National Photographic Archive

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.

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.

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.

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”

If it applies to more modest buildings, then surely with regard to Leinster House – which if anything is way up there in the hierarchy of things – the OPW, on behalf of the Irish Government, is in direct contravention of the Venice Charter, as not only did their extension involve the demolition of a 19th century structure to the front of the House, not only did it involve constructing an exact replica of Castle’s Tuscan colonnade in its place, not only did it involve the building of a new-build interpreted classical blind screen wall above it, but no attempt was even made to highlight the fact that it’s not original! It’s false! It’s a mock-up! And rightly so!

Say some Bobby Molloy botch job of a single house-width office block existed slap-bang in the middle of the Georgian Mile, would it be in contravention of the Charter to rebuild a single Georgian facade over it without explicit indication of its falsehood, in a Georgian creation of 3,500 feet in length?!
And the mind boggles at the thought of the amount of historic structures all over Europe, from gate piers to royal palaces, which have had similar sympathetic alterations, and on much larger scales.

I think Georgians, more so than any other buildings require the architectural support of their neighbours, Georgian neighbours, and a limited number of replicas would contribute to the street in a manner that would allow the originals to be appreciated much better and be seen in an appropriate context, not to mention their original context, not least for the benefit of the opposite terrace – all of which are originals.
About the interiors – it’s not a wider issue than the exterior streetscape; it’s about just that – the exteriors! There is no need to extend the replica logic to inside – sure were that the case every shop in the city would be a repro!

You’re right to point out my use of ‘wrong’, but yes it is my opinion that the WSC buildings were very wrongly demolished – indeed the first phase of the EBS was entirely in violation of what was proposed, the reconstruction of an Edwardian, or late Victorian structure (a proposal in itself which shouldn’t have been allowed).
Similarly the Blood Bank building happened the same way – at a time when there was no vision for the street as an entity, something that I think still prevails today outside of the groundworks proposed by the IAP.

But to show that the CC are aware to an extent of the issue of render and paint covering the upper floors – in the IAP it is specified that work needs to be done to restore the remaining rendered buildings on D’ Olier St to their former glory, in a manner similar to the Irish Times – and the Times job included the removal of paint or render from the whole façade of at least one of their properties, as well as paint from the window surrounds from many other of its windows.
And I’m sure that if a Brutalist lump existed in the middle of the Times terrace, the IAP would specify a faithful reproduction be built in its place, and expert guidance and incentives would be offered by the CC. And no doubt the Irish Times would be delighted at such a worthy idea and highlight the matter with great voluminosity in its pages via Himself.

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

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.

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.