Stop this nonsense!
- This topic has 99 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Must say I’m not a fan of cleaning facades just for the sake of it.
Repointing alone would have given it a crisper look. The brick now has a coarser, bleached look to it, and there appears to be some residual staining left on the stonework in places. Anyone know how / with what it was cleaned?
The council should be discouraging this type of nonsence in my opinion. Its overall appearance now reminds me of pastiche Georgian.
@GrahamH wrote:
Fortunately more of these are being refused than permitted:
Permission was sought to remove the pitched roof to an attractive little unified terrace of protected structures of 1875 on Pearse Street and replace it with this, which was refused – <a href="http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=5155/07&theTabNo=2&backURL=Search%20Criteria%20>%20Ref. 5155/07
And the original pitched roof to this quayfront Georgian building, formerly Watts fishing & shooting shop, on Upper Ormond Quay was proposed for replacement with this, also refused – <a href="http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=4848/07&theTabNo=2&backURL=Search%20Criteria%20>%20Ref. 4848/07
(Image available on DCC’s site.)I really think that modern storeys in place of historic pitched roofs must be resisted at all cost. We will end up with an arse of a city. There are plenty of places for new build, for points to look out over the city. But the city’s traditional roofscape of pitches, gables, parapets and chimney stacks must be jealously guarded.
Where adding a storey is appropriate – e.g. if the building has a flat roof – it should done as it would be in Paris. Otherwise the city will be taken over by architects who don’t know how to approach protected structures.
I find it extraordinary that a property of the status and quality of Caffé Noto was permitted to be altered so drastically, yet similar alterations to relatively lesser buildings in the urban hierarchy on Pearse Street were refused! The fact that both cases involve protected structures merely reinforces this. As noted in one of the above cases, Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities states that ‘roofs of protected structures should retain their original form and profile and not be radically altered’. Talk about inconsistency.
I still think there are places where such interventions can work, primarily where a jumble of buildings enables a contemporary insertion to slot in comfortably – and not necessarily discreetly either. It doesn’t always have to be meek. In the case of Caffé Noto it just looks plain incongruous, simply because it was already an architect-designed ‘complete’ building. You don’t go sticking pavilion storeys atop the banks of Dame Street or College Green.
Indeed I wonder given the precedent set, if we’re likely to see anything long these lines in the future…
Apologies for the crudeness. The two adjoining Georgian buildings are also protected, and of lesser architectural distinction. It’d be interesting to see the planning authorities eat cake on that one. The impact would be particularly damaging to the primacy of the extremely tall Victorian further up.
DJM I see where you’re coming from regarding cleaning, but I thought this case to be a good one. The cleaning here doesn’t seem to have been abrasive, and the wider facade – while certainly brighter – doesn’t have that shell-shocked appearance we’re used to seeing. It looks quite muted in fact on location – perhaps the dazzling winter sun in some pictures is influencing matters. The stonework below is particularly natural looking, and minor residual staining is a good sign in my book – an indication of a cautious approach.
In fact I’d take issue in an opposite way to yourself – if anything the pointing looks a little too thick for Victorian machined bricks. I think it is this that is giving the facade a Georgian pastiche appearance :). Pointing’s notoriously contentious though, and tricky to get just right. It’s generally a good quality job here I think.
The colouring picks up nicely on SS. Augustine and John.
@GrahamH wrote:
I find it extraordinary that a property of the status and quality of Caffé Noto was permitted to be altered so drastically, yet similar alterations to relatively lesser buildings in the urban hierarchy on Pearse Street were refused! The fact that both cases involve protected structures merely reinforces this.
Removal of a pitched roof and replacement with a glazed penthouse has even been refused on a non-protected structure! (Sin É bar, above) <a href="http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=2102/02&theTabNo=2&backURL=Search%20Criteria%20>%20Ref. 2102/02 – see Condition 6. So it was extraordinary that Café Noto got through as a protected structure. And what a mess it is around the chimney, as you have shown in your pics GH.
In the Pearse Street example, they were getting a fairly substantial office block (as seen in the previous photomontage) stretching way down the side lane Magennis Place, so it was just pure greediness that they wanted to stick a glass storey on the protected structures (above) as well.
Hmmm…Im going to be the minority report here. I dont think the Cafe Noto works are all that bad. It is a little clumsy around the chimney and I wonder would removing the chimney have made a difference. To be honest I actually quite like the idea of these new rooftops and I think that they are a real solution to the need to reinvent so many of the very average Georgian and Victorians that fill the city. Of course they are not suitable in every situation and they should definately not be used to ‘unify’ streetscapes but they area valid design solution.
On Crown Alley in Temple Bar 2 modern storeys were added onto a period facade of 2 storeys and it’s quite inspired.
cafe noto gets the thumbs up… more than down
where is lilo?
the proposal was better after the board for sure…Not a big fan of the Caffe Noto (by the way, isn’t that the wrong accent they’re using over the “e” in Caffe?) extension having looked at in the flesh recently but agreed it could be alot worse. Graham saying
The oversailing element, whilst crisp in itself, is particularly overbearing for its context, and the chimney solution inelegant.
highlights the biggest flaw. They should have gone for one thing or the other; for example, something as simple as removing the overhanging roof would have meant that the old parapet would have retained it’s dominance of the roofline and the extension, I think, would have been very subtle and interesting as an example of retaining almost completely the original form of the building while incorporating a modern extension. The alternative would be a much more honest and radical intervention which would be indefensible given it’s protected status but more interesting architecturally.
@GrahamH wrote:
By contrast, the College Green topper-offer, red brick aside, is clearly distinct and complements its context rather than dominates.
And yours to rent for a cool 5k per month!!
There was an article in last Sunday’s Observer about new houses and extensions that featured a rooftop family apartment. (Article here: http://arts.guardian.co.uk/art/architecture/story/0,,2239834,00.html) The pictures aren’t attached to the online version, but they’re included with an older NY Times article on the same house: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/08/garden/08FAMrogers.html?pagewanted=1&_r=4&adxnnlx=1194735997-HaMmLGBeZ7SRBzX58Zmeaw
I’m not sure I’d agree with Stephen Bayley that the work was done ‘Without compromise to a handsome structure’- judge for yourself.
Oh, he’s the son of Richard Rogers. Then it must be okay.
@ctesiphon wrote:
There was an article in last Sunday’s Observer about new houses and extensions that featured a rooftop family apartment. (Article here: http://arts.guardian.co.uk/art/architecture/story/0,,2239834,00.html) The pictures aren’t attached to the online version, but they’re included with an older NY Times article on the same house: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/08/garden/08FAMrogers.html?pagewanted=1&_r=4&adxnnlx=1194735997-HaMmLGBeZ7SRBzX58Zmeaw
I’m not sure I’d agree with Stephen Bayley that the work was done ‘Without compromise to a handsome structure’- judge for yourself.
Oh, he’s the son of Richard Rogers. Then it must be okay.
jesus christ!!!!! (thats both an exclamination and a plea)…
lol – I can just hear the guffaws in Wood Quay as it does the rounds from desk to desk like an office e-mail (at least I hope so :eek:)
This was designed by qualified architect/s, Ciaran og Mac Mathuna Architects of Nassau Street.
Has Dublin Corporation – oh, sorry, they copycatted London and now call themselves Dublin ‘City Council’ – taken ugly pills or something? Ewww!
How on earth can anyone think that a building whose whole alignment is vertical, with tall, gracious windows, will look like anything other than a cartoon character with his hat shooting up from his head, when you graft on horizontal steel-and-glass or wood-and-glass…. stuff?
@Tighin wrote:
Has Dublin Corporation – oh, sorry, they copycatted London and now call themselves Dublin ‘City Council’ – taken ugly pills or something? Ewww!
How on earth can anyone think that a building whose whole alignment is vertical, with tall, gracious windows, will look like anything other than a cartoon character with his hat shooting up from his head, when you graft on horizontal steel-and-glass or wood-and-glass…. stuff?
well, they have refused permission…. what more can they do…
1. The proposed development is of sub-standard architectural quality and would have a detrimental impact on the setting and character of the protected structure and its location in a designated conservation area. This is contrary to 15.10.1 of the Dublin City Development Plan 2005-2011 and, consequently, would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Following DCC’S refusal of the above (<a href="http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=1942/06&theTabNo=2&backURL=Search%20Criteria%20>%201942/06), as seen at the start of the thread, they came back with a mansard roof instead, below, which was refused again by DCC (3036/08), then appealed to An Bord. Decision due in about a week – http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/230550.htm
If I had to pick, the masard roof is preferable. Architects get wet over floor-to-ceiling glazing (oh the thought of a feature in a glossy journal!!), but there’s major legibility issues with putting a glazed box on top of a historic building. Still, a mansard here involves demolition of the building’s historic pitched roof, and it is an important & highly visible building, so maybe the applicant just has to accept that building above the protected structure is not a runner in this instance …
(Note also that the mansard windows don’t even relate to the main elevation windows.)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
