Re-Georgianise Dublin?
- This topic has 39 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 12 months ago by
.
- Posts
I was walking down Leeson St the other day on the way to Ranelagh and the idea struck me, why don’t we adopt a plan to re-Georgianise the streets of the centre of Dublin? There are many criticisms of poor facades, unsatisfactory resolutions of buildings, gaudy shopfronts and other architectural failings around Dublin. However, Georgian architecture seems to deal with these criticisms and is quite well thought of on Archiseek so I was thinking that a programme to rebuild the city on Georgian lines might be a way in which Dublin’s architectural reputation could be improved.
One example would be on Fitzwilliam Square. Many people dislike Sam Stephenson’s ESB building on that square as it disrupted the Georgian character of the area – addressing that would improve that area architecturally.
Personally, I find Georgian buildings to be rather nice and a lot better than other stuff we Dubliners have had to endure. What do other Archiseekers think?
Buildings are a product of their times. Georgian (and indeed most pre 20th century ‘classic’ periods and styles) are based on a great inequality of wealth that allowed the construction of extremely fine pieces of architecture- from which we could learn many lessons- while the majority of the population live in much more plain dwellings, or at worst squalid slums. I dont believe you can separate the style from the society, and to be honest it is not a society i would like to recreate.
To do any justice to a full Georgian rebuilding, the costs would be astronomical and would not serve the needs of the city as a whole. Money that needs to be spent on public transport, social/affordable housing, public space etc. etc. should not be used to recreate a rose-tinted vision of the past.
You know when a city / country is screwed when you try to go backwards and glorify the past.
If anything big bold modern ideas and vision is required.
There is a very simple answer to this one….
No.
I love georgian as much as the next archiseeker, but it is a very poor reflection of the state of creativity, invention or willingness for progress in society if, instead of learning from or “taking inspiration from” the successes and failures of the past, we just decide to copy them in the dumbest way possible.
There was a good programme on BBC 2 last night about the fine Georgian city of Bath in England. After the Luftwaffe had deliberately flattened parts of it, it was rebuilt with the streets reinstated. But it also suffered too at the hands of developers from the 1960’s onwards. New dvelopments are hindered today because of the awful developments that sprung up, where fine streets were demolished and the likes of the ILAC shopping centre built. Very similar to Dublin, but I suppose that’s where we got our cue. Some developers and architects in Britain today complain that Bath is no more than a stagnant museum.
A stagnant museum that far more people would like to live in than, say, Slough.
I don’t agree that Dublin should be completely re-Georgianized – look to Berlin for an example of how to make a hugely impressive and well designed modern city on the pattern of an older city. But in Berlin they also know when it’s occasionally appropriate to reinstate older buildings, and I think that the ESB building is an appropriate place to reinstate what was there before.
A lot more can be done to make the most oft he Georgian architecture that is still there, so, that should be the priority.
However I kinda like the idea of recobbling a lot of the streets that have been paved over.
baiting cathal dunne? you’ve caught your fish already anyhow.
@rumpelstiltskin wrote:
A stagnant museum that far more people would like to live in than, say, Slough.
I don’t agree that Dublin should be completely re-Georgianized – look to Berlin for an example of how to make a hugely impressive and well designed modern city on the pattern of an older city. But in Berlin they also know when it’s occasionally appropriate to reinstate older buildings, and I think that the ESB building is an appropriate place to reinstate what was there before.
agree 100% …
@spoil_sport wrote:
There is a very simple answer to this one….
No.
I love georgian as much as the next archiseeker, but it is a very poor reflection of the state of creativity, invention or willingness for progress in society if, instead of learning from or “taking inspiration from” the successes and failures of the past, we just decide to copy them in the dumbest way possible.
Well what I was thinking was that we could enhance the city centre by re-styling it on much more Georgian lines while allowing space for the new, creative and progressive ideas down in the Docklands. I remember reading once on this site that one of the great things about Dublin in times gone by was the architectural unity of its city centre. Surely it wouldn’t be such a bad idea to bring some of that unity back?
Cathal, I’m in foul humour, so I’ll say this only thrice more:
No, No, No!
I cannot, as a dedicated, progressive architect, accept your proposition that if it was done better before, we should do it that way again. Unity does not mean replication, nor segregation of old and new, centre and docks, etc. I know where you are coming from, because I fully accept that some qualites of the city have been diminished by unscrupulous building. Georgian architecture was, when done right, rather special, but as far as I’m concerned taking a step backward is not the answer. What’s done is done, the best way is forward, and to believe that we can do better. (Or at least something almost as good)
cajual: you really need to get away from the quasi-political psychobabble; do we not have a more unequal society now than at any time since WW II? Most well-meaning attempts at social engineering through architecture have ended up as repetitive exercises in systems-building for the masses while the architects retire to Shady Nook in the suburbs to get away from the tedium of it all.
Of course, you can’t ‘go back’ to Georgian, but in a historic city centre it would be no bad thing to reflect on ‘Georgian’ principles of proportion, order and presentation. ‘Progressive’ means neither good quality nor good townscape. As Miss Jean Brodie said (paraphrased): ‘I have no desire to go to a progressive, that is crank, school’. There are too many cranks populating the ranks of design these days, I’m afraid. A careful reflection on what has gone before might induce some humility and better practice.@johnglas wrote:
cajual: you really need to get away from the quasi-political psychobabble; do we not have a more unequal society now than at any time since WW II? Most well-meaning attempts at social engineering through architecture have ended up as repetitive exercises in systems-building for the masses while the architects retire to Shady Nook in the suburbs to get away from the tedium of it all.
Of course, you can’t ‘go back’ to Georgian, but in a historic city centre it would be no bad thing to reflect on ‘Georgian’ principles of proportion, order and presentation. ‘Progressive’ means neither good quality nor good townscape. As Miss Jean Brodie said (paraphrased): ‘I have no desire to go to a progressive, that is crank, school’. There are too many cranks populating the ranks of design these days, I’m afraid. A careful reflection on what has gone before might induce some humility and better practice.I just find it interesting that when people advocate replicating a particular style, the social context which is neccessary to produce that style is totally taken out of contex, Sure, the Greeks built the Parthenon, the Romans the Pantheon, Hausmann’s Paris, The Georgian Cities of Britain etc, but at what human cost? The inequality in society neccessary to execute these projects would not be acceptable today.
Having said that, there are undoubtedly lessons to be learned from the Georgian typology- like you say, proportion, rythm and streetscape, entrances, flexibilty, density etc….
But it still remains the case that we have today a very unequal society and, while you cannot abstract architecture from its social context, a mere adherence to a vision of ‘the future’ (neither quite today nor quite the past) will really guarantee nothing. We need to reflect hard hard about context and urban morphology and the legacy (even as yet unbuilt) that we will leave. The peripheral car-dependant housing schemes (sorry, ‘estates’) on the urban fringe may occasionally be ‘pleasant’ but is that a sustainable (OK, jargon, buzz-word) gift to the future? Combined with the emiseration and banalisation of much of the visible town centre, it hardly marks us out as very competent, never mind inspired.
I’m not getting into the social argument, but I absolutely agree with s_s, Johnglas etc. you don’t go backwards, unless it’s to learn something better and then more forwards again.. Repair damaged streetscapes yes, but we need better contemporary architecture, not some alternative to contemporary architecture.
But just on this ‘Georgian’ thing, I came across an interesting council estate in Deptford recently. Deptford is a wanton hole of a place (no offence intended) on the outskirts of London, but early in the 18th century it used to be a decent town with two fine English Baroque churches and several goods streets of early Georgian houses. It’s prosperity was based on the naval docks and the ship building industry. It’s the place where Grinling Gibbons was a chippy before being discovered by Evelyn and Wren.
Today unfortunately, Deptford is scarred by urban decay, Dublin standards of shopfront replacement and huge dismal council estates, but one GLC estate stands out a mile.
I don’t know anything about this estate other than it looks like Holles Street Hospital vintage neo-Georgian and it is huge, but I can tell you it was remakably well maintained and pretty clearly it’s a place that is well liked by it’s residents.
Maybe part of the appeal of this estate was just that it resembled middle class Chelsea, or it was ‘familiar’ in a nostalgic sense, but maybe it has to do with the human scale and the softer materials, the care in the design, the attention to detail, or even just the room for trees.
I should have taken pictures of the contrasting estates around it, but it was getting late and anyway we can always go on Google-earth to get an idea.
It’s brick! Plain and simple. And good brick. We have lost the art of The Good Brick, and we need it back. Much of the hankering for Georgiana stems from the use of mellow brick as a facing material. The general hatred of the glossy, machine-precisioned brick pastiche schemes of the 1980s and 1990s stands in stark contrast to the mellow equivalents of the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. Okay, the latter also employed better design, or should that be design, but the quality of the brickwork alone makes these schemes stand head and shoulders above their modern-day successors.
Brick has so much to offer contemporary design, something which is only very slowly being woken up to on this island. A good brick, combined with good craftsmanship, a good design and a human scale, can easily reach and go beyond the appeal of the 18th century’s efforts.
@GrahamH wrote:
Brick has so much to offer contemporary design, something which is only very slowly being woken up to on this island.
How do you make that out?
Most of the best contemporary work in the country utilises brick, going back well over a decade. I could do a list, but it’d be very long, and very obvious.Well exactly… :confused:
@GrahamH wrote:
Well exactly… :confused:
You said it was only slowly being woken up to: it’s not.
Good architects in this country have been using brick well since the building boom began.What you’re asking for is bad designers to use brick, for brick’s sake. It doesn’t mean they’ll use it well. Just like any other material.
In fact, all!! you’re asking for is a good quality material, a good designer to decide how to use that material, and a good craftsman to put the material in place.
I suggest your solution to the problem is somewhat obvious GrahamH.
Not as such, as to use brick well is something of a craft. It is easier, both for architect and builder, to apply a rank of granite tiles than it is to model brick into attractive forms and manage the myriad detailing and specification that is demanded of a polished and creative finish.
Yes good architects have been using brick well, but not often. On an industry-wide level, good brick buildings barely feature on the radar outside of traditional format residential development – the material being associated with the comfort zone of the 1990s, and prior to the cost of using the material skyrocketing in the later crazy years. It has not been a quality urban material of the past decade.
Large-scale quality residential exercises predominantly of brick are not common, and are extremely rare in the commercial sector. As for the centre of Dublin, you can almost forget it. Yes one can list off a number, but relative to the morass of other development, they are a drop in the ocean. It is growing though, agreed. Thankfully.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
