New building beside City Hall

They belong to the OPW, afaik. Originally displayed at Earlsfort Terrace in the 1860s, I’ve heard they are to be transferred to Iveagh Gardens (bounded by Earlsfort terrace, Hatch Street, Harcourt Street and St Stephen’s Gree South).

Something is needed to cover up the hideously exposed gable wall facing onto Dame Street, but I think the new ‘square’ in front of the proposed building looks truncated and sterile. I know the current wee garden and statues were a 1988 Millennium cheapo cover-up, but I like them.

There is also a strange and ugly crane-like structure sticking out of the roof of the new building in the drawings.

Site for sore eyes
The designers of a square in Dublin hope to learn from past mistakes in attempting to create something memorable, says Shane O’Toole

All architects have disappointments. Even the greatest are afflicted — perhaps they more than others. When they are younger, the pain is for the most part private, kept well concealed from view. It doesn’t pay to be a sore loser.
Architects know all about losing. Most important projects are awarded by competition and everybody loses more than they win. Even when you win a competition, you can still lose the project, for any number of reasons. Only architects in the evening of their professional lives can tell it like it really is.

Only they have the necessary distance and perspective to transform personal losses into lessons for us all. Lost Architectures, an exhibition by Barcelona’s MBM Arquitectes at the RIAI’s architecture centre in Dublin, offers a revealing glimpse of the battlefield that is international architectural practice.

Founded in 1951, MBM’s pioneering work in transforming Barcelona’s public spaces during the 1980s earned a worldwide reputation for Josep Martorell, Oriol Bohigas and David Mackay. Here they show 32 of their stillborn projects — “the ones that got lost along the way,” as Mackay puts it.

The exhibition dates from 2000, when Bologna was European city of culture. It was first shown in Bologna’s facsimile reconstruction of Le Corbusier’s seminal temporary Pavillon de L’Esprit Nouveau, built for the exhibition of decorative arts in Paris in 1925.

The venue shaped the exhibition’s content. “It was by his courage more than the magic of his pencil that we wished to remember the author of the pavilion,” says Mackay. “When he received the Royal Gold Medal for Architecture in London in 1953, Le Corbusier spoke of his failures.

“Now, after 50 years of architecture, we are guilty of the crime of being on the scene too long. This has given us, too, the opportunity to accumulate many failures.”

The failures — beginning in Barcelona in 1952 and continuing over the decades through Germany, France, Italy, Great Britain, Holland and Qatar — offer a rare opportunity to reflect on the reasons, the trends, and the architectural culture of the time.

Although there are positive failures among the exhibits, such as the Rosa Regás house in Girona, which became the inspired model for numerous house designs by MBM, right up to the present day, the lasting impression is of architecture’s unsustainable wasteland of creative output.

Bohigas puts it bluntly: “These failures were influenced by the senselessness of the competitions, a lack of understanding by the politicians, a lack of trust on the part of the clients, insufficient financing and, without doubt, also some mistakes on our part — at times too far removed from reality and not clever enough to hide the fact.”

Reality changes. MBM are now working in Dublin, a city that was derelict as recently as the 1980s. Many of the most forlorn sites of the time were owned by Dublin Corporation, having been acquired and cleared for road widening. In a society with little ambition and a poor grasp on communal values, the city’s traditional urban qualities — its complexities of scale and continuity — were being systematically eroded.

In the absence of a city architect, the parks department was often called in to ameliorate the worst of the damage done by the roads and traffic department. That’s how the millennium garden on Dame Street, beside City Hall, came about in 1988. During the 1970s city road engineers planned to widen Dame Street, and this had set in motion a sequence of events that resulted in the demolition of all the buildings in the block between Exchange Court and Palace Street, apart from the former Sick and Indigent Roomkeepers’ Society building.

The garden was the city’s weak and fussy attempt at disguising the dereliction it had brought about. With its three raised, decorative discs, two of them grassy and the other a reflecting pool for monumental sculpture, it is a pleasant enough setting for summer sandwich eaters. But it has none of the intimacy one finds in New York’s pocket parks, for example.

It is neither public enough nor sufficiently private.

These misgivings were uppermost in the mind of Jim Barrett, Dublin city architect, while the restoration of City Hall was underway during 2000. The new city exhibition space, which would create a public entrance on the building’s gable, shouldn’t be accessed off a laneway. Besides, work needed to be carried out on the exposed gable of the Sick and Indigent Roomkeepers’ Society.

“I thought we could mask the gable and provide a proper forecourt to City Hall,” says Barrett. “A small building with a public exhibition space beneath the square, possibly related thematically to Dublin Castle, could pay for itself and fund the paving.”

Although Barrett is formally the project’s architect, he entered into a design partnership with MBM because he “admired the quality of the many smaller public spaces they had created.”

The conceptual input to the project is largely MBM’s, but the implementation will be by Barrett’s in-house team.

Mackay describes the site as “very delicate and sensitive, on the threshold of the old city. We have proposed a very small project, but one with big architecture. Our basic idea is to create an incident in the square to try to match the giant, almost two-storey scale of the City Hall and AIB bank on either side of the space.”

They should achieve their aim through careful siting, a certain sleight of hand — employing a double facade to Dame Street — and the sculptural bravura of their silver mosaic roof, with its homage to Le Corbusier.

The underground museum was abandoned as archaeological explorations revealed that both a tributary of the Poddle and part of the ditch that lay outside the city wall traversed the site. Only a fragment of the idea remains, a small underground chamber with a glazed roof, inspired in part by a similar space in Berlin that marks the spot where the Nazis organised the infamous burning of books.

Mackay and Bohigas believe that Dublin underplays the cultural aspects of its heritage, especially its writers. Referring to James Joyce’s Ulysses, they wonder why the city has no space named for June 16. With the centenary of Bloomsday falling next year — just as this project is due for completion — it is a suggestion the city council would do well to consider.

The square will be paved in three widths of granite, inset with stainless steel strips. “We wanted it to be like a doormat before the city entrance,” says Mackay, “running across Dame Street, doubling the space of the square.” Like a blast from the past, however, the engineers said it couldn’t be done without reducing the size of the paving slabs to prevent breakages.

That would destroy the unity of the concept. In an ideal world, the crude apartments, built between the square and Dublin Castle as recently as 1994, would be levelled to open up a view of the castle from Dame Street.

Mackay is stoic about setbacks. “Following the example of Le Corbusier’s tenacity,” he says, “We expect to accumulate more failures, but hope for some successes.”

Dame Street, it seems, will offer them a bit of both.

Lost Architectures at the RIAI Architecture Centre, Dublin, until February 28 (01 6761703)

Link here from IT November 2001 on the proposed building

http://www.ireland.com/property/top/2001/1129/top2.htm

I like that little square.

It’s often my morning waiting space while I’m waiting for the AIB branch to open. It’s very peaceful, it draws people in to the City Hall museum in the basement, and into the Castle. I think it’s a nice space.

Yeh, what’s wrong with the little square as it is?

I like that spot too, except I don’t think of it as a square. I glance over weekly on my hop over to the bank. Just get the trash out and it’s an unexpected break along Dame. Wonder if it has any greenery around it later in the year?

…and so this thread reminds me to go and take my tourist shot of the little place as a keepsake…

That picture doesn’t really tell you very much does it…. But I think the idea of building on the park is a good one. The park is nice but the derelict gables surrounding it are a shame.

God only knows what they were thinking when they planned to widen Dame Street!

Very true ……and dual carriageways were ignorantly the order of the day for the city centre one time destroying many streets with their medieval formats so as to pave the way for the car. Parnell Street is only recovering now with the street being somewhat reinstated and repaired.
What were they thinking then?

Ah the legendary Inner Tangent route, Designed to run around from Cuffe Street on Stephen’s Green to Parnell street Via Patricks street, North King Street etc etc buggering up everything along the way, don’t know what they were planning for Dame Street, usually they knocked buildings just to widen the street by four feet or something similar

Parnell St and Summerhill – What a mess they made there. The same goes for Cork Street…it looks like crap!

I notice work has begun on clearing the small park beside City Hall. Hoarding has also been erected. The DCC are planning a new office here. Anyone have any idea what it will look like?

So much for DCC and Jim Barret’s mantra of “enhancement of the public realm” this little park is the only public space along dame street and has over the years become a little oasis on the street – Dublin has to rank at the top of the World league for building to the edge and to the last mm and to hell with the public/tourists – just herd them along the narrow footpaths up into the funnell of Grafton St.

Totally disagree. It’s full of drunks, very dark, and was always heavily littered.
Admittedly, the litter is the fault of the City Council.
I saw models of this two years ago and it proposes a nice little public square and was a very good looking development.
I think this a positive step. I actually believe crappy parks are worse than no parks at all.

At last there’s movement on this….

As long as a park is retained is what counts. The fact that an open space here (as opposed to a building on the site) opens up the view of the pleasant side facade of City Hall is an added bonus.
Any pics of the proposed building – saw it before but can’t remember much. Lots of wood cladding used?

From The Irish Times, November 29, 2001

Sorry, but that looks awful 🙁 I prefer the little garden.

What’s the roundy yoke on top there? From that pic it looks like it’ll have a kind of temporary appearance to it, stranded on its own in the middle and not even approaching the pavement.

Seeing that image you do have to ask the question – what’s the point? It’s not as if it reinstates the streetline or restores any type of cohesiveness to the area. The gable-end of the Roomkeepers could easily be improved if necessary.

So you loose much of a garden that could be made extra-specially good if the will was there, and further detach the Castle entrance from the city, placing it at the end of a tunnel.
What do we get in return?

Well the “concept” of the new building is explained in the Shane O’Toole article posted by Paul above. It will supposedly create an “incident” (where do they get these words?) in the square, linking City Hall and the AIB bank on either side.

The park was never one that would have tempted me to linger for a moment, no matter how jaded I was. It was just a stop off place for the aimless drunks in the area. From the many artists impressions I’ve seen, I think the building is a good design and will work well.

But what about the Olympia canopy, is that gone for good?, if so that’s a far greater loss to the street than a shoddy park.

On a similar topic, I’d also like to see a building erected on the vacant area beside the Castle Inn pub on Christchurch. I know that they have spruced up the area considerable in the past year, but It’s little more than a bike parking space and a building of quality design could do a lot for Christchurch, even compensating in some way for the Jury’s yellow pack hotel.

It is difficult to see what the new building’s impact will be as the trees there at the moment kind of hide the space in question.
I like the main elevation but overall it doesn’t look very solid or permanent. I just hope that this ‘incident’ structure won’t be of the gimmicky variety – to use that unfortunate term again 🙂

@Graham Hickey wrote:

Seeing that image you do have to ask the question – what’s the point? It’s not as if it reinstates the streetline.

The Nov ’01 Irish Times article (by Robert O’Byrne) explains about the aborted road-widening scheme & quick-fix job for the ’88 Millenium and then says:

….Finally, in the coming year the local authority plans to address this problematic space in a more satisfactory fashion. The most obvious solution would be to restore the former building line along both Dame and Palace Streets but the city architect Jim Barrett insists that this should not occur because it would obscure the eastern elevation of the recently restored City Hall and, facing it across the western side of Palace Street, the side of the neo-Romanesque AIB bank running towards the gates of Dublin Castle.

In any case, such a discussion has to remain academic because it transpires that when turned into a park in 1988, the site was legally designated as a public space, meaning that the corporation cannot now cover it with new structures….

I agree broadly here, but I don’t go along 100%, because City Hall is a 2-sided building – there is still a slight uneasiness about having that (comparitively) bald east elevation so exposed. But I agree totally about the AIB – it definitely fits the bill as a piece of prominent corner architecture, even though it wasn’t to begin with.

The terrace of buildings that were there before on the park site were on the same alignment as the façade of City Hall so that, by the time they reached Palace Street, they were jutting very far out into the street. I’ve seen an old picture looking west along Dame Street from near where the Central Bank is now, and the building on the corner appeared to sit in the middle of the street!

This terrace had all the characteristics of the Wide Streets Commissioners (brick 4-storey over shop), but if it was by them, what they did here was an oxymoron, keeping a very narrow street width and making Dame Street uneven.

@Graham Hickey wrote:

It is difficult to see what the new building’s impact will be…..I like the main elevation but overall it doesn’t look very solid or permanent.

The building is difficult to judge, true, because that montage is a bit primitive and not very well executed (not that good montages are always reliable!) – the building is bright, but the rest of Dame Street seems dark and forbidding and full of traffic. My own feeling is it seems ok in form….but you can’t get an idea of the materials & texture. There is maybe too much going on with the gantries ‘n’ things…but it could be just the dodgy montage…

I suppose the half dome on top is supposed to pick up on the City Hall dome…hard to know if that will work or look silly ‘til it’s done (afterthought: I think it might be good!).

It’s also difficult to imagine how the plaza itself will work before it’s done…as JackHack was saying the old park never tempted you to linger. Will the public feel uncomfortable & exposed in the new plaza and move on quickly? Or will it be a great success, a focal point on Dame Street? The new building will create a new, smaller enclosure between it and City Hall. Will the corners and back of the space be wino territory only? Or will it be a nice new civic space?

Bear in mind that the image is now a few years old – perhaps the design has evolved?

Yeah, given that work has just begun on the site & public interest will be restimulated, the council should have some images put in the media etc. showing the scheme, with changes if any.

I agree, all these ”holes ” around the city need plugging, to create cohesiveness and unitformity within streetscapes.
The park beside City Hall should definitely go, after all it was only a temporary and cheap development to mask the eyesore that was a derelict site. One of the many that riddled the city. The new development looks real ”Temple Bar-ish”. Look at the crane projecting out of the roof., and as for the knob? Hard to make an opinion of it however from the images. It may be quite striking, stylish and contemporary within the street when built. Just hope that it won’t look dated and too incongruous in 20 years time.

That’s what I’d be wary about too – that it’ll look like something of a folly or novelty building that’ll look dated too quickly.

I think one of the problems of the current park is that most of it is raised up – no one likes to have to clamber up onto a platform and be on display for everyone passing by. If the park was on the same level of the street it would become instantly more accessible and appealing.

I agree with with Jim Barrett about the street line, but in that piece he still doesn’t explain why a building is needed at all.
It’s a pity the Georgians here were demolished – the narrowness of the street would have offered a great contrast to the wider parts further up – narrow pokey streets are something of a postmodern rage now too 🙂

And in colour:

Despite them being gone – I don’t think this park is a hole that needs to be filled, unlike other sites in the city. The two signature buildings of City Hall and AIB flank the space in a manner almost as if intended. Yes the facade of City Hall isn’t anything spectacular but is more than pleasant and apt for enclosing the park in the way it does.
I’m just not sure that a building is needed here at all – a really nice park could serve the hoards of tourists accessing the Castle as well as citizens, and also act as a pleasant entrance to it. Indeed Palace St could perhaps be integrated into it too with paving and planting.

Well I think there is a financial motive for the new building, which will be an office. It will pay for the plaza.

To be honest I think a new building here is the best way of resolving the problem of the butchered gable of the Sick & Indigent house. Any other patch-up would be half-assed and unsatisfactory. Plus it will give a street context back to the house – whereas up to now it’s just been a remnant of a demolished street – without affecting the corner status of the AIB.

One of the planning gains of the new square is that the City Exibition thing in the vaulted basement of City Hall will now have an entrance directly from the square as opposed to being entered from down an alley.

Personally I’d like know what the plans are for the listed granite pavements that run around the perimeter of the park site and down the alley at the side of City Hall….how or if they are going to be integrated into the new scheme. A lot of historic granite paving survived in this area around Dublin Castle – they’re an important part of the Castle setting and worth maintaining.

[align=center:3hh19365]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[/align:3hh19365]

1847 map. The buildings on the park site made a block almost equivalent to City Hall. Note no Lord Edward Street at this time!

Interesting map – you can appreciate from it too how the proposed square for here would have worked. Still would have been a bit of a squeeze though.

What is the proposed use for the ground floor of the new building? Hopefully a public one being in such a civic space. If it has such a public use, combined with the plaza and park it could be quite successful, Just hope it turns out alright – it’ll certainly be a departure from the type of development Dame St has been used to over the years – Central Bank aside which is strikingly similar in nature…

Rather than start a new thread, I’ll throw this in here.
I was wondering does anyone know why scaffolding has been put up on City Hall.
It was up last Thursday when I passed it. Considering its beautiful restoration wasn’t that long ago, it seems a little strange.

Saw that myself. No idea.

Came across an interesting photo, showing the buildings that were demolished on the Millenium Garden site. It’s taken during De Valera’s funeral in 1975. The procession is making a detour to get around them!!

Though one could equally argue that City Hall is also sticking out 🙂

Suppose another possibility for this site could have been to develop a decent public facade for the Castle, terminating the Parliament St vista instead of City Hall being squeezed in in front by the merchants with those houses alongside, which would also result in a wider street and the creation of a decent corner/plaza space at what was effectively the meeting point of the new and old cities.

Isn’t that what the Bedford Square proposal was designed to do?

Largely I suppose; considering the Wide Streets Commission were dead set against City Hall they certainly had some sort of grander scheme in mind.
Never seen the plans for Bedford though, and I don’t know if the WSC supported this plan for the site which presumably was a residential square, or whether it was the Chapel Royal proposal that they wanted executed.

As for the City Hall scaffolding, considering it’s only on one facade at present it’s likely that the windows are just being painted (probably not black enough for the CC considering the recent trend :))
Hopefully they’ll replace any blown bulbs in the portico while they’re at it.

For those that might be interested- took advantage of a visit to upper floors on Dame Street today.

Thanks for that ctesiphon – though the chimneys of City Hall are the biggest revelation for me :). What a great view.

Also the ground floor of City Hall on the side facade there doesn’t appear to be original – a Victorian addition along with the balcony to the front perhaps?

Images of the new building and public plaza have been erected on the site, all in all it looks very good, very sleek and unobtrusive and the plaza will be a lot easier to maintain than the park that went before.

I have one major concern from the rendering and that is that from the rendering it appears that the existing original paving and kerb stones will be removed to make way for the plaza. This would be unacceptable from a heritage point of view given that this location bounds City Hall, the entrance to the lower yard of Dublin Castle and Dean’s magificent 7-9 Dame St that is occupied by AIB.

I hope that this was a cad-room error and not an attempt to breach section 10.3.4 as specifically framed in Policy H22 of the Development Plan 2005-11.

It is the policy of Dublin City Council to preserve, repair and retain in situ historic streetscape and paving features which are of heritage value and which are located in those areas identified in the Development Plan

I hope they keep the placque there to Thomas Barnado who was born in a building that once occupied the site years ago. He’s famous for promoting the cause of childrens welfare and was also an Orangeman.

@GregF wrote:

I hope they keep the placque there to Thomas Barnado who was born in a building that once occupied the site years ago. He’s famous for promoting the cause of childrens welfare and was also an Orangeman.

And according to conspiracy theorists he was also Jack the Ripper

(along with the entire British Royal Family – who are shape shifting lizards appearently)

I saw the rendered image of the proposal. Although the rendering is good, the building itself is nothing to write home about. It looks as if it will only occupy one end of the the site nearby the exposed gable end of the older existing buildings, giving an overall lobsided effect. The remaing area will be paved with the newer pastiche buildings of Dublin Castle to the right visible from Dame Street. Some symmetry would be the order of the day here considering the classical buildings to the left and right. I think this new building will already look dated in about 10 years time.

I’m not so sure it will look dated in 10 years I think it is well designed and the choice of materials used will cut its impacts down significantly at this very sensitive spot. It is as you say quite a pity that the pastiche buildings in the Lower Yard of Dublin Castle won’t be tied in from the Dame St vista and the brick selected really has not aged down at all and given its properties I doubt that it will any time soon.

The priority here really had to be to cover up the exposed gable on Palace St and this building design at least from the rendering appears to have acheived this. I think that the symmetry should be looked at post completion and if it does look lop-sided then there would be a case to look at that protion of the Plaza again. It will be interesting to see if this plaza fares any better than Wolfe Tone Park.

It’s nearly 10 years old anyway. In the architects’ site posted by Andrew at the start of the thread it’s dated 1998 in the list of projects.

looks better than most stuff designed today to be built in 2008

I see progress here. Its seems the first sections are appearing. Any first impressions?

Originally posted by StephenC
Any first impressions?

That bloke is going to be hit by the bus

Aaaah you’re very smart!!!!! :rolleyes:

http://www.hwbc.ie/uploadedfiles/pdf/Palace%20Street%2C%20D2%20-%20April%202006.pdf

September of this year will see completion according to the brochure which is a couple of months old so it should be accurate.

does anyone remember the olympia promising to rebuild the porch after it was knocked by a truck ? nothing cam of it . any council workers here who know anything about it ?

I don’t like it. It’s going to add to Dame street in the same way that schuh or the eircom building add to O’Connell street. This kind of structure would be better suited to an industrial estate. Other than the central bank, Dame Street consists of a variety of large decorative buildings from a number of eras, all of which tried to evoke the past in some way, combined with georgian or victorian era tall terraced houses that fit in unobtrusively with each other. Now we get a white box with a blind gable, a gallows gimmick, the whole thing ressembling a piece of 1960s computer equipment. How is this modern? It’s about as futuristic as Flash Gordon.
When is this era of shite coming to an end?

I think you are being harsh for two reasons

Firstly when you refer to business park architecture I presume you really mean Motorway architecture which often fronts motorways as a loss leader by developers wishing to create an impression that all behind the futuristic lump is of an equal standard an example would be the Indo at Citywest.

Secondly the design was designed mid 1990’s so if it looks a little dated it should have been completed years ago but obviously the under-funding of DCC kicked in.

You’re right, It is more reminiscent of the printing press near City West, which works well in its context.

Aaaaghhh!!!

This is almost complete and there are some serious issues. Firstly its jars against the Sick and Indigent House beside it on Palace Street. Perhaps the join needs to be finished but its awful the smooth shiny granite next to the plaster of the S&I House. The S&I is also in dire need of some TLC. On the other side the new plaza is being installed but it will be a mess by the looks of it. The old street paving (the nice old colourful granite we know and love) is being kept in place and up against it is the now standard Chinese white stuff. No effort madeit seems to marry the two or even create a uniform scheme. It will look crap! Why not just one or the other???

The building itself is quite okay, smaller than I though. The cupola has yet to be tiled. The gantry is in place though.

I think this new building is a hotch potch of styles. It looks ill fitting and will look even moreso as the years go by. The glass front bit looks mad against the windows. The crane arm jutting out is rediculous and serves no purpose, the blank wall facing the plaza is rather ignorant, the odd looking dome which harks backs to older days topping it off. The emerging plaza doesn’t look much either , no pattern or colour in the paving or even a piece of sculpture. Should stick the 3 statues of the dames back here. Kinda a new ugly building overall really…looks as if it was designed by students.

It looks rather like a light sculpture at night. Apologies for poor quality of photo – taken on a phone.

A longer look at this building yesterday has given me a different impression. Its a bizzare structure! It completely jars with all of the buildings around it (lets face it its on one of the most sentsitive sites in the whole city). I understood one of the key motivations behind the building was to restore the building line on Dame Street but this yoke is set too far back to achieve this. It is also too shallow to do anything for Palace Street and the way it butts up against existing terrace on Palace Street is criminal. The cupola or rather semi-cupola, which I thought still had to be tiled, HAS been tiled. However uniform grey mosaic tiles make it just look like concrete. Its awful!

And the gantry? I agree it serves NO useful purpose, although it will probably have spotlights attached. Of course its all done using ugly galvinised steel, just like the west facing ‘balconies’ and fire escape like stairs…I HATE galvinised steel but obviously someone in DCC is in love with the stuff (look at all those poles and street furniture around the city)

Finally this plaza: whats it for? Its a bizzare space. Nothing fronts on to it, no uses. The finish is very poor as mentioned above. It all adds up to a big mess. I want my garden back!!!

This thing is shockingly bad. It wouldn’t look out of place among the rash of dreary odd-shaped buildings that have gone up at DCU over the last few years. If it was just dull that would be something, but everything about it makes you stand back, scratch your head and ask: “why?” Especially that pointless gantry thing. Or is it for something? Dame street has been defaced.

So after reading all of this I expected to hate this building, but not at all, I can see that it might of done more for its setting and the blank side elevation on the college green side looks poor against the bank when viewed from college green . . . but I love the drama of building, the way it fits so awkwardly into the site, the funny angles, the wierd half cupola and the odd slanted windows below and then the gantry. its like an explosion or a joke or something, kind of cool i thought.

Say this on Friday – Have to agree with AndrewP.
Awful
V. disappointing

I’d assumed it was going to meet the parapet height of the two remaining adjoining buildings on Palace Street, so as to reinforce the scale of this short street, but it’s rather bigger than that. Still, it is generally within the scale of the area, and it’s refreshing to see a new building that’s not trying to do the 7 storey trick in a 4 storey area!

I’m not sure about the external finishes – they seem to be taken from the atrium of the Civic Offices.

Any decent photographs?

Hold your horses there, big mon! You’ll spoil the surprise.:)

I took some today- they’ll be uploaded when I get home.

(Although ‘decent’? I’ll let ye be the judges of that.)

There’s this one taken by eo980

It looks far worse in daylight; the finishes are cheap and indeed civic office-like. Imagine it with a few years of rain and traffic grime! I’d had no major reservations with the plans, and its presence on the street before the scaffolding came down was modest. But the finished product is not up to scratch.
The site deserves the very best and this aint it. This weird, second-rate building does not belong beside our city hall.:mad:

But that’s a pretty dramatic picture!

Oh that’s bad – and that’s being charitable. Both the gantry and the dome should be removed . And is the join to the Sick and Indigent Roomkeepers as crude as it looks?

Upstairs…

…downstairs.

My god I’ve only just realised that the gantry is just that, and not the construction crane I thought it was! It’s terrible! 😮

Yes the overall form and cladding is oddly similar to the Civic Offices. The deeply modelled base is reminicent of something too but I can’t put my finger on it, other than the tapered edges of Civic Offices of course.
It’s also strange when one considers this heavy base/pedestal in turn sits on top of the ground floor entrance void (though we can’t see it yet), which should make for an unusual state of affairs…

The glazing is smart, and it looks cool at night, but the overall form particularly to Palace Street is cluttered and cumbersome, and those multiple voids to the side don’t even terminate in acknowledgement of the Roomkeepers’ parapet.. And the bluey grey part is an unnecessary contributor of clutter to the terrace, while the granite? -clad wall appears too severe and dated – hard to say without seeing it in the flesh.
The height however seems okay in ctesiphon’s second pic there, whatever about ‘that’ dome…

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

Oh that’s bad – and that’s being charitable. Both the gantry and the dome should be removed . And is the join to the Sick and Indigent Roomkeepers as crude as it looks?

Yes

I liked this street so much better with only one sick & indigent house on it.

It’s just such a huge disappointment – a fabulous site surrounded by some great buildings, it screamed for lightness of touch but instead we have son of sam….

I think the join between it and the Sick & Indigent house is unfinished.

Here is the new white granite being put down. As Stephen and Greg said, it’s going to sit uncomfortably next to the golden historic paving that runs around the perimeter of the site. St. Mary’s Church/Keating’s Pub managed to get a slightly yellowey granite for their paved area outside the pub, which looks good. Maybe something like that would have been more suitable here …

could never understand why the building is set back from the street line when one of its main functions was to reinstate that line ?

certainly looks like an odd concoction or to be blunt, pretty shit in that context. achieving nothing of what it set out to do.

will have to wander down & take before dismissing it completely i suppose, but it doesn’t look good from the pics.

Saw it for first time last night. It struck me that it Would have been a great site for a very high spec residential block. Using this for yet more offices seems a waste. Especially poor quality ones…

The lights look well in a novelty kind of way. But they remind me of Marks and Spencer stores I’ve seen in the UK.

It dosn’t intrude onto dame street as badly as I had expected. Which is about as much praise as I can muster.

I cannot forgive the way it addresses the Sick and Indigent. It looks like a bodge job. You expect that in a couple of days we’ll see the top part filled in by a giant can of expanding filler foam cut back to fit with a rusty saw.

How well can the S&I chimmneys draw now? Surely they’ll hardly work at all with that built up so close?

@Lotts wrote:

Saw it for first time last night. It struck me that it Would have been a great site for a very high spec residential block. Using this for yet more offices seems a waste. Especially poor quality ones…

If it had been residential the city council would more than likely have had to sell the development. This way they can rent it. However, I agree that it is a waste being offices though. might have made a nice site for a library.

The more I see this new building …the more I view it as a ”quirky” new addition to the city. It looks so awkward and ”quirky” that it must be loved in a sympathetic and understanding way….just like an unwanted puppy or kitten that is the unattractive runt of the litter.

this building makes EL ARCHITINO feel sick and indignent

Would it be presumptuous for me to issue a “welcome back” to El Architino? I understood that he had departed to live in a hole in the ground (no doubt this was just a rent-saving exercise?) and look forward to again viewing the graceful lines of his drawings.

Perhaps this eyesore can be temporarily ameliorated by an emergency Jeanne-Claude/Christo-like wrapping, in which the looming banal structure is wrapped tightly in heavy tarpaulin and manila rope. The controversy that erupts over this building’s extravagant emergence, then sudden disappearance under wraps, will not only provide visual interest on this corner but will also allow ample time to coerce a confession out of the shameful, disgraced building and allow the disappointed public to come up with something better.

An elegant tarp covered with EL ARCHITINO drawings would certainly make my day, as would it create this much-touted “incident in the square.”

EL ARCHITINO was asleep on a bench in this park for the last 2 years until he was rudely awoken by builders laying cheap imported chinese paving slabs, only to find this monstrosity almost complete. needless to say EL ARCHITINO instantly called several of his advisors and had the offending builders concreted under said paving slabs.

@el architino wrote:

EL ARCHITINO ………….and had the offending builders concreted under said paving slabs.

Brings new meaning to getting stoned.
KB2

@Peter FitzPatrick wrote:

could never understand why the building is set back from the street line when one of its main functions was to reinstate that line ?

I have a hazy memory of John FitzGerald, Jim Barrett or Dick Gleeson (a very hazy memory:o ) saying in an interview that even though there was a consistent building line here originally, now that the corner of the bank is visible they wanted to keep it that way.
I’m not agreeing, just explaining.;)

EL ARCHITINO finally makes a return, and just in the nick of time! Architectural society has been corrupting in his absence, as evidenced by this building if nothing else.

Saw it in the flesh yesterday, and good god it’s one hideously cheap affair. I think it has to be noted though that this site is capable of taking a building, and the setback from the street line isn’t even noticeable given the conflicting nature of this whole area…

…but nonetheless what has been built is a highly unsatisfactory affair, on a number of levels. It is over-scaled, out of context, cheaply finished with dated materials, and lacking that crucial ‘lightness of touch’ that this site was crying out for. It is that above all that is so sadly lacking.

Particularly the western elevation, which is disappointingly poor – the crude balconies, cheap doors and galvanised finishes are such a slap in the face to the Castle that it has to be seen to be believed. There is such clutter here:

The stairs is so horrible I’m still not sure that it’s permanent – surely that isn’t staying there?!
Perhaps this is unfair, and should wait till it’s fully finished.

The opposite side has been given municipal public lavatory treatment:

…while the acres of polished granite are so cringe-inducingly dated:

Not even a fashionable tack-it-on tile was used!

Back at base, the ground floor void has been resolved by making the glazing flush, suggesting solidity.

But again the acres of cheap granite just take away from any curious virtues this part has.
Though it certainly makes the building stand out as different from the conventional properties all around with their standard height ground floors.

Head on:

The glazing looks good from a distance, and contrasts well with the AIB:

The idea of a giant thin glazed ‘slab’ forming the facade is also a well conceived I think, notable in a previous wide shot.

But up close it’s cheap grey tubular aluminium or somesuch, and does not look good:

The dome may be tokenistic, but fun all the same – I do like it : D

The gantry on the other hand, presumably a reference to the public hangings that took place outside City Hall, is the greatest gimmick going.

…and horribly galvanised.

The dome from the rear:

Very notably it doesn’t intrude on the skyline of the Georgian office block in the Lower Yard.

Overall it’s just too bulky and lacking in finesse for this important site. I’d much have prefered a couple of decent mature trees up against the exposed gable and an expanded, grassy, street level park. The plaza under construction unfortunately looks equally soulless.

You got to love that dome – at the very least, it’s very bold. One thing you have to say for this building is it has probably provoked more discussion than any other modern edifice on this website.
Also, I think it’s only fair that we give them a chance to finish up the work first. There were a lot of negative comments about Roches Stores on Henry Street as they finished off the job there – and many people have since changed their mind. The gantry must have a purpose though, aside from hanging flags.

im new to this forum and this building has to be a joke just to trick new people,i havnt been up near city hall in a while but theres no way that was a loud to be built beside it!maybe somewhere else i wouldnt care but who could be stupid enough to let something like that be built in such a sensitive area!?im never going near city hall again so my memories of that place are the way it used to be(at least the park wasnt imposing)!

only good bit is the lights at night.

Does the gantry line up with the “original” building line I wonder?

I’m easily risen to a state of indignation by unsympathetic new buildings around Dublin but this building is simply ALL WRONG. Its design willfully ignores all the context provided by what I consider one of the most important stretches of streetscape in Dublin – that between Christchurch and the front of Trinity College. It makes no acknowledgment of the gently curving line of Dame Street; in this regard, it reminds me of one of the council’s past misguided policies; perhaps they never really gave up on the plan and are secretly still planning to widen Dame Street to accommodate a dual carriageway? I’m joking obviously but placement of the building would have been more appropriate for Cork Street in the 80s. Even above the footpath there is no sympathy for the grain of buildings across the road or across Palace Street. It’s relationship with the latter is a huge wasted opportunity. That section of Palace Street had the potential to be an oasis like Foster Place but would have been even better as there is a reason for people to use it. Instead the side of the building acts like an unwelcoming towering wall destroying the balance of the laneway and hulking over the Sick and Indigent’s.

However it the galvanised gantry and worse still the nasty galvanised stairs on the western side (is it a fire-escape?) which really make the effort look cheap and nasty. I don’t think any of the photos so far do it justice. You have to see this thing in the flesh to appreciate what a huge mistake the council has made.

The only redeeming and interesting feature for me might have been the dome had the placement, bulk, relationship to Palace Street and Dame Street and quality of materials had been up to scratch.

The most damning aspect of a building like this is that it constitutes a powerful argument for the case for sticking with boring unimaginative semi-pastiche or postmodern designs for urban infill in historic streetscapes. Even the nasty early 90’s apartment block behind this thing is better conceived. I am the opposite of a conservative when it comes to architecture but this is awful.

This is beyond belief……….

Cooley won a competition for City Hall, the best of its era in Dublin, far batter than any of the Gandon works. This is, dare i say an insult…….

@jimg wrote:

I’m easily risen to a state of indignation by unsympathetic new buildings around Dublin but this building is simply ALL WRONG. Its design willfully ignores all the context provided by what I consider one of the most important stretches of streetscape in Dublin – that between Christchurch and the front of Trinity College. It makes no acknowledgment of the gently curving line of Dame Street]no sympathy for the grain of buildings across the road or across Palace Street. It’s relationship with the latter is a huge wasted opportunity. That section of Palace Street had the potential to be an oasis like Foster Place but would have been even better as there is a reason for people to use it. Instead the side of the building acts like an unwelcoming towering wall destroying the balance of the laneway and hulking over the Sick and Indigent’s.[/B]

However it the galvanised gantry and worse still the nasty galvanised stairs on the western side (is it a fire-escape?) which really make the effort look cheap and nasty. I don’t think any of the photos so far do it justice. You have to see this thing in the flesh to appreciate what a huge mistake the council has made.

The only redeeming and interesting feature for me might have been the dome had the placement, bulk, relationship to Palace Street and Dame Street and quality of materials had been up to scratch.

The most damning aspect of a building like this is that it constitutes a powerful argument for the case for sticking with boring unimaginative semi-pastiche or postmodern designs for urban infill in historic streetscapes. Even the nasty early 90’s apartment block behind this thing is better conceived. I am the opposite of a conservative when it comes to architecture but this is awful.

Nail, hammer…Spot On, Jimg.

Junk. Thats the first thing that comes to mind. The second is that this crock seems to bear more of its references to Sam’s buildings such as Bunkers on Wood Quay (with its horizontal slits, polished granite, glass curtaining etc), than to the gems around it, ie City Hall, the Castle, the bank etc.

Where there was lightness of touch required,such as its resolution with Sick and Indigents, the pencil must have been yielded with as much grace as a sledge hammer.
Why the horizontal slits, when if reference to the architecture of forts was to be made, vertical loops would have been far better?

Is it that DCC wanted to demonstrate that they are still as capable as they were in Wood Quay days in terms of inserting wholly innappropriate schemes in + against the historic city? At this rate, between here and Henriettta St corner, Dublin will soon be able to give courses to visiting architects on how not to infill strategic locations at heritage areas.

BTW Tve finally figured out what the much-maligned gantry is for – it’s to hang bad architects. 😉

@kefu wrote:

The gantry must have a purpose though, aside from hanging flags.

It’s so mundane I must be wong but I assumed it was for window cleaners?

I don’t agree that the dome is bold. The chopped-off back of the dome and curved bit that almost meets it are hideously clumsy. I presume it was meant to echo City Hall’s cupola, but I think the profile shot above shows how woefully misguided that idea was. Is it too late to start a campaign against this monstrosity?

That is God awful… I’m speechless………………..

I don’t think we should go OTT about this building. The thread won’t be very interesting if it’s just one person after the other coming in and lambasting it, will it? The building is disappointing on some levels, but it is not a tragedy on the same scale as Henrietta Street or Lavitt’s Quay.

I had hopes for this building. I’d longed to see the unsightly butchered gable wall of the Sick & Indigent house covered with an appropriate new bookmark building. It seemed reassuring that a reputable firm (MBM Architects) with long experience in European urban design were doing it.

It is slightly too big. It would probably have been better to develop a 4-storey building here. And worse, I think the images circulated prior to construction were inaccurate. I remember studying the proposed view of the building from the corner of Parliament Street, and its parapet was approximately contiguous with the cornice of the AIB. In reality the building is somewhat bigger. Inaccurate images are a big problem in development today. I might start a thread on that soon (got plenty of examples!).

The building is slightly too loud. A quieter statement was needed. Maybe creepers should be hung all over it like the ‘70s office block in the Lower Castle Yard!!!

The gantry contributes to the loudness. I think it will have to go. The images certainly never showed anything like that.

I have an image of the proposed building from the commercial property section of the Irish Times on February 1st 2006. The Gantry is included and seems to have some sort of coil part running down the side of the building aswell. You are right though, the photomontages did not indicate the actual size of the building.

Excellent, phil. Could you arrange to get that scanned and put it up here. I think it’s quite serious that a deceptive image of the building was circulated.

Here is a rendering of the building:

So the stairs is staying…
The building is depicted in a manner as to maximise the view of the AIB, a building it unfortunately dominates over in real life. It is also substantially smaller when viewed from two storeys up across the road – typical ploy :rolleyes:
Generally I don’t think the building is too high for this wider area, but is is definitely too tall so close to the AIB.

The timber as depicted is as good as non-existent as built. Being north facing, it never gets any direct sunlight; instead the glass simply reflects the cold sky, creating a sheer black facade. The timber might as well be more aluminum underneath – it lacks all the warmth and interest as visualised above.

The ‘brochure’ for prospective tenants can be viewed in this pdf:

http://www.hwbc.ie/uploadedfiles/pdf/Palace%20Street%2C%20D2%20-%20April%202006.pdf

I think it only fair that the rent roll generated be ploughed straight back into the rejuvenation of Dame Street.

If any qualified architects want to complain about this building – names would have to be used – pm me and i’ll see if i can get a piece published about it.

I hope they put the plaque back that marked the spot where Thomas Barnado was born. Barnado reknowned in Ireand and the UK as having founded the society for children’s welfare….”Barnado’s”.
(and he was an Orangeman too by the way! )

@jdivision wrote:

If any qualified architects want to complain about this building – names would have to be used – pm me and i’ll see if i can get a piece published about it.

I wonder if it would be better to wait until the building is fully finished before getting something published about it? I am not trying to defend it, but it would make it more difficult for the City Council to give the “wait until it’s finished” argument in response. I am sure it won’t only be qualified architects (or other professionals) who will have valid comments on this building either.

@phil wrote:

I wonder if it would be better to wait until the building is fully finished before getting something published about it? I am not trying to defend it, but it would make it more difficult for the City Council to give the “wait until it’s finished” argument in response. I am sure it won’t only be qualified architects (or other professionals) who will have valid comments on this building either.

Fair point although I think it’s substantially completed already. I’d prefer to do the piece sooner rather than later as a result.

Looks like it will be largely finished within the next two weeks. I just walked by it and the paving on front of it seems largely done, with the main door being fitted at present. It would also be interesting to see what it is like on the inside.

Personally I think its complete enough to form an opinion of it as a building.

Well, here’s proof. The images were inaccurate; the colour one posted by GH above and this black & white one below both showed the parapet of the new building lining up with the cornice of the AIB. But in reality it’s way bigger. This is very serious.
.

😮
Pretty damning evidence.

I note also that the setback seems greater in the ‘original’, even allowing for any possible lens-based distortion. (Nice effort at matching the pics btw, Devin.)

Wouldn’t the actual application drawings have shown precise heights etc.?
Having said that, images like the above tend to be the ones that lodge in the minds of people, whether planners, councillors, members of the public, etc.

Generally looks 20% bigger in every direction than the illustration.

@ctesiphon wrote:

Wouldn’t the actual application drawings have shown precise heights etc.?

Might be worth going and having a look. But they’re probably being destroyed as we speak! 😀 Inaccurate images are quite common in development generally. But it’s a bit of a shock here because the City Council are the developer, and because of the importance of the site.

This elevation is from the same newspaper piece as the other one. No excuses …
.

This is quite the revelation!
Of course we don’t know if revised applications were submitted, which is very possible – but if not, this generates bizarre echos of the Central Bank saga across the road!

Looking at Devin’s images above, not only has the height substantially increased, but the width has too. And even more so than depicted in the ‘today’ picture, as evidently Devin would have had to stand out on the road to fully replicate the original. If this could be acheived, it would depict even the first window of the AIB being partially if not fully concealed.
So clearly both ceiling heights and floor plates were substantially beefed up during the planning/construction process, destroying the sense of enclosure between the AIB and City Hall.

Far from this building being an ‘incident’ in the square, it now forms part of the square itself.
The AIB has effectively been kicked out.

Far from this building being an ‘incident’ in the square, it now forms part of the square itself.
The AIB has effectively been kicked out.

I think you have summed the impact of this building up very nicely here Graham.

When the City Council were building this I assume they requested comments from the public in the form of ‘Public Consultation’ (PC) as oppossed to going through the normal planning application routine? Did anyone see any documents relating to it at the time? In general those renderings make the building look alot smaller than it has turned out to be.

It went through planning. The application number is 2368/01
If anyone is in the area and can drop in to take a look I’ll be very interested in what you discover…

there is masses of wood behind those windows?

Article in the times on this topic; substantial quotes from “subscribers” to this site;I assume as one of the only, maybe even the only person to defend this building I would be quoted when the times article eventually appeared, but no! interestingly they got one of the architects to defend it instead, defensively it must be said.

New office near City Hall gets mixed reaction

The design of a modern office building on a prominent site beside City Hall has been generating a lot of comment – much of it negative – among architects, writes Emma Cullinan

Whatever about the Sick and Indigent building next to Dublin Castle, it seems that the new building going up next door is causing indignation in the design fraternity.

The Archiseek website has been abuzz with those who are criticising the building and one of the main comments that crops up is that it lacks a lightness of touch.

It seems that people didn’t see this coming because drawings of the proposed structure showed a lower building while an article about the proposed building quoted city architect Jim Barrett as saying it would be a “small building”.

“The building seems to be the best part of a floor higher than the images of the proposed building, showed,” says Kevin Duff, planning spokesman for An Taisce.

“But it’s not just the height – the building seems to have been pumped up in size all round. This is an important site – with important buildings all around it – and the whole idea was for a low-key insertion. Yet it looks quite clunky.”

Postings on the Archiseek site also complain that it has “been finished with dated materials”, has “crude balconies and cheap doors”, and one subscriber suggests wrapping the building up Jeanne-Claude/Christo-style (artists who wrap buildings).

There are complaints about the temporary-looking staircase facing City Hall, the crane-like gantry, the heavy, defensive- looking base and the shopping centre look of the external polished stone.

The mosaic-clad cupola was said to be a homage to Le Corbusier but one subscriber complains that “the uniform grey tiles make it look like concrete”.

One of the architects, David Mackay of MBM Arquitectes, based in Barcelona, says that, yes, the building did increase in height during the planning process but that he feels that scale hasn’t been compromised. “In our first ideas we were designing more for alignment with neighbouring buildings but because of regulations it’s a little bit higher. That doesn’t upset the proportions, though.”

He agrees with the critics that this was a sensitive site and he says that he has addressed that. “We were asked to design a new urban space, next to where there were municipal gardens, on the occasion of the restoration of City Hall.

“We wanted to relate the building to the City Hall and to the Victorian AIB bank – which is a very fine building.

“Our building relates to the copper-clad dome on City Hall and our half dome in silver was intended to mask the chimneys of the building next door.

“We introduced two windows per floor because the floor-to-ceiling span of the neighbouring buildings are higher than the modern one. To avoid awkward joining we’ve confused the space facing the entrance to the castle.”

While critics say that polished stone is rather heavy, Mackay says that it was chosen to reflect the surrounding buildings.

“We had originally wanted to use stone with a glass facing but that proved too expensive and too new to use without the guarantees [new regulations require building materials to come with a guarantee of longevity] so we used highly polished stone that reflects the two pieces of architecture on either side.”

Critics are worried that the building will detract from Dublin Castle, but Mackay says that his new urban space actually reveals parts of the historic complex.

“Our idea with the square itself was to disclose the castle and the very fine 18th century office. Dublin Castle is so significant and yet you are not aware of it from Dame Street and Temple Bar.”

Mackay, whose grandfather came from Mitchelstown and worked near the City Hall, also wanted to continue the flow of Temple Bar southwards.

“We were concerned that Temple Bar was like an island in the middle of Dublin city. The new bridge carried the vitality of Temple Bar over to the northside and we felt it should go south.”

The main idea, he says, was to create a public space and the building came second, as a screen against an exposed party wall and to hide chimneys.

The lightest touch in the building is the glass facing north on to Dame Street. “It is a very small building which means that the offices are not very deep so we wanted large windows,” says Mackay. “Because these windows face north there’s not a problem with the sun but there is noise and pollution so we opted for a double fa

The journalist did it the right way to be honest, she went to the architect to address criticisms raised.

It’s a good piece okay – it’s been a long time since Archiseek has been mentioned in the Irish Times. Many many years,

Yes it was a good article I thought.

It is a huge pity the building was allowed to come further forward; the worst thing to my mind about the building is the view from the AIB side where you can see a huge expanse of blank stone as a backdrop to the finery of the bank, if they had stuck to the original dimensions this wouldn’t have been so jarring.

@jdivision wrote:

The journalist did it the right way to be honest, she went to the architect to address criticisms raised.

pity the architect didn’t answer them

The main idea, he says, was to create a public space and the building came second, as a screen against an exposed party wall and to hide chimneys.

HAH!

I occasionaly used balconytv to watch the building go up, I looked to see what it looks at night, but I don’t great a great view cos of some women nice singing :P, I’ll ask them for a better view…

http://www.balconytv.com/2006/10/monday-morning.html

Some nice lighting in the new plaza.

Still, the bumping up of the size of the building has left a bad taste in the mouth.

.

Cool! I take it back! 😀

You’re easily amused….:rolleyes:

Whatever about the place at night the plase is soooo inconcivebly dull in the daytime. Its just big slabs of cheap looking grnite on even cheaper looking paving. Could they not have reserved at least one spot for a tree or a flowerbed? I dont really understand the point of those polished steel lumps on the granite lumps. They seem to imply that only one person may sit on any side of the stone. I’ld prefer it they werent there.

Impressed by the lighting, that is all PTB (in the context of another thread)

Couldn’t agree with you more regarding what is a disappointingly drab and dreary public space. It’s not quite finished yet, so there may yet be soft landscaping of a sort to go in, but admittedly it’s unlikely.
With the dull granite wall on one side, the Portland facade of City Hall on the other, and the grey slabs pasted down around your feet, it makes for a souless, harsh addition to the city. The seating’s execution in granite merely adds to the dullness of the landscape.
Trees such as weeping birch, particularly around the perimeter of the site would make a big difference.

The seating design is attractive though, if the metal stud detail uncomfortable for a number of sitters on any one side.

@PTB wrote:

I dont really understand the point of those polished steel lumps on the granite lumps. They seem to imply that only one person may sit on any side of the stone. I’ld prefer it they werent there.

I suspect theyre skate board deterrents – cant be having yoof hanging out making use of civic spaces now, can we :rolleyes:

Seems to me that ‘yoof’ are the only ones to use public spaces. Oh, and junkies. The former are the only ones to give Central Bank plaza some life and the latter have colonised the eastern stretches of the boardwalk.

The benches could maybe have been done better with wooden seats. It’s all talk anyway..the odds of people sitting on them in any great numbers between now and April/May are limited!
Dire building as it is, but I thought the original (small) design had a bit of class.

Whatever the merits or otherwise of this building, one positive outcome is that the Sick and Indigent Roomkeepers at least got a decent paint job out of it and looks much healthier now, A nice shiny coat on its front door (in fact a new front door!) would be the final touch.

I think you’ve all been very harsh on this building. The plaza fulfils a vital social function in a heavily urbanised location. For example last night as I was staggering along Dame street, I noticed that no-one was sitting in the plaza at all, or even walking through it. However some old homeless bloke was kneeling on the ground leaning over one of the lighted seat things. He’d arranged all his change on it and was counting it up. So it’s not entirely useless 😉

Perhaps this is an example of ”design energy” which Dick Gleeson referred to recently…

btw blurred vision doesn’t make this building any better

I think it’s incredible that such a piece of shit could be built at all, anywhere. This may be the ugliest building on earth. How did they pull this off?

@alonso wrote:

So it’s not entirely useless ]
And I recently saw someone fix a puncture by the light of the benches.:rolleyes:
@alonso wrote:

btw blurred vision doesn’t make this building any better

Archiseek- where research in the public interest knows no bounds! Thanks for putting yourself on the line for us, alonso.

What is this building beside the City Hall actually for? It would be ironic if it were for an architect’s practice given the furore on this site about it, it would be good for the purposes of the debate to find out what this building was built for.

I noticed that the stone “bunker” surface on the bottom of it is absolutely manky already. Perhaps the council could install a few potted shrubs in front – it’s the least they could do.

@Cathal Dunne wrote:

What is this building beside the City Hall actually for? It would be ironic if it were for an architect’s practice given the furore on this site about it, it would be good for the purposes of the debate to find out what this building was built for.

Speculative office development by DCC as far as I know. I originally thought (assumed) that it would also have some sort of restaurant function on the bottom floor but that does not seem to be the case.

Piece on RTE News at One about the building

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0208/1news_av.html?2217398,null,230

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

Piece on RTE News at One about the building

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0208/1news_av.html?2217398,null,230

why did this story only come out now did someone write an article?

Robocop building or a riot cop complete with shled and baton. classic!

From RTE Clip “Complete with a view to an underground sculptoral exhibition”

Oh well in that case the building is okay :rolleyes:

lostexpectation – because – imo -Irish print media is of an appalling standard, and is declining every day. Look at the current row about the Dublin adverts plan – and how pisss poor print coverage is. The IT in particular has gone to pot re such issues – Ive given up buyiing it tbh – is FmcD still writing there?

*gets back vaguely on topic* Anyhow re this building, I still stick by my suggestion that the best use for the gantry is to hang bad architects :p

I’d like to apologise unreservedly to Frank McDonald for my previous comments here – they were unworthy, unwarranted and petty.

I can’t believe the council are still saying that it is a small building in that RTE clip.

Maybe they’ve undergone hypnosis therapy to remove the fact that the increase in size ever happened!

I’m getting used to this ugly-ish new building beside City Hall. Maybe its like a new concept car..it takes awhile to get used to the form and stlye. Maybe it’s the shape of things to come. Looks awful the way the paving of the plaza/square meets the pavement. The plaza looks awfully bare and stoney during the day too….a bit of tree planting at the back will make some difference.
Good to see however, that they called the plaza/square after Thomas Barnado, who was born in the building that once stood here.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/property/2007/0308/1173121294228.html

Peculiar? Eccentric? why City Hall’s new neighbour is all wrong

The new building in Dame Street beside City Hall may be the most detested addition to Dublin, writes Frank McDonald , Environment Editor

It was to be a landmark building, and it certainly is – but not in the way Dublin City Council might have hoped when the plans were first unveiled in 2001.

It was also to be a public building with a cultural use – a Revenue museum was intended – but instead it’s the city’s most peculiar spec-built office block.

The idea that lay behind it was a good one – to repair some of the damage caused by the roads engineers when they drew a line through an intact ensemble of Georgian buildings on Dame Street and Palace Street, just east of City Hall, with the aim of widening the main carriageway.

This was planned and executed in the 1970s at a time when the grim-reaper engineers regarded much of Dublin’s older fabric as little more than an obstacle to traffic movement.

And their misguided thesis was endorsed by narrow-minded bureaucrats and ignorant councillors, despite heartfelt pleas by conservationists.

Had it not been for the late George Weekes, secretary of the Sick and Indigent Roomkeepers’ Society – the city’s oldest charity – its headquarters on Palace Street would also have been cleared into a skip. But although the building was spared, its party wall was left exposed, complete with blocked-up fireplaces.

After years lying derelict, with buddleia flourishing behind a slatted timber fence painted alternately blue and white, the leftover site was laid out as a “pocket park” in 1988, with fast-growing sycamores to cover up the scar, twin circular podiums of grass and three statues forlornly gathered around a pool and fountain.

Though quite popular in summertime, the “park” always looked like something of a stopgap measure, pending a more definitive response by the city administration. And this finally came in 1999 when city architect Jim Barrett commissioned David Mackay, of Barcelona architects MBM, to design a building for the site.

Mackay (73) was one of the “three wise men” engaged by Barrett to give independent advice on major schemes for the city, the others being Richard MacCormac and John Worthington. Through MBM, he also had a proven track record as a master planner – notably in laying out Barcelona’s Olympic Village and harbour for 1992.

In his prologue for MBM’s latest brochure, critic Deyan Sudjic describes them as “architects of sensitivity and discretion. They are not interested in creating aggressive or spectacular architectural objects, or signature buildings. Yet they make buildings with a distinctive flavour and warmth that clearly demonstrate their roots”. To them, Sudjic writes, architecture is “about making places, about the manipulation of space, about the tactile quality of materials”.

Through five decades of work, MBM had “remained focused on this definition”, retaining and refreshing its creative energy to be “a powerful voice for a dignified vision of architecture and urbanism”.

So how is that vision translated into the new building and public space beside City Hall? Not very well is the answer. Part of the problem is that the building itself seems cropped, to preserve views of the east elevation of City Hall, while the landscaped plaza is so hard that it is likely to set back “hard landscaping” for years.

A 1999 sketch in MBM’s brochure shows that the original plan involved excavating the site to create an exhibition area beneath the plaza with a flush rooflight, billed as a “Window to Bloomsday room”.

In this same drawing, the plaza itself is misnamed “12th of June Square”, though everyone knows Bloomsday is on June 16th.

“This project stems from the idea of turning the space into a real, clearly defined square”, according to the accompanying text.

“It is, then, a building with almost no functional programme; it is purely an urban design resource, architecture to formalise a space that needs to be a worthy representative of the city centre.”

It clearly fails to do this, however. The elongated mosaic-clad half-dome is particularly eccentric; obviously intended to defer to the dome of City Hall, it only succeeds in competing with its august neighbour. The steel gantry extending from the parapet is another gratuitous eccentricity, with no obvious purpose.

The main façade is also jarring. The squat, bunker-like ground floor, with its cut-out entrance, resembles a security installation.

Above it, the outer glazed “skin” sits uneasily in front of an inner leaf of timber and glass; this probably accounts for the use of dayglo green strip lighting to distract passers-by at night.

The building is otherwise clad in polished stone, supposedly to reflect the more ornate fa̤ade of the former Munster and Leinster Bank (now AIB) on the east side of Palace Street. But the stone merely makes it appear more heavy-handed than it would have been if lighter materials Рsuch as glass Рhad been used instead.

The west side of the building is curiously blank, except for a flying staircase (in galvanised steel) that leads down to the plaza from a doorway on the first floor. This is probably a fire escape, since it appears to serve no other purpose; it was originally intended to be a separate entrance to the four office floors.

Archaeological remains, including a defensive ditch of the old city wall, prohibited building the underground museum originally envisaged. A tiny chamber, echoing Micha Ullman’s book-burning monument in Berlin’s Bebelplatz, has a rooflight and a competition is to be held to fill it with something on the Bloomsday theme. Apart from some spindly trees in the background, the plaza has 12 granite-topped seats (with studs to deter skateboarders) that light up at night. However, it is planned that the café under City Hall will spill out onto the plaza, with tables and chairs under white umbrellas, so that should enliven the space during the day.

The Archeire website (archeire.com) is full of criticism. “It’s such a huge disappointment,” says Paul Clerkin, its moderator. “A fabulous site surrounded by some great buildings, it screamed for lightness of touch but instead we have Son of Sam.” Another blogger wrote: “I liked this street much better with only one Sick and Indigent house on it”.

Dublin City Council deserves credit for having the guts to go ahead with other speculative office blocks, such as architect Shay Cleary’s building beside the Mansion House or Donnelly Turpin’s office in Tara Street, now occupied by The Irish Times. But everyone is capable of making a wrong call, and the new Dame Street building is just that.

It may even be the most detested new addition to the city – and the fact that it stands on the main civic processional route between Christ Church and Parnell Square makes it almost unforgivable.

© 2007 The Irish Times

And manifesta gets quoted again! 🙂 Ever thought about writing headlines for the Irish Times? They seem to like your style.

Paul – I’d just like to back up your comments re the Irish Times and Frank McDonald. Although I live in London I really look forward to getting the Irish Times on Thursdays (as much for Frank McDonald’s articles as to boggle at the extradordinary poor vlaue and quality of the Irish housing market) and Saturdays. Would be nice to see FMcD’s work collected as a book actually. Provides a marvelous history of the development of modern Dublin – as of course does this web-site. Keep up the good work! Shane

Lots of fair points made in that article, but was there not something similar written about it a few months ago in the Irish Times? Surely there are more questions to be asked about this building rather than just pointing out how unpopular it seems to be? Namely, as originally raised on this site by Devin, why has it ended up being a lot bigger than was originally indicated in sketches?

Incidently, where are those three statues now? anyone have any ideas?

Also, good to see this site being mentioned again.

@phil wrote:

Incidently, where are those three statues now? anyone have any ideas?

On sentry duty, guarding the mountain of historic granite paving prior to its reinstatement outside the Olympia.

Good point re the need for more actual criticism too, phil, rather than the too-easy negativity. There are other procedural and policy questions that I’d love to have answers to. Between this nonsense and the JC Decaux fiasco, the City Council’s reputation as guardians of the city for its citizens has taken a bit of a battering.

Anyone have Max Clifford’s number?

In Dublin I’d use WHPR ahead of any London PR firm on any issue.

I think that these two incidents highlight the pitfalls of commercial contracts being entered into directly by Local Authoritites firstly with the JC Decaeux deal which mutated horribly from its original concept through the naked greed of JC Deceaux; thankfully the planners can refuse these permissions and release the city council from any breach of contract compensation.

This building is a little more difficult to sort out now that it is in situ; I like the design as a stand alone building for a cleared site a lot of design time obviously went into it and from a desk top in Barcelona it probably looked smashing.

But it is clear as both devin and phil have said the images submitted in the application which the planners considered bear little relation to the scale of the finished product. In this you can’t blame the planning department but you must blame both the designers for getting it wrong. In relation to the dome and hanging gantry these should be stripped immediately; a corporate occupier doesn’t care about such features they just want new offices in the centre of town that have essentials like raised access floors and air-conditioning,

Aside from some odd material choices, the height really is the main issue & todays irish times photo shows it up well …

The building clearly challenges & detracts from city hall, what a location for DCC to get it wrong, if they’re not embarrassed about it, they should be. Had they stuck with the height originally proposed, it could have done its job … this business of it not being viable at two stories is nonsense, packing in square metres was not its purpose.

Here it is at the height it should have been. The dome still way too big though.

was hoping you’d do a job on it Morlan! had a go myself but not really good enough to post 😮
agreed about the dome, looks better without that gantry thing too.

@PVC King wrote:

In Dublin I’d use WHPR ahead of any London PR firm on any issue.

I wouldn’t, in my experience they’re rubbish. Anyhow, as for Frank’s article, why write what was already written before in your own newspaper. He pulled his punches as well, saying it’s “almost” unforgivable.

@ctesiphon wrote:

And manifesta gets quoted again! 🙂 Ever thought about writing headlines for the Irish Times? They seem to like your style.

Twice in two articles!

Perhaps you would be so kind, ctesiphon, as to direct the editors of the Irish Times to my influential text, Will Somebody Please Call Christo?: Manifesta’s Compendium of Irish Snarkitecture? It’s chock-a-block with bits of snark and wisdom collected over my career and can be liberally quoted from royalty free. It works especially well embedded in otherwise perfectly reasonable, erudite articles such as Frank McDonald’s essays and/or dissertations in need of that extra je ne sais quoi.

Good to read McDonald’s perspective on this building. Yes, this beast has been picked on in a previous article in the same newspaper, but I don’t think the opinion is in any way cannibalized or redundant, unlike some of the identikit Press Release Journalism (TM) that’s been coming out on the JCD free bikes/ad scheme. In terms of content, it doesn’t focus on the problem of scale, as phil rightly pointed out, though I did learn some facts about the building beyond how ugly it is. The misguided underground ‘Window to Bloomsday’ room, for example, is a great example of planning gone wrong– especially poignant since that fellow in the RTE clip seemed to point to that underground feature as one of this building’s (few) redeeming as-yet-to-be-realized qualities.

Agreed with Shane on the praise of both Archeire and FMcD– McD’s work is consistently enlightening and deserves to be more readily accessible to the public. I’ve been hoping to see Destruction of Dublin come back in print as well. By the by, if anyone can help me track down a copy, I will gladly throw in the Compendium free of charge…

Sorry to have to pour more petrol on the fire here, but yet another addition currently being made to this building has made its impact all the worse in this sensitive area. The Irish Times’ photograph is evidently very recent, as it depicts this addition, namely a hideously crude, galvanised steel conduit, over two feet wide, running down the entire eastern elevation of the building where it adjoins the Sick and Indigent Roomkeepers townhouse.

The breathtaking ugliness of it really has to be seen in the flesh to be believed – it beggars belief that something like this has been permitted adjoining an historic townhouse right next to the entrance to the Castle. It’s so bad, in any other circumstance one would think it to be temporary, but given the rest of what we’ve seen here, I can only imagine that it’s staying. Even in the context of the monstrous ‘matching’ steel furniture elsewhere on the building, this yoke still doesn’t work as there isn’t a scrap of steel or other metal elements on this side of the structure; it makes no sense whatsoever within Palace Street.
I can only hope this is some temporary fixture yet to be covered over…

Jesus there’s a lot of whingers on this site. The building is flawed, certainly -almost all architecture is (I would say, particularly here in the very strange phenomenon of the contemporary Irish construction industry)- but it is in no way the monster that Mr. McDonald and others would have your average reader believe.

If you can forgive DCC’s approval of the garish nighttime lighting, this building clearly attempts to be respectful to its context in a way that very little new city centre “architecture” does and moreover adds reasonably good quality public space to Dame St.; public space that is in such preposterously short supply that most often when people go out for lunch they have the pleasure of deciding between a) fighting with tourists for a small patch of the Green (for a few weeks of the year when weather permits), or b) paying at 20pc net mark-up for the privilege of eating in.

Perhaps this is why Dubliners find the space so alien; they don’t know what to make of their newfound civic freedom. Perhaps like previous posters, they would rather sub-let it to the homeless and disenfranchised and then complain about its use!

If Frank McDonald wants to have a chat about detested additions to Dublin I can give him a very long and much more worthy list.

Public space makes a city better, period.

I think there’s less ill-feeling about the public space than there is about the building. Of course public space makes a city better, but this isn’t new public space, it’s just different public space. As for ‘…newfound civic freedom’? I’ve never felt as watched in a public space as I did the time I sat in this square. But perhaps that’s the modern day version of freedom you mean? The security of being observed?

It’s interesting that you note the 20% mark up for eating-in in Dublin. It got me thinking. Perhaps that’s the reason why this building is 20% bigger all round? Y’know, like some sort of ironic comment on the cost of living in this city, but instead of paying our 20% in cash, it is extracted from us as a mark up on our new buildings? Perhaps not, but how then to explain the overnight growth spurt?

And respectful of its context? You can put a yarmulke on Nick Griffin, but it doesn’t make him Jewish.

@deliriousbeat_0 wrote:

Public space makes a city better, period.

It was a public space beforehand, and a hell of a lot more inviting! It baffles me how they could offer that back to the city as a public space… it makes me sicker every time i pass it.

Graham,

Do you mean to say that the steel girder that ran up the party wall between S&I and the new yoke has been covered over? I passed today but didn’t spot it, though that was probably more to do with the van reversing into my path. I must look again.

@manifesta wrote:

Perhaps you would be so kind, ctesiphon, as to direct the editors of the Irish Times to my influential text, Will Somebody Please Call Christo?: Manifesta’s Compendium of Irish Snarkitecture? It’s chock-a-block with bits of snark and wisdom collected over my career and can be liberally quoted from royalty free. It works especially well embedded in otherwise perfectly reasonable, erudite articles such as Frank McDonald’s essays and/or dissertations in need of that extra je ne sais quoi.

Is that the one illustrated by El_Architino? I’ve only ever heard rumours of its existence- thanks for the confirmation. Ebay here I come!

I’ll put it on the shelf beside A Guide to the Discreet Use of Emoticons by hutton, Ellipsis Mon Amour by Alek Smart and Learning How to Count to 10, which I authored myself. Now all I need is to track down phil’s Internet Acronyms For Today – BTW, ROFL and Beyond and I’ll have the set!

@deliriousbeat_0 wrote:

Public space makes a city better, period.

The relatively simple task of re-locating one of the ‘fridges’ off the Grattan Bridge would probably have had a more positive impact on the existing public space than what has been done.

If you can forgive DCC’s approval of the garish nighttime lighting, this building clearly attempts to be respectful to its context in a way that very little new city centre “architecture” does and moreover adds reasonably good quality public space to Dame St

I always enjoy hearing a contrarian view but I don’t find your argument convincing. First of all this development took away public space – the previous small park was bigger. Secondly the garish lighting isn’t its only obvious flaw. The galvanised stairwells along the side and the gantry are hardly respectful, the scale (about 70% taller than the Sick&Indigents) is not respectful, the way it ignores the line of the street is not repsectful and the bunker like ground floor could hardly be less inviting.

The bunker part is particularly offensive – the whole building essentially barricades itself up from the city with this defensive ground floor.

(a while ago)

Of course it could be argued that the neighbouring Victorian bank or even City Hall with its cold stone street frontage does precisely the same, but this building in the centre of the square is so obviously suited to public use. Yet the suspicious narrow, tinted glazing and swipecard-operated front door so blatently attempt to ‘protect’ a private occupier from the great unwashed; its a genuinely unpleasant sensation walking alongside the ground floor with it’s sinister strip windows. And in any event, the aforementioned buildings are civic-minded in their wider outlook: this building by contrast hides behind narrow glazing, galvanised doors and a giant sheet of glass blankly reflecting the sky.

So the girder yoke has been there a while I take it ctesiphon? The last time I saw it it hadn’t yet been erected. So does this mean it’s staying?!

It’s just unbelievable.

Maybe, just maybe, it’s not finished…

Magnificent cylinder glass intact from 1855 in the S&IR. Exceptionally rare in the inner city.

Also the windswept public plaza as things currently stand, with the gloriously exposed 1980s apartment box shovelled in behind Burgh’s Treasury Block.

It’s more the stumpy little annex that’s offensive, it’s such a disastrous mess in there. The Cuffe Street washing lines x20, only right beside City Hall.

And the lightwell mentioned earlier.

Granted, there’s some lovely texture in the granite public seating,..

…but these so desperately needed to be in a different colour stone. The whole place feels so totally washed out beside the great white elevation of City Hall. This is one of the reasons so few people want to sit there – you stand out so much in the bright context.

@ctesiphon wrote:

I’ll put it on the shelf beside A Guide to the Discreet Use of Emoticons by hutton

😮

😀

Count yourself lucky you have a copy of that – ’tis a collectors edition now 😉 :p

By the looks of things, a Revised Edition will soon be required!

🙂 😉 😀
😉 😀 😮
😀 😮 🙂

Edit: Ha! I went to bamboozle you with 20-odd smilies, and got this:

You have included 16 images in your message. You are limited to using 10 images so please go back and correct the problem and then continue again.

Images include use of smilies, the vB code [img]tag and HTML tags. The use of these is all subject to them being enabled by the administrator.

Looks like the Mods are on to you, hutton!

@ctesiphon wrote:

Edit: Ha! I went to bamboozle you with 20-odd smilies, and got this:

Ha ha – amateur 😀 Sure dont ye know that the archiseek grand wizards is wise to the idea of taking multiple simultaneous applications – unlike a certain LA we wont name :p

BTW the revised edition will cost big books 😮

*quits after failing fast in the attempt-at-humour stakes*

Some quick-witted individual has gone to quite some effort to make a subtle but pertinent point about Robocop 😀

He he – they’re scattered about its ground floor. Not very many, but just enough to make a point 🙂

How apt in the context of DCC’s acquiesce to ‘temporary’ signage across the city, and the visual blight that unites the two.

Across the road is a more elegant composition, in the form of a crisp infill property now nearing completion.

It ties in nicely with the bumbling grain of this part of Dame Street, with nicely proportioned fenestration, elegant colours and a sharp finish. Just a pity about the ugly first floor door and window unit – cumbersome and ill-designed for such a central feature.

Someone wants to make an arse of a corner building by raising one elevation by a floor and not the other ………….. on Parliament Street, planned 18th cen. vista to City Hall 😮
5064/08

Can see their point given the number of people sardined into the Porterhouse, but in townscape terms it’s too inept to be true.
PS Is the Clarence proposal now dead? (I hope.)

No. Unless you’ve heard something? It has permission, but hasn’t started yet.

The Clarence is on hold until saner times prevail. Two years from what I heard. They still intend redeveloping however.