Stop this nonsense!
- This topic has 99 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Current proposal for demolition of pitched roof and addition of glass roof-storey at Thomas Street / Francis Street corner building (a protected structure) – Ref.1871/06
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Current proposal for demolition of pitched roof and addition of glass roof-storey at Parnell Street / Cavendish Row corner building (a protected structure) – Ref.1942/06
[align=center:15e54q0n]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[/align:15e54q0n]
I just had to put these up. I find the latter one at the top of O’Connell Street particularly incredible because of where it is, and because of the quality of the building – one of the most successful pieces of Victorian infill in a Georgian area in the city imo.
Part of the deal of having an old building is that there are restrictions; you have to respect its form and architectural integrity. There are rare examples of where a modern roof extension onto a historic building can be appropriate – like the Guinness Gravity Bar. But in most cases these kind of proposals are just nonsense.
Agreed, there is the complementary addition in the case of relatively plain stock, and there is the plain stupid, particularly in the case of Francis Street. It’s an architect-designed, self-contained building, finished with a sturdy parapet as a bold full stop. You don’t just lump another structure on top of any such building, let alone an older one.
Parnell Street equally so, especially being such a fine structure at a prominent location; I can’t imagine this getting permission at all.
I read an application for here but don’t recall anything of an extra storey or ‘pavilion’ :rolleyes: – just changes to stairwells and change of use to floors etc. Perhaps it’s a sneaky later one from after attention died away from the first…Agreed. Both of those look ridiculous. There is a very strange example of this sort of thing visible from the Sandymount Train Station. No photo I’m afraid, but it is worth a glance. I think it can work in some cases though. The one that springs to mind is the apartment on top of an older building at the bottom of Grafton Street. I think one of the reasons it works is that it is tucked against a taller building beside the one it is on top of. Am I right in saying it won an award?
That said, if these were both to get planning it could create a precedence. Then god knows what might end up on top of some of the city’s roof tops
That’s it – it’s all about precedent. If DCC have internally referred these two proposals to their Conservation Officer – as they should do, being P.S.s – then they will almost definitely be refused.. But if not, one could slip through and a precedent would be created.
Best to be sure and get a letter in at DCC stage so as to have an appeal fallback.
Sorry fellows, but I have to disagree! Devin might be right about the Francis St proposal, but I think that there is merit to this type of approach.
For example, the recent redevelopment of the row of 3 bay vernacular houses on Grand Canal Street, beside Patrick Dunns Hospital, is really worthwhile. 2 more floors now sit on top of the 2 floor over basement houses; I really like this approach!
In contrast, a very high spec job was done on restoring a row of 2 floor victorian houses opposite the US embassy in Ballsbridge. A great job, in terms of treaatment, and yet such a waste! At the end of the day, these are only vernacular houses, and while of some architectural value, it is only limited value – no substantial plasterwork etc – imo.
To my mind, the Grand Canal St approach offers a really interesting way forward; up until now the choice has always been “list or whack” – which is a shame. This way offers a balance where the best aspects can be kept, while at the same time redevelopment can press ahead in a way which means that city centre densities can be upped – something I would have thought were all in favour of ?
Apologies for diverging from the consensus, but Ive been thinking about this “top-up” approach for a while and meant to post before now!
Hope everybody is having a good bank holiday weekend –
H.
agreed, i am also in favour of modifying the existing stock of buildings, particularily in the city centre. The designs shown above are questionable (particularily the top one, havn’t we given up on swoopy oversailing roofs yet?) but the method of building on top of existing stock in areas of high demand is interesting from both a commercial and architectural point of view.
good previous examples include the “yoke on the oak” and mccollough mulvins addition on college green. im all in fovour of reclaiming dead roof space.
Absolutely – that addition to College Green is fantastic tucked up in the eaves, its stark glazing contrasting with surrounding stock brick and the copper roofing below. It just works in that jumbled contest.
Building on top and in between existing stock is indeed an interesting and challenging concept; it isn’t that a ‘consensus’ has been reached on how inappropiate it is, but rather how poor the posted examples are, Francis Street in particular which is frankly ridiculous regardless of what stucture it sits on (looks like a mini-version of the DART extension at Connolly).
Cavendish Row might appear somewhat logical on straight-on profile:…but of course the reality is that from ground level all you would see is a bit of nasty metal trim sticking above the balustrading, and a small amount of glazing from further back – all in all cluttering the roofline and detracting from the main structure itself, one of the finest corner-turning buildings in the city.
If the concept can be executed well, then go for it. I’d imagine there’s hundreds of examples in London in particular. If anyone could post more pics that would be good.
I lean towards the view that adding floors to existing structures should be allowed although I think both the above are particularly poor efforts. I have also seen the new build (rebuilds) on Grand Canal Street and I agree they look very well. I think a lot of the run of the mill Georgian and Victorian commercial stock would benefit from sympathetic treatment. It would rejuenate unused buildings and help to build up the city streetscapes. This is already starting to happen (Amiens Street is a case in point) and some clean design guidelines from the planning authority are needed to ensure that a high stadard is adhered to.
I’d hoped it wouldn’t seem like I was against any additional modern storeys onto older buildings – that’s not what the thread is about at all! It is about individual buildings and the area in which they are located. There are plenty of cases where it is fine and even desirable. For example 2 extra storeys have been added onto a complex of 4-storey brick and stone warehouses on Pim Street beside the Grand Canal Harbour and it looks great (I will post a picture).
But there are some buildings which you just couldn’t add modern floors onto & I think the Cavendish Row and Thomas Street buildings two such ones.
Perhaps the yoke on the oak is OK as a one-off and because it is tucked into a taller building at one side. But where do you draw the line? You would have to have a general policy of preventing modern storeys being added onto older buildings in the main historic streets of the city centre. (Anyway the DoE Guidelines for protected structures and ACAs do protect against this in Section 9.2.7).
I know the Grand Canal Street one hutton and I agree there’s no problems there.
@hutton wrote:
Sorry fellows, but I have to disagree! Devin might be right about the Francis St proposal, but I think that there is merit to this type of approach.
For example, the recent redevelopment of the row of 3 bay vernacular houses on Grand Canal Street, beside Patrick Dunns Hospital, is really worthwhile. 2 more floors now sit on top of the 2 floor over basement houses]
@StephenC wrote:
I lean towards the view that adding floors to existing structures should be allowed although I think both the above are particularly poor efforts. I have also seen the new build (rebuilds) on Grand Canal Street and I agree they look very well.
As Graham said, I don’t think consensus had been reached regarding the placing of another storey on older buildings. I would have thought that the discussion of the Grafton Street example indicated this. It should also be pointed out that the example of Grand Canal Street is a slightly different situation in that the row of houses in question were completely demolished apart from their facades, and therefore it is not that new storey’s were added, but rather that a whole new building was constructed. I personally would have preferred for them to have been either completely demolished or refurbished. Looking at them from the front the top doesn’t look to bad, but when you look at the sides of the building you will see there is no relationship between the new building and the retained facades. Maybe this is how facade retention should be done (if acceptable to be done at all?), but it is a different discussion to placing new storey’s on top of older buildings.
Here are the Grand Canal Street (Hogan Place) buildings before & after. Seeing as they were mostly unoccupied and in poor condition and located in a prime commercial area it was always going to be complete demolition or else this. I’m surprised even the trouble was taken to keep the fronts in this case. (Better buildings in Dublin have been completely demolished.)
In situations like these you are not retaining the buildings as such; rather you are retaining the brick fa
Devin wrote:Here are the Grand Canal Street (Hogan Place) buildings before & after. Seeing as they were mostly unoccupied and in poor condition and located in a prime commercial area it was always going to be complete demolition or else this. I’m surprised even the trouble was taken to keep the fronts in this case. (Better buildings in Dublin have been completely demolished.)
In situations like these you are not retaining the buildings as such]
:eek:…..and you can always take that SH*_E off the roof in a couple of years time when people with some brains get jobs in Dublin’s Planning Dept.??
@phil wrote:
I personally would have preferred for them to have been either completely demolished or refurbished. .
Based on the before and after pics posted by Devin I would tend to agree that demolition or reconstruction would have been preferable. Certainly in my view the terrace looked better in its derilict state than after.
The new windows also give the whole edifice a very ‘plastic’ appearance. 🙁 In any event the terrace didn’t appear to be anything special – a high quality modern building might have added to the streetscape.The issue of facadism is an interesting one – has there ever been an illustrated thread on this (if not could someone please start one – I do not have the local knowledge). As a planner I believe it is sometimes appropriate – but that it needs to be justified – not just a lazy or knee-jerk option.
Ah well there goes my cosy little consensus…
Devin wrote:In situations like these you are not retaining the buildings as such]Aah but not quite – a closer examination of the railings shows that they are A) Brand new, B) of cheap quality 🙁
Still the concept here is really important. Its not so much the aesthetic specific to this scheme that I like but the concept; I really like the idea of going up on top of low-lying city centre buildings such as these.
Two other much earlier examples of this in Dublin include
A) The Irish Press building on the quays, which was a disaster (Graham, get out “Lost Dublin” there and we’ll have a weep!) and
B) That Georgian imposter besides and part of the Shelbourne Hotel, which is now 6 floors over basement – with the 2-floor ‘top-up’ onto the original Georgian house having happened in the late 19c, I think 😉
@publicrealm wrote:
.
The issue of facadism is an interesting one – has there ever been an illustrated thread on this (if not could someone please start one – I do not have the local knowledge). .
Apologies – have just found the ‘Search’ button! And located an excellent thread entitled ‘Pastiche – The Final Solution?’ by Graham Hickey, which appears to deal with the issue fully.:o
@hutton wrote:
@Devin wrote:
In situations like these you are not retaining the buildings as such]Aah but not quite – a closer examination of the railings shows that they are A) Brand new, B) of cheap quality 🙁
Ah now hutton I think you’re splittin’ hairs. I just put that in so as no one would say ‘actually the steps and railings are there as well’. The main point remains.
The retained brick facade on the quay at Millenium Walk – under discussion in another thread at the moment – is another example of where a brick facade has been retained as a ‘feature’ within a new development rather than trying to pretend it’s a retained old building.
Re: Shelbourne 6-storey over basement Georgian building:
Yeah that was a surprising alteration for the time. Must have been unique in the city …@Devin wrote:
Good God, that’s certainly um, different! Well, hideous to be honest. If this is deemed to be a good example of ‘topping out’ then I hold up little hope for what lies in store for our urban areas.
What’s the point in stripping off nearly everything of originality, surely the very purpose of retaining the houses/facades in the first place, only to further compromise what could otherwise be a decent modern development, or alternatively an attractive, reasonably dense terrace of Victorian houses? What we have now is a halfway house on both fronts. It looks like a contemporay addition to a dodgy pastiche terrace similar to certain imitation developments you see in the streets off Mountjoy Square, with their all-singing matching red doors, blank double-glazed windows and cheapo railings and concrete plinths.
The addition just doesn’t work at all, not least because the terrace below doesn’t even look old – without a roof it just looks like part of the development!By contrast, the College Green topper-offer, red brick aside, is clearly distinct and complements its context rather than dominates.
Yes, no one could complain because it’s executed so well: it enriches the city. The close-up view of the steep roof pitches, finials and chimneys of the yellow sandstone building must be great from up there.
[align=center:2dm08o0l]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[/align:2dm08o0l]
Cavendish Row might appear somewhat logical on straight-on profile …
Just going back to this for a minute. An additional glass storey on this building is wrong regardless of design imo. But the Parnell Street elevation is actually significantly worse in impact than the Cavendish Row one 😮 :
.@Devin wrote:
– Ref.1871/06
Decision : GRANT PERMISSIONYes, Dublin City council has decided to grant permission for the above. There are conditions attached but they appear to be pretty standard. Things like working hours on site, conservation architect and oh a contribution to DCC of €17,000
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
