Parnell Square redevelopment

Thomond Park is running a book:

Extension removed within 5 years 12/1

Extension removed within 5-10 years 3/1

Extension removed within 10-15 years 6/4

Extension removed within 15-20 years 6/4

Extension not removed within 20 years 2/1

Pity to see this extension tacked on I think. The glass wall does look well if considered on its own, but is not particularly well suited as an addition to such a stand-alone building. Symmetry was an essential element of Georgian design & the building has now been thrown off balance, which is a shame. 🙁

Here’s a picture – pre modification – taken in early 2005.

Yeah sorry I couldn’t manage to shrink it myself – i did try!! :confused:

I seem to remember visiting a thread that dealt with how to submit & modify photos, I had a load of pics for the Henrietta St thread, but their capacity was way too big, so I could’nt post them.

Could someone please re-direct me, as I can no longer find my way 😮

I think you’re misrepresenting the situation a boyle. It is not the use of glazing that offends, nor is it the absence of ‘sympathetic’ solid elements BTH suggested earlier; rather it is the imbalance created at the location but much more so (in my view anyway) the blatent intrusion that it is into this historic enclosure. Nothing ought to have been built – end of story. To build yet another extension to the other side is merely adding insult to injury.

And yes you’re quite right, advertising banners no doubt will be tacked onto it over time. Just as one thing leads to another, the previous inappropriate extension to the right-hand side acted as an excuse to further intensify the site with this glazed extension, which in turn may permit another extension to be built to the other side, which in turn will no doubt permit tacky ‘oh but they’re only temporary’ banners to be suspended on this most historic and architecturally significant set-piece.

And to be clear about the glazing, to be able to see through the top part of the facade through the ceiling beyond to the sky is what I was referring to previously as being of merit, not the exposure of a utilitarian stairwell and the sneaky masking of an extension jutting out from the National Ballroom.

This unique setting in Dublin of a mansion house framed by flanking purpose-designed terraces ought not have been touched with a barge-pole. This fashionable concept of inserting new structures into highly sensitive locations simply on the basis of their ‘radical’ materials has reached ridiculous proportions at Charlemont House – the idea having garnered acceptability amongst the architectural elite is now flung at nearly every project going, almost as a requirement in order to give the ‘conservation’ project a certain dazzle and get the tongues wagging. Some of it will be regretted into the future, and is sorely so already in this instance.

@Graham Hickey wrote:

This unique setting in Dublin of a mansion house framed by flanking purpose-designed terraces ought not have been touched with a barge-pole. This fashionable concept of inserting new structures into highly sensitive locations simply on the basis of their ‘radical’ materials has reached ridiculous proportions at Charlemont House – the idea having garnered acceptability amongst the architectural elite is now flung at nearly every project going, almost as a requirement in order to give the ‘conservation’ project a certain dazzle and get the tongues wagging. Some of it will be regretted into the future, and is sorely so already in this instance.

I really have to disagree here Graham, the choice in this case was fairly stark: Build the extension and allow the Hugh Lane Gallery to expand, or leave the building as it was and force the Hugh Lane Gallery to either find another, larger home or to split the collection between two buildings. To suggest that this intervention is down to “fashion” or to create “dazzle” is quite misleading as it suggests that the extension is somehow frivolous or unnescessary.

I also think people are forgetting what was there before work started on the building – a big blank plastered wall. Obviously the image of the building with nothing on either side of the townhouse is the most attractive but I think that the Gilroy Mcmahon addition strikes a good balance between practicality and aesthetics and most importantly ensures the future of the Hugh Lane Gallery on it’s current site.

@crestfield wrote:

Personnaly I see the extention as a mistake, not say that there should’nt have been an extenstion rather it could have been done in a more sensitive manor. The house and its surrounds are a unit, considering that it is largly an eightheen century terrance of houses with Charlemont at its centre.

This intervention is arogent in its use of materails and in particular the way it is almost flush with the facade.The house is now lob sided.

A recent intervention to leinster house to the area flanking it shows much more thought and sympathy for an historic context.

I don’t agree, leinster house now looks busy to me , as result of the stone’s youth and that it doesn’t exactly match the original stone, it shouts for attention. But i think we shall just have to disagree. All buildings (except the truly dire) are Marmite.

22/6/2006

Well after many years of dereliction, the three Georgian townhouses at 49-51 Parnell Square have finally been rebuilt, and are currently nearing completion.
A typical Dublin scene until recently, there was nothing here other than a weed-strewn site surrounded by palisade railings, a straggling remnant of an 18th century doorcase, and ubiquitous timber supports buttressing the neighbouring house; this photograph dates from as late as c.1998:

Designated a tax-incentiveised site in the O’Connell Street IAP as part of Site Cluster No. 2 which encompasses this whole western side of Parnell Square, the Plan stated: “This square was designed as an architectural entity, and the correct solution for this site is to build a facsimile of the previous design. The design should be a scholarly work, undertaken by an architect qualified in architectural conservation or with proven experience in conservation work.”

It is most satisfying to observe that this objective has been achieved in its entirety.
Here is the terrace today:

(apologies for the buses)

The difference the infill has made to the terrace is extraordinary; it immediately unifies it once again, replacing the missing tooth that for so long blemished this impressive sloping Georgian streetscape, also concealing the hideous side elevation of the opposing replica townhouse. No doubt this is what was proposed for this site originally – indeed when were these houses demolished, and by whom? No mention was ever made in The Destruction of Dublin, in contrast to all of the demo jobs highlighted on Cavendish Row.

Some views of the new ‘houses’ – currently being marketed as suitable for medical or office use.

The brick is a bit pink, but will tone down with time; most Dublin red brick was probably this colour originally.
As far as can be made out, they replicate the former houses pretty much exactly, including the different types of doorcase and window courses. Anyone got a pic of the original houses?

They seem to be late rather than mid-18th century in design; it’s hard to say, especially given the Gardiners’ fondness for a lack of flights of steps which usually helps in identifying in other parts of the city. The brick courses of the far left house and the right-hand pair have been deliberately mismatched to separate the structures as originally built; the brick itself also seems to subtly differ in colour between the two.

The chimneys are eh, unusual in design. One slight objection perhaps is the use of red brick which is not very common either in colour or in being exposed in this part of the city – the rest of the terrace’s chimneys are pretty much all rendered over now, or of stock brick. These new ones do stand out a bit as a result, giving them something of a Zoe quality…

Still, they look well even if a bit false. Otherwise the attention to detail has been superb, even extending to shuttering for the windows that you can see in the above picture. The sashes are of course perfect – not a horn to be seen : )

They are also single-glazed by the looks of things, and individually paned to give them the traditional light-flashing quality.
Even the vents are decorative, if overly so for Georgian ironwork.

They also ought to be painted a more subtle colour – they stand out too regimentally on the facade:

As posted before, here’s what it all should look like including doorcases and railings:

A job exceedingly well done job. There’s a modern office buiulding inserted to the rear of the houses, and a stack of apartments going in in a semi-separate development further down the lane – the upper floors of the houses are probably apartments too. However I do think that these buildings have more integrity than most replicas by virtue of the domestically scaled interiors; this doesn’t appear to be a concrete office block with suspended ceilings covering the windows, all shrouded in red brick, but rather there’s a certain synergy taking place between the interiors and exterior – they credibly relate to each other with minimum, if any, contrivance in an attempt to make it work. Also the houses replicate as best as possible what was originally on the site – there is a connection to the location and wider context in this respect, and a relevance in design.

Unfortunately out of the nine designated site clusters identified in the IAP, this is the sole project to either have been started or successfully executed, with Parnell Street sites still lying idle, the Carlton Cinema in limbo, shopfronts and facades yet to be touched on O’Connell Street, Marlborough Street sites and terraces still a shambles, and the Eden Quay Laughter Lounge and to a lesser extent Schuh building developments hardly what the IAP drafters had in mind as sensitive regenerations.

The Parnell Square houses are encouraging progress however, especially if they were stimulated by the incentives. Parnell Street West is definitely next on the list – what a disaster zone.

Definately one for the anti-“pastiche” brigade. That is an excellent pice of work and extremely important for the Georgian city. It shows that facimiles (a much better word) at sensitive sites can work. I would like to see similar for the gap in Harcourt Street. Stephens Green Hotel recently proposed a starkly modern design but I think it was withdrawn. A replica would be much more suitable.

Don’t know about everyone else, but I’ll have to disagree, phil. Sure, there wasn’t uniformity as such, but I think reinstating these three was the right decision.

One observation, though: I’m not sure that the second floor windows should have been 12 pane sashes (6 over 6). Wouldn’t 9 panes (3 over 6) have been better?