New building beside City Hall
- This topic has 164 replies, 45 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 8 months ago by
urbanisto.
- AuthorPosts
- September 6, 2006 at 8:07 pm #724546
-Donnacha-
ParticipantThis 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.
September 7, 2006 at 11:50 am #724547notjim
ParticipantSo 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.
September 7, 2006 at 11:59 am #724548LOB
ParticipantSay this on Friday – Have to agree with AndrewP.
Awful
V. disappointingSeptember 7, 2006 at 6:07 pm #724549Devin
ParticipantI’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.
September 7, 2006 at 6:32 pm #724550Paul Clerkin
KeymasterAny decent photographs?
September 7, 2006 at 7:35 pm #724551ctesiphon
ParticipantHold 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.)
September 7, 2006 at 8:49 pm #724552September 7, 2006 at 9:19 pm #724553-Donnacha-
ParticipantIt 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:September 7, 2006 at 9:22 pm #724554-Donnacha-
ParticipantBut that’s a pretty dramatic picture!
September 7, 2006 at 9:36 pm #724555Paul Clerkin
KeymasterOh 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?
September 7, 2006 at 9:43 pm #724556ctesiphon
ParticipantUpstairs…

…downstairs.
September 7, 2006 at 10:04 pm #724557GrahamH
ParticipantMy 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…September 8, 2006 at 12:27 am #724558LOB
Participant@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
September 8, 2006 at 12:28 am #724559manifesta
ParticipantI liked this street so much better with only one sick & indigent house on it.
September 8, 2006 at 1:05 am #724560Paul Clerkin
KeymasterIt’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….
September 8, 2006 at 1:06 am #724561Devin
ParticipantI 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 …
September 8, 2006 at 2:00 am #724562Anonymous
Inactivecould 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.
September 8, 2006 at 10:31 am #724563Lotts
ParticipantSaw 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?
September 8, 2006 at 10:46 am #724564Anonymous
Inactive@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.
September 8, 2006 at 11:41 am #724565GregF
ParticipantThe 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.
- AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.


