Parnell Square redevelopment
- This topic has 186 replies, 51 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
If the discussion is then about reproducing what was there before, I would question the extent to which this has actually been done, or is possible. Your windows question probably illustrates this in that it is impossible to reproduce exactly what was there originally anyway, so therefore something original but in keeping with its surrounding context might have been a better response to the site. Bear in mind that I am not trying to propose a solution that would have stood out in contrast to the terrace, but merely stating that through properly thought out design a solution can be found that does not rely on attempted replication alone.
@phil wrote:
If the discussion is then about reproducing what was there before, I would question the extent to which this has actually been done, or is possible. Your windows question probably illustrates this in that it is impossible to reproduce exactly what was there originally anyway, so therefore something original but in keeping with its surrounding context might have been a better response to the site. Bear in mind that I am not trying to propose a solution that would have stood out in contrast to the terrace, but merely stating that through properly thought out design a solution can be found that does not rely on attempted replication alone.
Yes i agree but not here. There are three places which need pastiche : fitzwilliam square and street , parnell and mountjoy square. I do think that the uniformity of goergian (pretend of otherwise) is crucial in these three areas.
All the other streets could probably accomodate modern infill. I certainly think a striking modern building could look well on harcourt street. note use of the word could!
What I think is often forgotten in Dublin is that much of the uniformity comes from the rythm and proportions of the buildings, not necessarily the replication of features. Parnell Square is probably the best example of this.
Please also note, as I have already said, that I am not proposing a ‘striking modern building’, but simply something that has more of a contemporary stamp.
I disagree. Personally I find the current popular viewpoint of insisting on a contemporary stamp on absolutely everything rather irritating – in other countries there seems to be a post post-modern 🙂 thinking, arguably a maturity of sorts, that deems reproduction buildings in sensitive locations like this to be not only desirable, but preferable to contemporary designs – notable to an (admittedly over-) extent in UK housing, and terraced housing located within conservation areas there, and for many years at that.
As far as I remember Phil, you don’t agree with this type of building because it simply does not reflect our times and sets out to skew our relationship with and perceptions of our building stock (sorry if I’m putting words in your mouth). However for me, this type of construction does the exact opposite: it reflects our times and current thinking regarding use of reproduction in a nutshell – surely these houses faithfully rebuilt on this site are a monument to our times and current thinking re sensitive infill? In 20/40/50/100 years time will they not stand as such?
I don’t accept that a new-build building here could have worked as well. Certainly I agree it would have been a challenge to any architect, and an innovative and sensitive contemporary design could have been created, but this does not eliminate the intrusive impact on the terrace as a whole. To insert a modern building here in the middle of an 18th century terrace, however considerate and sympathetic, would have smacked to me of a certain ridiculousness, almost as if ‘sorry, this is all we can do for this site I’m afraid – we’re constrained by current Irish architectural thinking in what we can build’, ignoring the wider impact on the terrace. To almost any person, however ill-educated in this respect, the logical thing to do is to rebuild the previous houses – it just makes sense. We don’t always have to make a statement, however subtle.
I think it important as StephenC pointed out , it is fairer to call these houses examples of facsimilies or reconstructions, not pastiche. As pastiche is a word you use for the crap churned out a long the quays in particular, and countless other examples else where in the city. The Parnell Sq. houseses may have their critics but there quality can’t be disputed.
Even if the houses are not a coordinated unit and of differing ages, they don’t differ by 200 years in age and were all built as houses in mush the same format, thus are unit with an individual streak. To put a contemporary building in would be like building a Georgian house in La Defence.
So whats say we start polishing the demolition ball for the ESB offices on Fitzwilliam St. and undo one of the worst wrongs of modern Dublin developemnt.
demolishing esb would be great but methinks it could only happen with government money . Otherwise i think recladding is the best that will happen.
Why are the bases of the first floor windows not aligned in the two buildings on the right?
And do these facsimiles have copies of the original interior room layouts? Do they have the same plasterwork? Where was the line drawn?
The windows appear to be mimicking the original houses, when in the late 18th century it was quite common to extend your old first floor windows down to the floor. It’s also possible that the developer who built these two houses lived in one and rented out the other – a typical Georgian practice – and so installed expensive to-floor windows in his reception rooms, but went for the cheaper option for his nest-egg development next door.
Less romantically, there could be an air con unit behind, necessitating the discrepancy 🙂As for the interiors and room layouts, it’s hard to say at the minute. From what little can be seen through the first floor windows, there’s standard-issue architraving round the doors up there anyway. I doubt the rooms match exactly, though Georgian rooms are pretty logical to begin with so it may have turned that they match regardless.
Indeed just looking at the rendering of the development, the window-extending explanation seems the most likely, with the openings lengthened and iron balconies added maybe in the Regency period.
It’s possible they’re original to the 18thC build too though – just Georgian balconies were pretty rare.
@Graham Hickey wrote:
I disagree. Personally I find the current popular viewpoint of insisting on a contemporary stamp on absolutely everything rather irritating – in other countries there seems to be a post post-modern 🙂 thinking, arguably a maturity of sorts, that deems reproduction buildings in sensitive locations like this to be not only desirable, but preferable to contemporary designs – notable to an (admittedly over-) extent in UK housing, and terraced housing located within conservation areas there, and for many years at that.
As far as I remember Phil, you don’t agree with this type of building because it simply does not reflect our times and sets out to skew our relationship with and perceptions of our building stock (sorry if I’m putting words in your mouth). However for me, this type of construction does the exact opposite: it reflects our times and current thinking regarding use of reproduction in a nutshell – surely these houses faithfully rebuilt on this site are a monument to our times and current thinking re sensitive infill? In 20/40/50/100 years time will they not stand as such?
Of course they won’t stand out as much in 100 years. But then again does anyone ever comment on the victorian house at the end of Fitzwilliam Street? It seems to have blended into the terrace over the years because of its proportions and scale. I am sure there are features on some of those houses that would have stuck out like sore thumbs to our Georgian ancestors, such as elongated windows :D, that have eventually become part and parcel of what the square is.
In terms of my reasoning against this type of building I would have to say that I have actually mellowed with age regarding reproduction of past forms ;). I think that if houses in a terrace that are completely uniform are desroyed for some reason, then due to their role in the whole architectural ensemble their facade should match the surroundings when rebuilt. However, as I have already said about Parnell Square, there seems to have been enough variation within the buildings to have allowed a building of similar proportions and scale to have been built on this site without detracting from the overall character of the terrace. I am not saying that something like that monstrosity on the corner of Bolton Street and Henrietta Street should have been built here, but merely pointing to the fact that it is possible to add to a historic streetscape without creating a reproduction of the original facades.
These 3 new buildings are the best replica-Georgian buildings yet built in Dublin. It’s so refreshing to see it done right, compared to some of the excrement that’s been put in to sensitive Georgian areas over the past 30+ years in the name of ‘Georgian replica’ ….. the DIT college on Mountjoy Square South comes to mind.
And as said the internal room proportions looking onto the square have been maintained, which is important.
I too think it was the only thing that could or should have been done here, especially when see that amazing long, intact terrace of Georgian houses stepping up the west side of the square in Graham’s picture above (but phil I agree with your point that ‘it is possible to add to a historic streetscape without creating reproduction facades’ – just depends on the location).
Lovely crisp limestone doorcases are now being installed.
It is now clear that the far left new house is the last building in a terrace of matching houses built by a Georgian developer – its fanlighted doorcase has just been installed, perfectly matching the neighbouring house as visible in Devin’s post above. It looks like Portland stone, but has a strange hue to it and a very smooth finish, perhaps suggesting reconstituted stone considering it may well be painted.
The new pair of matching houses to the right seem to have been built as a seperate scheme originally, and will have matching exposed limestone doorcases as pictured.
Do you think the ESB/Government will ever replace the Georgian terrace that once existed on Merrion Sq.? If they did, it would create the longest Georgian street in the world, would it not?
@Morlan wrote:
Do you think the ESB/Government will ever replace the Georgian terrace that once existed on Merrion Sq.? If they did, it would create the longest Georgian street in the world, would it not?
It’d be the longest Georgian/fake Georgian street in the world then.
Yup – in fact it started a few months ago notjim.
The plans seem to have changed a bit from the direct gated entrance and flight of steps depicted in the Framework Plan. Now I think you walk through a gate onto an elevated railed platform which overlooks the garden, with access then gained via flights of steps sited at each side.They’re not. I imagine the DCC will wait until September to get things moving although I understood that the CC had extended the contract of the group undertaking the O’Connell Street works to complete Parnell Square. I also understood that the final proposals for the Square were to go on public display but I never heard anything more.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
