New building beside City Hall

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.

@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.

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.

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.
.

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

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.

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…

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

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

@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