New building beside City Hall

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.

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.

@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.;)

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.

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.

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.

@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. 😉

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?

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.

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.