Recladding buildings / funding

Things aren’t that straightforward in this country. The government would find some way to overspend or/and do a terrible job at reproducing.

I think Dublin has suffered enough “reproduction georgian” in sensitive areas. Spending money to make Dublin into a Disney version of Dublin would be a horrible waste of tax payers money, especially if that money was grant aid to private hands. The property market in the city centre is vibrant enough to let market forces correct the unfortunate 1960’s design mistakes.

I’d rather see the money spent on modern architecture. But it has to be great, not good, architecture. From what blueprints that I’ve seen on this website, I’d get foreign architects to design them. In my opinion, Irish architects seem to use the same features in their design. I’m sure that there are architects in Ireland who design their building in their own unique way but I’ve never seen it.

In the latest 10×10.2 book from Phaidon (asking 10 prominent architecture critics, inc. Zaha Hadid and Dejan Sudic, to each name 10 up and coming architecture practices in the world today) O’Donnell Tuomey, Boyd Cody, Tom de Paor and Grafton Architects are all represented. Grafton are building a University in Milan, Heneghan Peng are designing the Grand Museum at Giza, Egypt, O’Donnell Tuomey…..Stirling Prize……….Bucholz McEvoy………….. .. . . . the grass is not always greener. give THEM a chance

@Morlan wrote:

How hard/expensive would it be to reproduce a classic Dublin Georgian Façade for example? A bit of granite, some red brick and a few sash windows… it can’t be that hard to reproduce.

Some of the 60s “shite” you refer to is now considered to add to the richness of the city. Reproduction Georgian on the other hand will never add to the richness of the city.

The vast majority of the city centre is capable of absorbing contemporary buildings – indeed the only sites I can think of where I think reproduction is desirable is the Ulster Bank site on College Green, and Penneys and Schuh on O’Connell Street – three buildings by their design, and their modernist idiom I think are damaging to their respective streetscapes.

But Nassau St is more than capable of absorbing contemporary architecture, as are 99% of city centre streets made up of that jumbling mixture that makes Dublin what it is.

That is the Ulster Bank – the ornate entrance is merely a facade, tacked onto the “ugly sore”

Morlan, the whole Ulster Bank on College Green is a modern building with a tiny piece of victorian facade retained.
Regarding reproduction (cough) architecture… as stated previously there is plenty of it already in Dublin. Surely it is preferable living in a city of architectural layers and eras with different generations having some mark rather than some sham and austere vision of the perceived past. A city should tell a tale. If anyone wants to live in suspended history I suggest moving to an Amish community!

Indeed Morlan – just walk through the door into the public office of the vicorian facade of the Ulster Bank to discover the horror within, which streches into the modern section seemlessly

On this issue of fa̤adism Рthat is to say the practice of retaining older facades for new structures to the rear РI read an article recently expressing some opinions on the practice that proved interesting.
I suppose the central ideology behind retaining façades is the preservation of the streetscape and architecture of merit, whilst allowing ‘modern life’ to continue unhindered in its expansion and change. It is a compromise.

The article argues that façadism can be looked on negatively due to “the breakdown between form and function, and therefore the legibility of the city, whilst also blocking architectural innovation… Its broader societal effects are the concealment of social change and the production of a historically depthless image, which subsequently completely alters the cultural meanings of the urban landscape”.
(An opinion I think would also be applicable to reproduction façades)

This would seem to be the central objection most people have to façadism in all its forms: buildings that purport to be one thing, but are in fact another. It is dishonest. And this dishonesty not only affects the building but also the street in which it is set, as one can no longer ‘read’ the streetscape; architecturally and culturally it has been altered from the status quo of original and ‘honest’ structures.

I understand this logic, and fully accept how one would detest the practice.
However I think that once you bring the façade/pastiche debate to this level of consideration, one also ought to be more readily able to accept individual cases or circumstances in which reproduction or façade retention is used because they are aware of the history of the site – whether it be the building that once stood there, the controversy of its demolition, the structure that subsequently replaced it, the politics of the event, or the impact of the replacement on the streetscape. Once one is aware of this, and one knows that this is a once-off, unique development in the context of the city at large and is not standard practice, I think the use of reproduction or façade retention in exceptional settings is an acceptable practice.

The ‘unique’ element I think is crucial to this debate – were one to go about willy-nilly erecting reproduction buildings, the city would crumble in the credibility stakes. It would be a charade.

But in key spaces where a replica building can reunify a terrace or streetscape in a fashion that contemporary architecture cannot do (admittedly highly subjective), then I think reproduction can be at least be considered rather than automatically ruled out as is always the case. In such unique circumstances, as a general rule there would be significant public interest in the scheme, to such an extent as to make a building quite open and honest about its provenance and epoch. And once a few years go by, as with all buildings, people who detested the notion mellow to it, and begin to appreciate it for what it is – a fine, aesthetically pleasing structure built of quality handcrafted materials. A one-off, tailored for that location, not one of a thousand erected by developers across the city, or as part of a wider policy by planning authorities.
Particularly in relation to the practice of façade retention, like the Westin or the terrace of buildings on South Anne Street, the article quotes Lefebvre: “the tendency to make reductions of this kind – reductions to parcels, to images, to façades, that are made to be seen and to be seen from (thus reinforcing the notion of ‘pure’ visual space) – is a notion that degrades space.”

It also says quite correctly I think that “a neighbourhood or even a whole city may change in function and social make-up in a matter of a few years, yet remain static in the visual sense.” It adds: “…all urban landscapes are in some regard monuments to past events; the retention of façades alone erases the genius loci of a place. All the memories contained in the space are eradicated.”

I’d largely concur with this, but again would apply the above proviso. Provided façadism is restricted to exceptionally limited circumstances, it does have a limited role to play.
If a building simply cannot adapt to a contemporary use in a changed (usually modernised) environment without substantial alteration/demolition behind the façade, then it just may be permitted. Now who decides these criteria, and how they are applied is a tricky question alright. You might argue however that as in days gone by if a building becomes redundant, you demolish it and build something that is of use, tailor-made to what is needed and in an ‘honest’ contemporary idiom.
But does this always have to be the case, following on from what has always been done? Why not preserve a façade of architectural and/or sculptural/material merit, especially if it contributes to the streetscape at large?

To say in a sweeping fashion that the practice is ‘dishonest’ in being non-representative of the interior and what is really happening behind the façade, well isn’t this the case with the majority of older buildings anyway in Dublin in particular? Georgian/Victorian/Edwardian buildings featuring contemporary shops on the ground floor, a modern service provider on the second, and storage in gutted interiors on the third and fourth?! This is hardly representative of the period of the building or of what one might expect from outside. Agreed that yes, it does reflect the social and cultural evolution of the building, but comparing it purely on this ‘depthless’ ‘unrepresentative’ basis to a modern office or retail development behind an historic façade, they are directly comparable on a physical level.

Likewise the conservation lobby including renowned State agencies like the OPW, place particular emphasis on ‘renewing’ period structures. As the old mantra goes ‘we are confident we can find new uses for the old buildings’.
Is façadism not just taking this practice one step further, and in exceptional circumstances? And even in these situations, the preservation of as much of the originality and character of the original structure ought to be encouraged.

Anyone have any opinions (again :o) on these issues? One thing that ought to be noted I think is that in Dublin we are quite sheltered from these debates and cases of these practices, in contrast to the likes of Edinburgh or Bath where they often rage – so just to acknowledge the notion of ‘exceptional circumstances’ may be easily applied to Dublin but not necessarily other cities.

i tend to agree with Morlan.. a little money could make a huge difference…Fitzwilliam St and Fingal Council offices on o`connell St would be the first two on my hit list

@aj wrote:

i tend to agree with Morlan.. a little money could make a huge difference…Fitzwilliam St and Fingal Council offices on o`connell St would be the first two on my hit list

Yeah but what would you replace Fingal Council offices with? Reproduction Georgian or maybe a little Victorian? Or aren’t those 1950’s vitrolite shopfronts all the rage now?

I agree that each era should leave it’s mark on the city. I like the UB on Dame Street too to be honest. I think cladding what we perceive to be ugly is a poor way to spend taxpayers money. I’d rather it were spent on pavement improvements, quality street furniture etc. To be honest-most locals don’t look p at the buildings that surround them anyway.