. Just because the shopfront was lost/had to be replaced did not mean the entire house had to be altered accordingly. That would be extreme, unnecessary, and wasteful of both money and extensive historic fabric. If the Victorian alterations had been less all-pervading, a better case could be made.

Graham: I would have knocked off that Victorian icing sugar fringe myself with a lump hammer, if cost was the issue.

It may be just a personal thing, but these Georgian houses, including your example from Dundalk, depend so heavily on the proportions of their window fenestration for their aesthetic appeal, that not to reinstate their glazing bars just seem like a slap in the face to the original designer, IMO.

I don’t think that we need to grant equal respect to everyone who’s had a go at any given building over a couple of centuries. In my opinion, the first intention, the original design, should have an assumption of primacy in any hierarchical evaluation of the conservation priorities. No. 10 Mill St. (as we’ve discussed before), a definite case in point.

I believe that the opposite position (which seems, to me, to be the current dominant position), where the various accretions demand as much respect as the original design, is just plain wrong.

There are obvious exceptions like the Rubricks block in Trinity, where the Victorian additions added a whole level of interest and scale that wasn’t really there before, but usually alterations (often by the Victorians) were pretty shallow and usually took away more than they added to the character of the building they altered.

There’s probably an Archiseek thread on conservation that it might be better to continue this discussion on.

On the National Gallery house. I’m going to wait until I find a pre-renovation photograph before I shoot my mouth off any more about this. My gut feeling is, that the Victorian shopfront, the window replacement and the frilly trim, were (or appeared to be) a package deal, and it might have been better to retain this version of the house, or put the clock back to the Georgian original, in full, rather than do a bit of both.

We’ll dig out a photograph and take it from there.

@gunter wrote:

There’s probably an Archiseek thread on conservation that it might be better to continue this discussion on.

Maybe this one on the List of Protected Structures?

Also, I’ve referred before to the attitude you mention, gunter, but only in passing, here. (Taken from this thread.)

Looking forward to your input there, gunter.

@ctesiphon wrote:

Looking forward to your input there, gunter.

Sorry ctesiphon, that was a pretty scary thread you had going there. I think I may have got hold of a couple of points though, as the rest sailed clean over my head.

1.

2.

3.

Coming back to the issue of the National Gallery. Has anyone got a photograph of the wretched house?

I don’t but I don’t seem to recall the shopfront as having much architectural merit – but then I’m old and my memory is foggy now – and at the time I worked in the area, I was living in kennedy’s

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

I don’t but I don’t seem to recall the shopfront as having much architectural merit – but then I’m old and my memory is foggy now – and at the time I worked in the area, I was living in kennedy’s

You’re probably right about this, the shopfront probably didn’t have a whole lot of architectural merit. It’s not a good sign that none of us can remember the thing very clearly.

I know it’s a bit pedantic to go on about the decision to retain the victorian fenestration and the plaster quoin details, but we get to see so few brave attempts to actually ‘restore’ buildings instead of just ‘conserve’ them that it just seems a pity to me that they couldn’d bring themselve to go that last ten yards.

As an aside, while fruitlessly searching for a photograph of no. 5 South Leinster Street (the house in question), I came across these pictures (in Pearson) of it’s original neighbour, no. 29 Clare Street, which was demolished for the Nation Gallery extension in 1989. Does anyone know what happened to the excellent cut-stone door case and the great sweeping steps? Did stuff like this go to land fill, or does it now adorn a gazebo in some gallery director’s garden?

Just in case there’s any missunderstanding about this, I love the National Gallery extension (with a few small reservations), and huge credit is due to Benson & Forsyth for the way that they adapted their plans to address the ABP decision in 1998 that required the retention of 5 Clare Street, and to the late lamented Uinseann MacEoin for taking the appeal that forced that decision.

what about the buildings cafe shop etc and above opposite the NG any comment on them they seem to be worked on continuously for years

etching of the opening of the NGI

His excellency the Earl of Carlisle opening the National Gallery of Ireland, Genuine original antique engraving, 1864

For anyone left in Dublin…

The National Gallery currently have an exhibition in place showing the proposed new masterplan for the Gallery, including a major new extension.

Its quite interesting and full of some interesting historical photos…worth a look.

How much of that is the 1960s block refaced?

Exactly Paul!

When I first looked at the illustrations I was scratching my head wondering where they got all the space for such a large new extension!

C

Where’s the funding for this? In place? or a 10 year plan?

I can’t imagine any funding will be forthcoming in the near future however the Gallery appears to be fundraising for the new extension.

I must eat my words of above. A welcome investment of €20m and a timeframe for completion by end of 2015.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2013/0124/breaking32.html

[attachment=0:2e4mztp0]ngi.jpg[/attachment:2e4mztp0]

Well looking at the map, it still seems that they have a plan to shoehorn in another strip of building alongside the 60s wing, and then refacing it to match. No mention of it in the press release.

The media in this country is a joke. How on earth is nobody taking an interest in this project, never mind running with a departmental press release at face value?

This project – one of the largest construction sites in the country – has been beavering away for over a year, involving high level conservation and the input of heavy hitters Heneghan Peng Architects, yet nobody has an iota that this is going on! One of the largest roofing contracts ever undertaken in Dublin has already been completed. Is there any civic pride left in Dublin? The €20 million figure is also way out.

The usual scatty report on RTÉ News last night was equally diabolical, with barely a mention of the architectural significance of the building or the architects involved, nor the radical proposals to re-open and reinstate a number of concealed Victorian features, or the proposed contemporary interventions which will significantly re-shape the complex. Where was the Director of the National Gallery last night? Why wasn’t the conservation team interviewed? Why weren’t we told of the building’s operating challenges and proposed solutions? Where are the experts on the complex telling us about this magnificent national amenity and their vision for it?

This is one of the most important projects happening in Dublin – as it would be in either boom time or recession – and yet it is all but being concealed from the populace, inadvertently aided by a blindly ignorant media. It is also patently apparent that all this stock being placed on 1916 is to conceal the fact that the GPO reordering is a dead duck and there is nothing else in the pipeline. So much easier to tenuously latch a national commemorative event onto an existing construction project, even if it is as removed as the National Gallery of Ireland. It wouldn’t surprise me if it was attached to the refurb of the Spar on Dame Street if it was seen as the only game in town.

Actually the Spar on Dame Street is on the site of the coiffeurs that Countess Markievitz used to get a rinse and set the day before the Rising…so actually you may be in to something Graham.

I agree that the use of this as a flagship cultural project to commemorate 1916 is a bit of a stretch. The revelations by the National Museum of Ireland as to the fate of that museums Court of Casts over the 20th century (1920 – 1970) by our republican ideals is still fresh in my mind. At a lecture on Sat last, ostensibly to educate the masses on the incredible decorative features of the NMI, the lecturer informed us all that most of the casts (exact replicas of various architectural masterpieces across Europe) were smashed up by UCD students in the 1960s to protest at Govt reorganisation of third level.

The republic sadly retains an enormous legacy of cultural vandalism from its first 100yrs.

Perhaps this great project will address that to some measure.

Well media uses what’s in the press release
http://www.ahg.gov.ie/en/PressReleases/2013/January2013PressReleases/htmltext,16833,en.html

Does anyone have any further information about the extension and how it is progressing? Neither the NGI nor Heneghan Peng’s website give any update. Thanks.

I understand the extension has been shelved due to funding (surprise surprise). The work on the Dargan Wing (including a new roof) has been completed. The works to renovate the Milton Wing are due to being later this year. The gallery will be completed in 2016! Until then we have the Millennium Wing and the the few other rooms that are open.

Thanks for that. I ‘m surprised that it is being put partially on hold. I thought this was meant to be the showpiece for the 1916 commemoration.

Theres hardly anything national about this place…