O’ Connell Street, Dublin
- This topic has 3,789 replies, 212 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
@Graham Hickey wrote:
Thanks for the succession of pictures of the building pre & post 1916, Graham.
Isn’t it amazing how much mileage you can get out of four brick facades?!
I’m fairly certain it is the four original WSCs buildings underneath all that frilliness. All the positioning & sizes of the windows are the same (and line up with the other original buildings on the extreme left), except that the top floor windows have been heightened, and of course a roof storey has been added.It was a seriously elaborate remodelling from head to toe, and fitting for Dublin’s “boulevard”. I’m salivating at the thought of walking up O’Connell Street from the bridge and the buildings gradually becoming posher as you approach the GPO!! 😮
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another picture of the Metropole Cinema (as it became), taken in about 1960 from the top of the Pillar. It had a nice stepped feature in the centre of the parapet. Disgraceful demolition! :
That is a fantastic image Devin, it really displays what was lost in architectural terms both in terms of the actual building and the continuity of the terrace.
The loss of the canopy was also a major loss on a wet day and it amazes me just how few canopied or collanaded buildings there are in Dublin considering the wet climate.
The other thing that this image displays very well is the impressive nature if the chimney stacks on the building that forms the apex of D’Olier and Westmoreland Streets.
The BHS (now Penny’s) was a poor replacement. I remember when they pulled the Metropole down in the 70’s. It’s sad the way O’Connell Street was butchered for the worse since the 60’s.
Can something be butchered for the better?! 🙂
Yes it’s a poor replacement, essentially an oversized box shoved in to fill the hole. It reminds me of a poorly fitted washing machine or fridge that sticks out from underneath the worktop in a kitchen 🙂
Impressive image there Devin; very few of the 20s Metropole Cinema widely available. In the one above it looksd much more appealing – rather like a mini Clery’s. There’a lots of 1920s mini-pediments and stepped features on O’Connell St – hope to get some pics in the next week or so.
Not to drag the whole issue up again, but I really think a decent 1920s style facade is appropriate for this building should Penneys ever be thinking along these lines. Considering the architecture of this stretch of the street, and that of this building’s terrace, I think it would be by far the best move for this site.That picture also highlights what I think is the sole poor feature of the reconstruction: that awful Eason’s mansard roof – don’t know how they got away with it at the time. It looks a million times worse on Middle Abbey St now too as the whole thing has been clad in all-singing lead or maybe even zinc.
And why does it have to be so tall? What are they hiding up there?!I agree but would you go for a slavish recreation or a modern interpretation of same?
Possibly the latter as it affords the opportunity to unify the terrace fully by utilising vertical elements reflecting the vertical emphasis of the fluted columns of Manfield Chambers and the lovely pilasters of Eason’s.
The Metropole did not do this fully – no doubt something Horace O’Rourke would have insisted on had he been in charge at the time.@Devin wrote:
If the vertical elements were positioned on the first and second floors, with the third and forth’s emphasis placed horizontally, along with a new cornice line I think it would work superbly.
Dividing the new building up into two parts by having a dominant corner and a subservient plain part between it and Eason’s to the left like the current situation on the opposite side might be going too far, but it would look even better!
From a retailers point of view it would make little difference as with improvements in structural technology the exterior is almost subservient to the internal space. I agree from a conservation viewpoint that this would be best practice and would respect the GPO more than any other option. I would also like to see something done to obscure the Easons Mansard roof. You would wonder why Pennys have retained this building it never seems to be that busy and there is definitely room for growth if a better format were introduced.
There is just something about 1900’s to 1920’s commercial architecture that has never been eclipsed in producing a wow factor that actually lasts. The BT move across the Street was the best thing any Irish retailer has ever done in terms of creating a really high end emporium to intimidate the punters into spending. 😀
It’s true, Eason’s mansard roof does look bloody awful! I think it’s because the adjoining buildings are flat roofed. The awful Abbey Street view:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
@Thomond Park wrote:That is a fantastic image
It’s from a great book of photos called Dublin and Cork (the majority of pics are of Dublin) by R. S. Magowan, published in 1961. The photos are of very high quality & catch Dublin at an interesting point just before the ‘60s boom. Paul (administrator) posted some photos of neon signs from this book before. The National Photographic Archive would do well to try’n get their hands on this collection – would make great material for exhibitions.
[align=center:3o6vqluq]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[/align:3o6vqluq]
There’s some more info, a front-on pic & an original elevation drawing of the Metropole Cinema in F. O’Dwyer’s book, Lost Dublin (1981).
Getting the right replacement there for BHS/Pennys would be a treacherous job!
The brutalist ’70s predecessor to Schuh was identified in the 1998 O’Connell St. IAP plan for replacement, and now there is a contemporary building there. But reactions to it, on this board anyway, have been mixed.Most certainly 🙂
Yes that is one view of the mansard roof which is awful, but unfortunately not the Abbey St one I referred to!
The Abbey St elevation of Eason’s itself has a much longer mansard that stretches along its long facade length and it’s clad in a horrible silvery material. Railings, pipes and other clutter up there merely add to it 🙁But yes, is the slate-clad mansard on O’Connell St original? Aso did Eason’s originally own the attractive plain limestone link building in the pic there or was it a later acquisition, perhaps when the granite shopfront was added in, when – c1990??
The shop area at the O’C St. front of Eason’s has been the same for as long as I can remember, certainly before 1990 anyway, so they must have that plain one longer (perhaps from the beginning?).
I know the Abbey St. roof as well – it’s pretty poor; but at least it’s off the important thoroughfare.
The slate-clad one must be quite early or original, since it’s in the circa 1960 pic – bit of a slip up if it is original! Is it possible that it was built on the basis of a precedent set by the higher roof of the gabled building in roundabout the same position seen in the Laurence pic of the Metropole Hotel?
Speaking of mansard roofs, it’s quite surprising to see a fairly prominent roof storey in pictures of the GPO before its 1916 thrashing, much bigger than its current roof. Graham, have you one to hand (I would have to go looking)?
Perhaps the Metropole did set the precedent. Always been annoyed that there’s no picture of the newly completed O’Connell St facade on the escalator picture wall inside 🙂
I can list every sepia picture on that wall at this stage! :o, but that isn’t one of them unfortunately.Here’s the curent day facade which is one of my favourites on the street – beautifully proportioned with pairs of Georgian sashes. As mentioned before many retain the original 1919 glass::
As for the GPO, I always thought the recostructed roof was much higher, not least along Henry St rather obviously, which looks very poor joining with the O’Connell St facade when viewed from Nth Earl St – the building loses a lot of grace as a result.
These pictures aren’t the best in the world for showing the old O’Cll St roof height, but might have better ones to root out.
Still, at least they show it was low from this perspective at least. One thing for sure though is the amount of chimneys it once had, just like the Custom House and City Hall etc that all accumulated with the Victorians:
The high GPO roof I’m thinking of may have been quite late, perhaps added just before 1916, because I know the building had had a lot of refurbisment work just before its destruction (!). Then again, maybe it was just the picture I saw (of the above left roof) made it look big. I will have a look out for it.
Precedent could be the reason alright for the Eason roof. I remermber you noting a while back that the Dublin Bread Company’s destruction gave rise to a slightly higher building in its replacement.
Yes the brand new GPO public office was finished barely six weeks before being destroyed! Not to mention huge rationalisation works to the rear carried out since before 1910 up to 1916!
Here’s a rare attractive image of the GPO 🙂
It’s not a favourite of most people, and does come in for a lot of criticisim, but you do get an unusual glimpse here of a grand stately building:
…something that occasionally hits you unexpectedly in real life from certain angles on the street!
There’s a very rare piece of Regency architecture for Dublin in behind the portico that is pretty much ignored – a very fine facade that I always enjoy seeing peeking out from between the columns when ‘walking the plaza’ (well, scurrying off more like for being so exposed :))
Just a pity about the remaining 70% of the building 😀
What would you consider are the main differences between the original and what was rebuilt?
@Graham Hickey wrote:
There’s a very rare piece of Regency architecture for Dublin in behind the portico that is pretty much ignored – a very fine facade that I always enjoy seeing peeking out from between the columns when ‘walking the plaza’ (well, scurrying off more like for being so exposed
In relation to the replacement what regency elements are missing from the 1920’s rebuild?
Well I’m no Dan Cruickshank so here’s some pics that help things along – most taken from the so-glossy-it-blinds ‘Building for Government’.
First the Edwardian styled public office that was completed just weeks before being completely destroyed.
It features a lovely top-lit barrel vaulted ceiling and a heavy dentilled cornice. The room was elegantly divided up into three parts with two pairs of columns either side of the central vaulted section.
The whole design looks like it was taken straight out of the White Star Line design handbook of the age – very Titanic-like!
Lovely pedimented doorcases in the background there.
Interesting that the arches under the portico seem to have steel windows fitted in the pic – surely one of the first uses in this country?Below is a plan of this pre-destruction public office. As can be seen the main entrance was restored to its rightful position underneath the portico after being closed up since 1870:
As mentioned on a previous occasion, the Royal Coat of Arms in the pediment to the exterior was removed post-1916 – presumably when the reconstruction got underway.
It can still be seen here in the days after the Rising:
But today – nothing but some neatly slotted in blocks of Portland stone!
According to the OPW book, it wasn’t until 1924 that it was finally decided to even retain the building! What was going on in the intervening eight years God only knows :rolleyes:
Not included in the book is that the £50,000 rebuilding contract went to Alexander Hull & Co. Below is the image of the new Henry St elevation designed by T J Byrne.
Interestingly the door in the 1818 block that now faces onto Henry St doesn’t feature in this image, similarly with the new entrances either side of the portico.
You can see here how crudely (I think) the mansard roof joins the original block – a shame there was such an effort to cram as much office space as possible into the new building.Very attractive façade to Henry St nonetheless, with many of its Custom House-like windows retaining their original wavy glass as can be made out here:
This section appears to have been finished first, followed by the public office in 1929.
Where did this clock for the central table in the new office go?!
Indeed in the c1930 image of the completed office, the table is devoid of it then too – did it ever even exist?!
Another fairly significant change to be made was the blocking up again of the central bay entrance under the portico, just as in 1870! – favouring new openings to either side of the portico. Why had the pre-1916 plan suddenly changed?
It’s such a shame that you cannot access the public office from underneath the portico, and looks even more unlikely now with The Death of Cuchulainn statue in behind.
When you’re inside the public office, it’s very strange to have the arched windows separating you from the public outside – they’re crying out to be reopened.And of course the other more architectural change to be made to Johnston’s original design is the blocking up of the centered entrances to each of the wings of the building – again a shame that those focal points have been lost, replaced with a series of windows and making the wings uninteresting:
Oh yeah – there’s a cupola that was never built too :D. This is the image Paul Clerkin posted before of Johnston’s original design!
I find the adaptation of the ‘Principal Sorting Office’ to a public telephone room an exemplary piece of on the ball thinking from a facilities management point of view.
The side elevation was a tragic loss with the mansard excepted, some of the unauthorised signage changes to the current incarnation have caused concern, particularly the footlocker retention situation.
The clock was a fine design that reminds me of a folly in terms of the attention to detail and over-specification in relation to the function performed; it would have been a great piece of eccentricity were it to have been completed.
I am also happy that the cupolla was never built it really compares poorly with both the Four Courts and Custom House Cupollas and as such the GPO does retain a uniqueness as one of Dublin’s great set-pieces.
http://www.irish-architecture.com/news/2005/000127.html
“There is speculation that the former Carlton Cinema on Upper O’Connell Street, Dublin 1, will be redeveloped to link in with the Ilac centre on Henry Street, if Dublin City Council is ultimately successful in its Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) of the site. Following a failed High Court challenge to the CPO by architect Paul Clinton of the Carlton Group – which secured planning permission to develop the site in late 1999 – the case is currently under judicial review. Depending on the outcome, Mr Clinton has the option of appealing to the Supreme Court. Dublin City Council moved in with a compulsory purchase order (CPO) in 2001 after officials became concerned that the Carlton group would be unable to complete the redevelopment. This was later confirmed by An Bord Pleanála.” Ends
Well Well… though I wouldn’t put any bets on this happening any time soon – It is breathtaking that this huge site has been a monumental blunder considering its location and the economic boom over the last 10 years.
Back to the GPO – it was mentioned earlier about the vile shopfronts used on the Henry St elevation – if one looks at the flat arched openings above the door you will notice that in years gone by signs were placed in situ of the limestone (you can still see shadows where the lettering was – this was for all shops on this GPO strip) – something akin to the restrictions on shop signage one would see on Regent Street in London today – a little thought on henry street would really improve this vast shopping strip – one that is generally in perfect nick till you look at ground floor level….
The Eircom/Findlater House building is deteriorating fast at Upper O’Connell St. – I noticed some smashed stonework recently and it is generally filthy.
Hopefully when the O’Connell Street works are complete it might shock the property owners into action, but experience tells me not… here’s hoping!!! 🙂
BTW about the Metropole, it is sad to think of its demise – suprising really when it was less than fifty years old when demolished! It was a classic 1920s revival peice. How on earth such a thing was demolished says a lot about the people of the time and how preservation was seen as a dirty word in the way of ‘progress’….
With the Carlton, one would wonder if the scheme would now be completed or nearing such a state were Clinton to have held onto the site….
Agreed J. Seerski about the GPO – I know those shadows of lettering studs on the limestone lintels only too well 🙁
In this pic of the 1950s from the ever-useful IAP 🙂 you can just barely make out the discreet mounted lettering on the shopfronts in the distance. Lovely polished black granite pilasters separating the units:
Saying that, you can already see how things are falling apart with the stores in the foreground, so poor signage certainly isn’t a problem exclusive to post 1970. Indeed it was the 50s that started so much poor development like this.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
