National Photographic Archive

I came across a picture of the Dublin Bread Company Building in a book recently, it is a must see probably the most eccentric building ever erected in the city.

Absolutely, it was a strange hybrid…

thats’s it

It looks kinda creepy if anything – seven storeys I think, it dominated the skyline of the whole area – another example of the lax attitude of the Corpo to planning at the time.

Anybody got a pic of it they could put up?

Oh dear – look at those Georgians, the quoin-stones, the sashes, the brickwork, those chimneys – if only 🙁

The post-1916 pictures show a bizarre scene of the Bread Building standing in all its tall glory, albeit beheaded, and utter devastation around it, without a single other building in the terrace – it was probably holding them all up!
Did it act as an Edwardian Liberty Hall with what looks like a viewing deck or something on top – it’s this part I find really spooky looking, kind of gothic with elements of Lutyens too.

…..kinda Amytiville Horror, Quasimodo in the tower,……but still, it has a lot of character in a way.

I love this building – I had caught my eye quite a while ago when looking over old photos of O’Connell St. Definitely an eye-catcher and so distinct.

Not worthy of destruction and I believe – certainly worthy of rebuilding – in the same equal quality materials. Nothing built in O’Connell St. since has matched it.

Two snippets of info – it was built in 1901, and to the tip of the roof was 9 storeys.
Also it consumed two Georgian properties.

I wouldn’t advocate rebuilding it, not only because it shouldn’t have been built in the first place, but it would be rather fantastical and would take more away from the vista of domes and cupolas of this stretch than it would contribute.

It was nothing short of disgraceful that the Corporation let institutions carve up Westmoreland St and Sackville in the 19th century – and it only happened after the WSC disbanded.
It was the worst planning that the city has ever experienced in my view – even worse than Fitzwilliam St, and certainly on a par with O’ Cll Bridge House. This two streets define the very character of the city.
Westmoreland looks cheap and messy now, and parts of O’ Connell little better. The simple classical Georgians are rubbished next to the elaborate Victorian piles.
If The WSC development had survived up to 1916 on O’ Cll, it would have been a simple matter of rebuilding them, and would have been substantially cheaper than the unified plans proposed by the Corpo and laughed at by property owners.
They weren’t just bad at planning in the 20th century, the Corpo couldn’t even manage what little had been planned already.

The building is fantastic. Such a towering sight – Extremely few buildings built since this in 1901 (i.e. in the past 103 years!) come close to being as impressive, in my opinion. It certainly does provide a focal point – and although the Geogians are nice, they create a streetscape as opposed to a focal point and I think you need both. (Mind you, most designed now seem to vie for focal point rather than streetscape).

I wouldn’t advocate rebuilding it in its original position – the building currently there are quite attractive and ccomprise an impressive building stock. But there’s plenty of buildings worth replacing on O’Connell St. now and something like this would certainly raise the profile of O’Connell street around the Eircom building, for example.

Where I’d most like to see it though is probably at Murphy’s Laughter Lounge. It could provide some sort of balance to O’Connell House across the road.

Not that it would ever be rebuilt – I’m just wishful thinking at I’d have loved to have checked out that viewing patform.

It certainly would be extraordinary to see it in ‘real life’ alright – good point about buildings now not being willing to simply blend into the streetscape – most notably the Schuh building on O’ Cll St in a garish sand colour. Not only was no attempt made to be sympathetic to neighbouring buildings and materials, the developer didn’t even bother to clad it in red sandstone instead of the present eyesore – one need only look at how well the colour works on the building beside the Mansion House. But the CC were tripping over themselves to grant permission to anyone willing to put up anything of a contemporary nature in place of the 70s disasters and so we end up with a contribution to the street it could do without.

What I think desperately needs to be done as part of the IAP is to return Westmoreland St to its former splendour and unify as much of it as possible. As it stands there is but a single WSC building in its original condition left on the street, next to the EBS, with exposed mellow red brick and the trademark granite window dressings on the first floor.
The rest of the street is comprised of Victorians from the short College St – Fleet St/Fenian St axis, but importantly mainly WSC buildings from here onwards to the river. This whole stretch is so tatty and cheap, with an incoherent mix of rendered-over WSC buildings painted different colours, the Ballast Office and the disgraceful intrusion of the mock-Georgian rubbish of the Blood Bank/ex-Man Utd shop, which wasn’t supposed to be built anyway along with the shimmering cubes of the EBS.

Every tax incentive under the sun should be offered to property owners to strip back the render-jobs, none of which even have stucco detailing or pediments except Bewleys – and in the interest of the street as a whole I think these should be removed. Indeed most buildings still have the granite surrounds, some merely painted over.
Replica facades should be built over the Blood Bank building, which was supposed to be done in the first place, and a state-interest in the building perhaps could help. I think the EBS should have replica facades built too, not least over the woeful granite and glass wing, with the Lafayette building maintained – moving it to another location is an interesting possibility but it could work quite well reflecting the tall and narrow Beshoffs across the road. With the exception of these two buildings this entire stretch could be unified, and re-emerge as the city’s second street, with a very limited amount of ‘scenery building’ as it were.

Essentially all the ingredients are already there – just concealed under a layer of lime mortar and magnolia paint.
This street could literally redefine the city centre; it has always been Dublin’s problem that all of its Georgian heritage lies outside the trodden routes and commercial core, resulting in some areas of the centre being mediocre and bland.
To return Westmoreland as much as is practicable to its Georgian state would inject that grand feeling and clear definition of space that the centre needs – contributing to the axis from College Green, the street itself, the views from O’ Cll Bridge and the quays, and of course O’ Cll St.
Of course it would require a lot of effort, influence, arm-twisting (wrenching more like it) and money, and perhaps the idea is overly simplistic, but it would contribute so much to the city and would be worth more than the effort injected into 100 of the likes of Grattan Bridge combined.

I think the EBS should have replica facades built too…

I think to do this would be architecturally dishonest. Sure they may look crap; but these buildings are a reflection (no pun intended) of the zeitgeist. I thought contemporary attitudes on conservation had moved on from this way of treating modern infill projects. This issue of replica façadism can easily become shrouded in subjectivity i.e. which facade do you replace it with; a copy of one of its neighbours, the previous building that stood on the site, or the one before if that was of architectural significance etc.

Why make them appear like something they’re not? Dublin City planners ruined many a streetscape in the city centre by forcing pastiche facades on any new-build.
It’s a shame the originals were demolished- but this is in the past, and our energies could be better deployed, rather than trying to recreate a streetscape that has long since passed.
Instead of focusing on one or two streets in the city centre (as prominent as they are), we should try to concentrate more on the quality of design of the hundreds of additional streets being constructed every year i.e. in suburban housing estates full of monotonous repetitive housing units, which is where most of us now live and spent most of our time.

I think this website gets hooked on the P word – pastiche.

Also, why do buildings have to be architecturally honest? I think its much more important they be a joy to look at and create an attractive streetscape.

As I mentioned on a previous discussion – I was in Warsaw last month. Not a single building in the ‘Old’ town is ‘architecturally honest’ it that’s a way of describing the fact that they are between 20 and 45 years old. (They only fiished rebuilding the ‘Old’ town in 1984).

These are replicas – what would be described here as pastiche. The Old Town is the busiest and most attractive part of Warsaw. I’ve been to many towns in Germany with similar architectural lies – including Hildesheim just south of Hannover which decided to tear down all of its post-war architectural to rebuild the pre-1945 city. They work well! If the residents of Hildesheim wanted to keep the building of the zeitgeist, the architectural styles of the 1950’s and 1960’s, they’d have a pretty abysmal city.

Bare in mind though – and this is KEY – these are excellent replicas. Not the crap that colours the word replica in Dubin terms. Builders here have proved incapable of building a good replica. If an Irish builder were to rebuild the Dublin Bread Company building, it would no doubt look crap – just the same as the majority of all other new buildings in the city look crap – sad but true.

Some styles are better than others – some don’t deserve to remain whilst others never deserved to disappear – what some cities have done is to recognise this and resurrect those designs that should continue to exist.

The building on the corner of Abbey St. and Capel St. is brand new – a brand new monstrosity. I’d immediately opt for demolition and rebuilding what was there before i.e. buildings that fitted in well with Capel St., setting these back from the road to accommodate the Luas. Of course though, by doing that you’d really appreciate how crap is the ability of builders here to produce a replica because you’d be able to compare and contract replica with original. It would be an interesting exercise. [Id opt for this experiment over looking at Archer’s Garage as I reckon it was easier to redo Archers and make it look as good or better than the original which was in some state).

Well, the majority of people don’t seem to have this problem – and I’m in that majority. I have no problem seeing the recontruction of good designs. You obviously then have a problem with the reconstruction of Archer’s Garage – fair enough if you do, but again, I think the majority of people would think it good that this design again graces Dublin, even if it is a replica (so what? is what I can’t help in saying) – as long as its a well contructed replica with appropriate materials.

I think both replica reconstructions and new innovative buildings both have their place. Again I use a European example but Berlin has both – and is all the better for it. All of Seoul’s ‘historic buildings’ are in fact a little more than a few years old – some finishes as late as the mid-1990’s. I think Seoul would be much the poorer without what were innovative, uniquely Korean designs and so not only should they have been rebuilt, they had to be rebuilt.

But key is good quality contruction and materials – for both new designs and replicas. This is rarely the case in terms of the vast majority of buildings built in Ireland – certainly over the last 40 years or so.

ye oldy LUAS in the picture as well.

I don’t think you can even call Archer’s Garage a replica because it is built to the existing plans – it’s no different to how it was built back in the 40s or whenever and is an original in its own right.
As said previously, it looks a hell of a lot better now than it did pre-demolition.
Some replica buildings in Dublin have worked extremely well. What about the two pink Georgians on St Stephen’s Green – the skills are there to do the rebuilding, it all depends on whether the developer is willing to put the investment in.

Two replicas I can think of from a thread on started a while back concerned Dutch Billy houses. It was pointed out to me that the gabled house on Kevin’s St., just around the corner from St. Patrick’s, was a late 19th century attempt at 18th century Dutch Billy houses – a good one, I would say.

I also like the Dutch Billy house on Leeson St. – part of the school there (the Institute of Education, I think). This is apparently quite new – but the brickwork and appearance certainly had me unaware of its newness until it was pointed out to me on this noticeboard.

And I’d certainly call the new Archer’s Garage a replica – a good replica – as it seems to exactly match what was there before – unlike most other attempting at reconstructing. These are good examples of building replicas – but there are very few. That said though, the proportion of good replicas is probably in direct proportion to the actual number of ‘good’ buildings in Dublin in general.

I can appreciate your comments about the German Pavilion and the idea its a replica rather than the original.

But in 200 years time it will be the original. People won’t haggle over a few decades between it and the ‘more’ original. If something like the Dublin Bread Company building were to be rebuilt too (not that it would) but I think people would be of the same idea – sure what’s a century between the two of them – providing the second incarnation was a good quality replica.

Whether you prefer a building that is architecturally honest is a matter of taste. The problem I would have with simply sticking a ‘ye olde’ Georgian façade on a building like the EBS is that that’s all it would be. Like the replicas on the corner of Baggot St. and Stephen’s Green; where you look inside and you can see the suspended ceilings. The only part replicated is the facade, but even here they lack the imperfections and distortions due to settlement etc.

I think buildings should be judged on their individual merits; if people in Dublin complained that a building like the EBS made Westmoreland Street feel abysmal, then by all means replace it. But I don’t get why it should be replaced with a building from a particular era of our architectural past. This is too subjective i.e. if you want to build something that looks ‘old’ you could argue that a medieval timber clad building has as much validity as does a Victorian, Georgian etc.

I’m no major fan of the EBS buildings but they ‘fit in’ in to the streetscape on several levels i.e. scale & following building line. Cities are constantly changing, and I like the fact that when walking around Dublin you can observe in the streetscape the impact that each generation had on the place. As has been said already the problem is quality of construction; I’d be doubtful of the chances of a Georgian building being replicated fatefully. It would also run in to building reg. problems, if you’re to replicate the flight of steps to the entrance you’ll have problems with disabled access etc. as well as requirements for elevators etc.
An alternative to replicas is a considered response to the site, context etc such as the office building next to the mansion house by Shay Cleary.

Possibly the most successful building in the city centre out of the boom years – it looks stunning, especially contrasted with the Mansion House.

I advocate building in an older style or replicating in only strictly limited areas where the character of a place is sullied by a modern intrusion. Craig you say that ‘facadism’ can be shrouded in subjective arguements – but of course it is, by definition architecture and planning is a subjective process – building while taking account of the surrounding environment. Were it not subjective and we had a blanket ban as it were on pastiche, we’d currently have a glass and stone wall sticking its nose into the set-piece of Leinster House and the institutions instead of the elegant classical addition made to the northern end of the house as part of the extension.
I remember when this issue was raised before about O’Cll St, in a fit of heated nievity I suggested that replica designs in high-Victorian or Georgian styles be used to replace the RDH, Fingal, the derelict site and Dr Quirkeys – at the time I frankly didn’t know the upper end as well as I thought, and so now in the knowledge of the myriad of architectural styles and materials that prevail and the vast tracts that require development, I genuinely would not advocate building replicas here – there’s no point building falsely where it will make little impact; by saying that, yes I imply that replicas should be used with extreme caution, we value authenticity too much to meddle about with it with abandon.

Of course modern architecture works well next to older structures, of course it does, and a well-designed modern building could relate to the WSC buildings on the EBS site as well as a replica, just in a different way. The point is that it would not contribute to the street as a whole to have one single modern building on it. It takes away the character of the place, it muddles up the nature of the street, just like the Ulster Bank on College Green, that wrecks the historic nature of the setting and the vista of fine Victorians up to the Central Bank, as does Penneys on O’Cll St on that crucial corner site next to the GPO and in the same stretch of the street as its finest and most coherent terraces. These are two classic instances where replicas are entirely fitting and appropriate.

As for the issue of accuracy and attention to detail, really its a non issue – it can be done, plain and simple, faithful replicas are not difficult in expert hands. Steps etc are irrelevant too, not least because they never existed here, indeed I support the idea of uniform, entirely modern shopfronts along the street, contrasting with the upper floors.

In relation to the idea of building ‘old’ for the sake of it, well that would be just ridiculous. I don’t suggest building Georgian buildings on Westmoreland because I like ‘oldness’, but because they would ‘fill in the gaps’, complete what the originals are trying to do i.e. create a cohesive composition, and would complement them. Just as Zoe Devs’ buildings reassemble Mountjoy Square, a few replicas on Westmoreland could recreate what is almost there already.

I too enjoy the layers of contributions made to the city over the past 3 centuries, and enjoy contemporary structures just as much – but I do not like bad planning. And to indicate that I’m not totally biased in favour of ‘the olden days’ I think large areas of Nassau St are ripe for redevelopment in the modern idiom, such is the bumbling haphazard nature of the place and the extent of the poor modern buildings on it; likewise vast tracts of the older quays to the west badly need some decent modern work.

Speaking of Nassau St. is there any news on the possible development of the strip of land between the Trinity cricket pitch and and the street?

‘facadism’ can be shrouded in subjective arguements – but of course it is

Graham, I’m glad you agree. My point here is that because architecture is such a subjective issue how would such a proposal possibly be carried through. For instance would the property owner have any say in it? Would they have to fund it, if not should a CPO be placed on the property? Most conservation architects who I’ve talked to are totallly against such mock facades that you propose. This would be in contravention to several of the principles set out in the Venice Charter (on the conservation and restoration of monuments & sites). I’d be interested to know how a proposal like this could work, is it only the facade that would be ‘replicated’ or should the interiors be reproduced as well.
Who would decide on its appearance and who would get the final say on how it should look?

A step towards improving the look of Westmoreland St. & O’Connell St. would be to solve the problem of rubbish bags being left out by businesses around there. Also to sort out the clutter of signs, street furniture & trees especially outside of Spar on the corner of Westmoreland street would help.

I’m not well versed in the minutiae of the Venice Charter – perhaps Craig you could highlight some of the areas relevant to here such as restoring a streetscape, although it seems from what you say that is limited to ntl monuments which would be a different ball game.

But personally I really wouldn’t have a problem about reconstructing between 5 and 7 simple red-bricked properties out of a streetscape of at least three times that number and where they have complete historical relevance – essentially they used to exist but were wrongly demolished to the detriment of the street.
That’s not to say that if Westmoreland was entirely modern today that I’d advocate recreating its Georgian heyday, I wouldn’t – there is a limit, a limit which has not even remotely been breached as it stands.
Any case for a replica must be vigourously made and I think any possible case to be made for them exists on Westmoreland St:

. A very small amount would be built.
. They would have complete historical relevance to the sites.
. They would rectify the severe problem of the existing Georgians being diminished architecturally by existing in isolation.
. Along with the restoration of existing buildings, they would bring the Georgian heritage of the city back to its centre, helping to reinforce the identity of the city.
. Most imortantly and simply, they would unify that whole stretch of the street making it look fantastic.

Of course interiors would not be rebuilt, the issue is the exterior streetscape. The matter raised before of a building’s interior reflecting the exterior I think is irrelevant – one expects to find a glittering Regency style interior to the GPO, but doesn’t get it; likewise with every other shop in the city in older buildings, we just don’t expect mahogany counters, tiled floors and decorative ceilings. One need only look at the success of the replicas on Harcourt St, despite some being of poor quality and the fact that the originals should never have been demolished, I don’t think anyone can make the case for modern structures here.

On the issue of who would decide the design of the buildings, well very simply there would be no point in even contemplating such a plan were it not decided by the CC that only WSC facades be built.
An expert advisory group could be established by the CC to advise on designs, materials to be used etc, and expert contractors could be recommended to owners – and possibly funds such as a percentage of the cost be provided as incentives, which would be a comparitively small amount.

Obviously I don’t know the ins and outs of such processes but I’m sure similar collaborative effeorts such as this are carried out every day around the city and country involving municipal authorities and private individuals, and larger scale projects involving streetscapes I’m sure are carried out with ease all over Europe.

Notjim it would be great if you could post any images of (or links to) the Nassau St. scheme

Graham you say that ‘it seems from what you say that is limited to ntl monuments which would be a different ball game’.

The Charter defines the term ‘monument’ as being equally applicable ‘not only to great works’ from the past ‘but also to more modest works of the past which have acquired cultural significance with the passing of time’. While originally the term was applicable to monuments it has since been extended to cover the built heritage. The aims of the Charter were effectively incorporated into Irish Law with the signing of the National Monuments Acts 1930-1994, followed by Local Government Planning Acts 1963-2000.

– In the preamble to the Venice Charter it is stated that ‘It is our duty to hand them on in the full richness of their authenticity’. i.e. they must be genuine.
– Article 3 states that ‘The intention in conserving and restoring monuments is to safeguard them no less as works of art than as historical evidence.’ Wouldn’t this be falsified evidence?
– Article 9 states that conservation work is ‘based on respect for original material’.
– Article 11 states that ‘The valid contributions of all periods to the building of a monument must be respected, since unity of style is not the aim of a restoration.’
– Article 12 ‘Replacements of missing parts must integrate harmoniously with the whole, but at the same time must be distinguishable from the original so that restoration does not falsify the artistic or historic evidence.’
– Article 15 states ‘All reconstruction work should however be ruled out “a priori.” Only anastylosis, that is to say, the reassembling of existing but dismembered parts can be permitted. The material used for integration should always be recognizable and its use should be the least that will ensure the conservation of a monument and the reinstatement of its form.’

Graham you wrote that ‘essentially they used to exist but were wrongly demolished’ I think a statement like this is quite moralistic and an over-simplification of what happened. You may be of the opinion that what was done was wrong, but it is not a matter of fact. I’ve previously said that people who I’ve talked to about this issue, such as conservationists and conservation architects were against building mock facades like this. Are they wrong? I don’t think what you’re proposing is wrong I simply disagree with you on this.

‘Of course interiors would not be rebuilt, the issue is the exterior streetscape’.
I don’t advocate either, but if you’re going to rebuild the facade why not extend the logic of this idea to recreating the interiors as well? As you know Georgian redbricks were quite modest on the exterior but were they shone was through interior detail.
I think it is a much wider issue than the exterior landscape, however if this is your primary concern surely pedestrianisation of Westmoreland Street would be much more beneficial than simply recladding modern buildings from the first floor up.

Would you propose that the owners of the Weston Hotel be ordered to remove the additional levels that were built which significantly increased the massing of the building(s) also (especially when seen from Pearse Street)?

I have much admiration for the work carried out by the Wide Streets Commission, and the grand ideas incorporated in their work. Sure it would be nice if the streets laid out according to their designs were still intact. I think Westmoreland Street would look better if the original Georgians which stood on the site of the EBS building had not been demolished. But it happened so lets move on.
There’s more important issues out there- such as the proposed demolition of the terrace on York Street, or the fact that Dublin covers 4 times the area of cities in Europe with equivalent populations- due to suburban sprawl, and continues to roll out over neighboring counties with banal ‘meritless’ semi-d’s.

The stretch from Fleet St isn’t a mix of styles – this is partially my point, that the quick-fix render over most of the buildings make them look decidedly mediocre, and give the impression of the street being a complete mess. And naturally if replicas were as bad as the yokes thrown up already, they would be no point whatsoever in doing it.

Craig, ok – of course I agree that other works are important, indeed I might as well throw in the dire need for social housing and hospital beds – you know, it’s kinda not the issue here.
Of course other aspects of Westmoreland St are important, believe me I could rant on about the quality of the paving and its width, the street furniture, the trees that obscure the Venetian building Phil mentions and the sandstone Dutch Billy, the lack of formal trees on the street, the lack of definition of space, the fact the street doesn’t act as a launch-pad for O’ Cll St, the amount of surface area devoted to traffic, the public lighting, the crossing at the bridge, the crappy Ballast Office, flippin Spar and all the rubbish till the cows come home – I’m just trying to raise an issue that will never be debated and find out what people think of the idea of replica infill on the street and the subject in general.

Yes I would like to see the top lopped off the Westin – its woeful, but it’s not going to happen, the CC have no influence, let alone any power over such an issue, and wouldn’t even waste their breath on essentially asking a property owner to discard with 20% or whatever of their floor area, not least after all the messing around in the first place.
The owners and traders on the street however, most of whom presumably are members of the CCBA, would more than likely welcome any improvement to the street that would not adversely affect them.

With regard to the Venice Charter (and thanks for the info) I get the impression from the parts quoted that it’s still largely referring to ntl monuments – Newgrange being a classic example of Article 15, where in the 60s, the central section including the roofbox was reconstructed in limestone or slate as opposed to the white stone, as no evidence existed as to what it originally looked like and so the new stone is “recognisable and its use…ensure the conservation of [the] monument and the reinstatement of its form”

I don’t think it’s as simple to say what happened, happened, and lets just move on.
There is potential there that should be exploited.

Go for it

Was it just me or did people have problems accessing the site earlier?

Graham it seems like anything that hurts your argument you term irrelevant or not the issue.
Earlier in the thread in discussing your proposal, it was with regard to the length of Westmoreland Street, however once phil pointed out that he couldn’t see how ‘the whole street such as this could be unified as you are advocating. It is a complete mix of styles from different periods’ , the relevant area of the street is reduced to being only from the junction with Fleet Street to the Quays.

You say that the mentioning of the demolition of the York St. terrace and the present development of Dublin are not the issue. We have a government at present who don’t mind bulldozing through castles. I think in this vein the issues of conservation (at York St.) and national strategic planning are all relevant, as they paint the broader picture for the context in which such a proposal would be considered. Issues like this never exist in isolation.

‘With regard to the Venice Charter (and thanks for the info) I get the impression from the parts quoted that it’s still largely referring to ntl monuments’
The Venice Charter refers to the entire built heritage of historical & architectural significance. If you’re still skeptical as to its pertinence, and its subsequent impact on national legislation on the built environment in this country you could check out the ICOMOS website or contact NMAPD at Duchas.

‘There is no need to extend the replica logic to inside’
Well isn’t that only because it hurts your argument?

‘sure were that the case every shop in the city would be a repro!’
How? Why? Plenty of shops, offices etc. in the Dublin operate within listed interiors. In my view recreating the interiors is as logical as recreating the exteriors i.e. neither should be done.

‘About the interiors – it’s not a wider issue than the exterior streetscape; it’s about just that – the exteriors!’
In other words your argument is solely on the exteriors. I think this narrow focus of façadism is one of the biggest hindrances to your proposal. When dealing with historical buildings the issue is never simply ‘just … the exteriors!’

‘There is potential there that should be exploited.’
I can’t see it happening though, due to a lack of will, desire and legislation besides the issue of practicality. In my view for something like this to succeed as a general strategy there would need to be wide held support from the public as well as professional organisations.

I totally agree that this is something that needs to be discussed. I’d be interested to know where do groups such as the Dublin Civic Trust, The Irish Georgian Society and An Taisce stand on this? What’s the general feeling out there about this?

On the last point I certainly agree – indeed I get the impression here that some people are sitting in the shadows here not willing to comment either way – some more opinions would be welcome!

Sorry, but I never said this proposal related to the whole of the street – indeed from the outset I stated it involved the longer stretch from the Fleet St/Fenian St axis to the river; the College St end has an wonderful atmosphere distinguished by the collection of Victorians there (Westin aside), which (when not obscured by leaves) is very grand when combined with the area around the House of Lords entrance.
Partially the thinking behind this proposal is to contrast this ostentation with the order of the remaining WSC terrace, compounded with some replica infill.

One of the other primary reasons is to restore the magnificent apex formation of D’Olier St and Westmoreland, which would be achieved by recladding the Blood Bank building on both sides. I know someone’s going to say well why not knock the ICS building and reinstate the simple WSC join too – no, if there was any failing on the WSC’s part it was the lack of a central landmark building – although the Bank of Ireland immediately put forward plans for such a structure before buying College Green. The ICS is perfect for the site.

Again about the interiors – no not because it hurts the arguement do I dismiss the issue but because as I said, the arguement is for the reinstatement of the streetscape, the massing of individual properties into a unified terrace, i.e there is a point, a purpose to doing so; there is no such reason for rebuilding the interiors.
And on a practical level, if such a requirement were made, the proposal would never get off the ground – yes many shops have listed interiors, but the vast vast majority do not.

Just reading the IAP – a very interesting hiding behind the parapet state of affairs prevails in the tiny section relating to D’Olier St. It states that the Irish Times have done a lovely job etc – and that “this refurbishment needs to be extended northwards to extend to the ICS building”. This can only mean one thing – replica facades to be built over the Blood Bank building; it is not in a poor state of repair, and ‘quality’ materials are used in its construction – hence refurbishment can only refer to replica facades and the completion of the original streetscape – it is specifically stated the refurbishment needs to extend right up to the ICS. Can the CC not bring themselves to say the nasty r-word either, re re re re – no it’s no use – refurbishment, yes, that’ll do.

And just a correction from earlier – I said there was only one WSC left in its original condition, I think there’s actually two, with a third one having some minor window dressing, and the Ballast Office as part of its plot has a dubious replica tacked on the side – which could do with some window tweaking.

Whoops – was just thinking, the ICS own the Blood Bank Building don’t they, the premises extend out into the Gothic original, so that’s what the IAP’s probably referring to.
But even then (to clutch at straws), instead of saying the refurbishment needs to be extended northwards to the ICS, it says “this refurbishment needs to be extended northwards to extend to the ICS, i.e. presumably to include it.
Just remembered from when I was in the older part before – there’s some fantastic views of O’ Cll St and Bridge from here, lovely interiors too with original fireplaces (the chimneys outside mustn’t be just ornamental then). I think there’s a couple of apartments on the top floors which must have the most dramatic views of the quays and river.

Originally posted by Craig Davis
I totally agree that this is something that needs to be discussed. I’d be interested to know where do groups such as the Dublin Civic Trust, The Irish Georgian Society and An Taisce stand on this? What’s the general feeling out there about this?

This discussion has been one to sit out a little, well done lads

Everything is site specific but I think classification into type of Street allows a little more space to generalise.

I think that the biggest problem with pastiche is that it has generally been of a very poor standard with traditional details such as Granite cills being replaced with concrete etc.

In important streetscapes such as Westmoreland ST I can accept well executed reproduction vs the influenced by general period copies that plague all cities. I also like buildings that are made from salvaged materials. There are many materials floating around particularly in the North of England. The major problem is the type of pastiche that is actually built.

In Secondary locations such as Thomas St or other town centres I believe that the US National Trust’s ‘Main Street Rejuvination programme’ is a shining example of how to get it right. In the programme a potentially fine but currently tatty building is selected for complete renovation, regardless of the specific economic viability. Research indicates that $40 of private sector investment follows each dollar in these ‘lead investments’

The American model is interesting because most of these downtown streets are not architecturally perfect streetscapes, but more often a fusion of Victorian, Deco and early modern. As stated in the Grafton St thread they look essentially old without adhering to any particular style.

I think that Victorian architecture is in many ways the odd man out, in that all the fussy detailing can often react poorly with the more symetrical Georgian and Deco buildings.

The key is to look at each proposal individually and ensure that building lines are maintained and that the materials can work with their neighbours. A good example of this is the building at the corner of Fosters Place and College Green.

Whoever allowed the EBS HQ on Westmoreland St should be hung drawn and quartered.

There are/were plans to reskin the EBS building (who are moving out) and install a large retail element there. The facade apeared to be made of multi-coloured stone and glass whilst retaining the old paradiso restaurant section (the portland stone bit between the two boxes). I only saw a hand drawing of this on a brochure for about 20 seconds so alas I know no more about it.

can you tell me please which book it is that has the photo of the Dublin Bread Company?