National Photographic Archive
- This topic has 41 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 20 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
For anyone interested in looking at pictures of the historical landscape of Dublin, there is presently an exhibition called ‘Fadographs of a Yestern Scene’ in the National Photographic Archive on Meeting House Square in Temple Bar. Most of the photos are from the later half of the 19th C. and early 20th C. There are some great ones of the East side of O’Connell Street prior to its destruction and subsequent reconstruction.
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.
When I was looking at those photos, I noticed a building on the east side of O’Connell Street (quite close to the bridge) which is one of the strangest buildings I have ever seen. Was that the one you are referring to?
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.
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.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.Graham, you always seem to really know your stuff with regards the history of Dublin’s urban landscape. For this reason it really suprises me how much in favour of pastiche you are. Surely you would prefer to appreciate the development of the city by appreciating the various styles that have appeared throughout its history?
Thanks
Phil
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).
Zap, Not being smart or anything, but I use the ‘P’ word, because quite simply that is what it is. I think it is as true for good replicas as it is for bad ones. I find I have a severe mental conflict over the fact that the German Pavillion in Barcalona is a replica of the original. The word pastiche indicates for me that the past is in someway being recreated in a visual sense.
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.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
