Stop this 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

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.

Up with the top-ups so! 😀

@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.

@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…

@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

@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.

@Devin wrote:

– Ref.1871/06
Decision : GRANT PERMISSION

Yes, 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

Dreadful news…but hey bad decisions are being made in the Planning Dept everyday! What harm can another one do. Still at least the shite on top will be constructed under the watchful eye of a “conservation architect”, which is good news.

@StephenC wrote:

Dreadful news…but hey bad decisions are being made in the Planning Dept everyday! What harm can another one do. Still at least the shite on top will be constructed under the watchful eye of a “conservation architect”, which is good news.

😮 I agree StephenC, its amazing what damage we have acheived to our build environment over the past few years..Give a muppet loads of money and you come up with David Beckham type class ??

I quite like the College Green affair.

As a matter of interest (Kite and Devin) what material planning grounds should the DCC planner have used to refuse the (in my view horrible) Grand Canal Street frankenstein?

I took the address of the building from your post No. 12 above?

Reading back over the thread maybe it is the Thomas Street/Francis Street building?

Perhaps I should have directed my comment more at Kite? But you (Devin) – did say apropos 79 Francis St – “Everything around there seems to get granted. Not going to repeat comments I made elsewhere about the area planner, but there is an extremely facilitatory attidude towards development.” Post No. 23.

From Post Nos 12 and 13:

Devin: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

@Graham Hickey wrote:

By contrast, the College Green topper-offer, red brick aside, is clearly distinct and complements its context rather than dominates.

This apartment appears to be on sale at the moment through Lisney. It’s bigger than I expected.
http://www.lisney.com/subnav.aspx?tabid=1&tabindex=1&inc=resProperty&ID=3253

@jdivision wrote:

This apartment appears to be on sale at the moment through Lisney. It’s bigger than I expected.
http://www.lisney.com/subnav.aspx?tabid=1&tabindex=1&inc=resProperty&ID=3253

s’not it – the one for sale is a lower floor (and looks very dark and dingy – but then what would you expect for only €700k?)

Is Bambricks closed?

Always had weird customers in there – I remember one night, a social worker seemed to be working the room, talking to regulars…, “and how are your meds” type of thing….

I agree with HKR comments, Henry J Lyons going that way too.

@Devin wrote:

You know those yearly award publications by the AAI and RIAI …………… Well for balance they should give examples of bad development next to historic buildings as well, because this would qualify.

Could not agree more, but it never would happen, the prof. bodies of any group would never do that, too cosy and incestuous. Whoever drew up plans for that shite should be ashamed. Architectural prostitution, and the scary thing is that there are idiots out there waiting to queue up to buy that stuff.
KB

@Devin wrote:

You know those yearly award publications by the AAI and RIAI that feature lots of delicate modern extensions onto period houses, and the panel of assessors rave about the lightness and transcendence of the design? Well for balance they should give examples of bad development next to historic buildings as well, because this would qualify.

The unfortunate problem with that is that if you could show that the value of the building was adversely affected then the developer/apartment owners/investors could sue you for diminishing the value of their property.

What a dismal proposal. Of course the irony is that if these ranges were established residential streets, the blocks would be struck out outright for being insensitive, domineering and overshadowing of the terraces below. And this would be a street were houses weren’t even protected structures!

Not sure I quite understand why ABP has to let some development through; if they see fit it can be fully rejected. Or is it inevitable that politics plays a part – appeasing the authority’s critics?

Beautiful photographs btw Devin.

yeh there’s a real issue with sites like Clancy Barracks. They’re prime development sites, whose development in a high density, often high rise manner are almost essential from a strategic point of view. The same goes for other sites in the Heuston-Kilmainham area. It’s very difficult to redevelop these urban blocks in an effective manner sympathetic to the protected structures. However, crap design should never be tolerated.

ABP don’t “have to do” anything. Political pressure is something the board do not take kindly to. Sure wasn’t mary o’rourke goin nuts about this recently. They are generally open for the period of consultation and then they are a closed shop. They were also criticised for refusing residential developments out in Dun laoghaire despite the pressure from local govt for housing.

i’ve just seen a nice example of this type of thing in dun laoghaire town centre. An awful pig of an apartment block is being built behind, above, beside and around what i believe is an early 20th century terrace at the junction of York Road and the Main Street, you’d have a wonderful view atop the 46A on the way to the seafront… sorry i’ve no pic. It’s not a protected structure but to be honest they’d have been better off demolishing the terrace than doing this

i think if they took that monstrosoty thing on on top of it off and left as is or put a smaller roof on it would look ok,not perfect but hardly award winningly awful.without that roof setback(can it be called that considering it protrudes back out again) it fits in well with the surrounding buildings.i also like the fact that despite being an add on to the old college building it doesnt try to be one and rather stands as its own building.

i think we can see time and time again from some of the examples on this thread that this sort of roof does not work on or near historic buildings

public realm, i think the step out is within their own boundary. It looks like it might be level with the railings and the platform. Otherwise yeh they’d require consent

Anyway that roof is bloody atrocious. On and on it goes

Whatever of the ridiculously over-scaled vista as generated from the above vantage point, you really do have to see the proposed head-on view from across the canal to truly appreciate it in all its glory. The ‘extension’ looms over the original building so audaciously as to make one wonder if it’s all some sort of joke; they’ve even added a stumpy tower thingy (a very rough comparison would be the Dental Hospital’s glass cylinder) to further detract from the primacy of the original cupola and wider front elevation.

Agreed that the street elevation is hardly criminal, but the projecting boxes seriously detract from the original building as a whole and the potential for it to blend seamlessly round the corner into the streetscape. And even though the original is only painted green and can be changed, the red sandstone cladding of the extension looks cheap and jarring next to it, as well as the red brick terrace on the other side. The blank expanse at the steps is also ugly.

In fairness to A.R. Associates, the height is hardly their fault, it clearly being the demand of the client. And glazed setbacks are getting through the system, so they’re only trying their luck in appeasing the client with a barely credible attempt. But really, isn’t it ridiculous how even new-build buildings like these are succumbing to this presposterous concept of architecture essentially ending at the third or fourth floor parapet, plonking generic greenhouses with sun screens on top of it all. It’s as if only two-thirds of a building actually needs to be designed any more, as the Setback Reference Guide Vol III will furnish a proposal for the remaining 30% for minimal cost and effort.

Isn’t there a relatively modern building already on that site?

Well if you class The Georgian Restaurant as modern, then yes, yes there is.

Ahhh I’m thinking of the next block down

Has this gone in for planning yet ?

Unfortunately the Georgian has been closed for 5 years now. I had many a good night out there but ultimately the property value proved too much of a lure to the owner.

The proposal is deserving of inclusion on this thread. Even a building of the existing scale would probably be inappropriate for this rear curtilage given the aspect and importance of the building.

1) Having regard to the height, massing, design, projection forward of the building line on the east elevation, it is considered that the proposed extension onto Portobello House, a Protected Structure would be overbearing and visually obtrusive when viewed from adjoining streets, and would materially affect the character and integrity of this important Protected Structure. The proposed development would represent an incongruous form of development along Richmond Street South and Richmond Row and would seriously injure the visual amenities of the surrounding properties and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

2) Having regard to the plot ratio proposed for this site, it is considered that the proposed development would be contrary to the Development Plan standards, paragraph 15.4.0 and 15.5.0 of the Dublin City Development Plan 2005-2011, and would result in over development of this site, and seriously injure the amenities of adjoining properties. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area

3) The proposed development which involves the demolition of a three storey building at number 37 Richmond Street South, which is located in a designated conservation area in the Dublin City Development Plan 2005, would be at variance with paragraph 15.10.3 which refers to retention and re-use of older buildings of significance which are not protected. This building makes a positive contribution to the character and identity of streetscapes and the sustainable development of the city. The proposed development would therefore seriously injure the visual amenities of the streetscape and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area

Very clear message from the planners on this which has to be commended as this streetscape is worthy of preservation; DCC have been very proactive in this area with rapid enforcements when informed of unauthorised and inappropriate developments.

Suprisingly the Lisney Apartment hasn’t shifted yet.

Excellent, a very thorough no.

@PVC King wrote:

Suprisingly the Lisney Apartment hasn’t shifted yet.

Gotta get a Lotto ticket on Saturday so. When you look at the floor plans I suspect the layout would put off a lot of people

5/1/2008

As first raised at the beginning of this thread, the signature corner building at the entrance to Thomas Street and Francis Street has just completed works to its facade and (ever so slightly more) contentiously its roofscape. The addition of a pavilion storey was granted by DCC, was refused by the ABP inspector, and then granted by the board of ABP on the condition that the sweepy curved part be flattened out.

Hence what was this…

@Devin wrote:

…is now this.

Alas I didn’t have time to get a wider stretscape view from a distance, which would better demonstrate its impact.

It is certainly better than what was intitially proposed, so the sting has at least been taken out, but I’d still contend this is a clunky addition to an historic building. The oversailing element, whilst crisp in itself, is particularly overbearing for its context, and the chimney solution inelegant.

As far as pavilion additions go, this was probably a good preliminary case, and one gets the impression the Board were in some respect using this as just that: a test case in a secondary area. It’s by no means of Hugh Lane extension proportions, but it’s not particularly sensitive either. It’s very top heavy, while the original building has had some of its landmark quality diluted. No real damage has been done, but on the basis of this extension I wouldn’t be rushing to grant similar cases elsewhere.
All in all, I think it’s decent enough to be added to the city’s curiosities list rather than monstrosities list.

A glazed infill section was popped in to the rear to provide direct access to the top.

A neat solution, if the top-hung casements cumbersome. Cleverly, the extension has also been set back by a metre or so, ensuring an expanse of glazing does not attain the same status as surrounding masonry elements. It is also detached from flanking facades.

The orginal facade has been beautifully cleaned by Interclean and repointed, and sashes a sexy dark grey (shock!). Actually they were painted a few years ago and could do with a new coat or two.

The cut limestone sparkling.

And the owner’s investment in the chic Caffé Noto on the ground floor was most welcome. It does a roaring trade, simply selling coffee and excellent homemade cakes, being bizarrely the only one of its kind in the area. Everything’s also so cheap away from the city centre! Hilariously it has the most spectacularly rude staff of any establisment anywhere in the city. It’s actually a selling point – it’s a running joke amongst my colleagues as to who’s got the worst treatment thus far. The staff are of an artsy type, with that dishevelled slipper-footed, figure-hugging fashion thing going on, and an attitude so aloof and non-caring as to make it something of a must-see. One is also expected to collect one’s coffee from the counter, whist your cake just might arrive at the table if the server feels like it. Just remember to bring your own cutlery – the staff can’t be arsed washing it.
Otherwise a nice little number on the corner.

@GrahamH wrote:

but I’d still contend this is a clunky addition to an historic building. The oversailing element, whilst crisp in itself, is particularly overbearing for its context, and the chimney solution inelegant.

Would have to agree, not as bad as it might have been however. Why the need for the extensive roof line over hang ? were they trying to make the handling of the chimney more difficult for themselves ?

The heaviness of the overhang & its crude interaction with the chimney would be the most disappointing aspects imo.

Absolutely – merely serving to highlight the entire extensions’ inappropriateness in the first place. It draws attention to it like big red arrow – ADDITION ALERT!

The fact that these glazed boxes appear to be uninhabitable without a sun screen raises questions on a wider level as to their viabilty as a design solution for increased density.

Don’t be so nice

Verdict FAILED

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.

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.

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.

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!!

http://www.daft.ie/searchrental.daft?id=501696&search=1

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)…

I’ve seen that in person, and in context, it works a lot better than the picture suggests.

One would hope so.

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.

“og” being the key word there. How “og” I wonder.

That is spectacularly ugly….

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.

Watch out, the botchers are about,. Those roof jobs are fucking horrible. What terrible treatment. The architects and builders responsible should be prosecuted. Uuuuuggghhh…….. that AIB job!

@Devin wrote:

Note also that the mansard windows don’t even relate to the main elevation windows.

DCC are not going to permit that surely? Come on, that is so substandard in terms appreciation of the spatial rhythm of such a strategically placed building, that that cannot go ahead – may I suggest a new terminology to any planner who happens to see this; “Modular Ignorance” would be a suitable assessment…

This application must get shot down as lacking body or substance necessary to proceed in a sympathetic manner in keeping with the established character of this prominent structure. As one who has in the past has argued for the permitting of “top ups”, it seems clear to me that in this instance it is unlikely that the respective parties would be capable of achieving the incredibly high standards and specifications that this building at this juncture requires.

To permit the bungalow-standard mansard currently proposed, with its ill-informed spacing of opes, would be a repeat of the disaster that occurred with the Burton Building on Dame St/ George’s St corner. There the newish Sony shop glass facade utterly subverted the great volumes of rhythm created by the vertical pilasters – thus destroying one of the few truly great one-off commercial buildings in Dublin dating from circa 1930.

Down with this sort of thing, or as this thread is titled – Stop this nonsense!

@hutton wrote:

ill-informed spacing of opes

A bit like my gob on occasion 😮

Read “An BP” rather than “DCC” for the start of that – and I would add to clarify, a most welcome decision by DCC in shooting it down in the first instance (see henno’s post above) 🙂

I can see the post already – Bungalow Bliss, Four Floors Up on O’Connell St

What an address :p

More nonsense – abomination would be more apt – has just reared its ugly head in the heart of the ceremoninal government district. As if poor Molesworth Street hadn’t already suffered enough.

You couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried.

Quite frankly, it is cases like these that can cause one to feel little sympathy for the architectural profession in these troubled times, when one observes the extent to which so many architects whored themselves out – and by association our architectural heritage and streetscapes – for greedy, money-grabbing, and thoroughly ignorant developments such as these. How the RIAI can issue membership to practices who reduce the profession to this gutter level is nothing short of baffling.

The same applies to planning. To think professional persons appointed as custodians of our city consider it appropriate that an elegantly designed, exquistely detailed 1930s neo-Georgian building, forming part of the vista approaching Leinster House, can comfortably accommodate a milk carton clad in retail park coated metal panels, factory-churned aluminium windows and a sticky-on brise soleil, borders on frightening.

Without question, this one of the worst developments ever to take place in Dublin over the course of the grubby, gluttonous, credit-fuelled, selfish, culturally bereft era of the mid-2000s.

At least it fits in neatly with all the other dross tossed up in Dublin’s landfill in the sky.

One genuinely wonders how the architectural profession, which ought now to be at its most refined, can have plummeted to such a degree that a building designed in the depths of depression in the 1930s, with no hint of a planning system, so beautifully designed and crafted, featuring handsome proportions, elegant detailing, and amongst the most accomplished brickwork seen in Dublin since the material was introduced over 300 years previous, can be mauled by a few clicks of a CAD mouse and a willing planner. How has this happened?

Shame on the persons involved and the system they inhabit. The planning file alas does not feature the authors of this work.

@GrahamH wrote:

Shame on the persons involved and the system they inhabit. The planning file alas does not feature the authors of this work.

Its difficult to see how this could be any more incongruous. It can’t be too difficult to find out who was responsible.
DCC planning, your credibility is shot to zero.

Come out, come out whoever you are.

Whatever the (de)merits of this crude addition, the original building shows a great sensitivity to Georgian form and proportion, while being unmistakably ‘modern(e)’. Isn’t that the real lesson for the architectural profession? That and banning CAD.
(It also looks as though they’ve cleaned half the brickwork and left the other half! I think we need to know who’s responsible!)

Graham, while we all abhor this type of crap development, it should be borne in mind that the architects and planners that are experiencing the most trouble in these troubled times are new graduates and those with least experience and therefore those with the least responsibility for these abberations. The managers and most senior people will be ok and they are the ones who facilitate and sign off on this shite. The ones queuing at the social welfare hatches and check in desks are mostly those without a final say.

I’d broadly agree with you on that alonso, though to tweak it slightly, it’s equally likely that inexperienced graduates (in both professions) are given these files, which are then signed off by those at a more senior level. In that case, I don’t know if you can blame such inexperience over the system that allows these people to be involved at that level of decision-making. Either way it results in a mess!

I was particularly annoyed at this development, as this building is the most beautiful example of the modernist neo-Georgian style in the city centre. Furthermore, it’s almost the sole survivor of a whole grouping of similar elegant buildings which were whacked next door to form Sun Alliance House, and had been tastefully refurbished only a short while ago. Suffice to say, it is not a Protected Structure either :rolleyes:

(the top-up loomed over an interviewee’s head on the news tonight, for added insult!)

God i can’t believe i’ve never noticed that before – like you said – its easy to see how the profession can make so many vehemently opposed to any modernist/ new interventions.

An absolute disgrace.

@GrahamH wrote:

I’d broadly agree with you on that alonso, though to tweak it slightly, it’s equally likely that inexperienced graduates (in both professions) are given these files, which are then signed off by those at a more senior level. In that case, I don’t know if you can blame such inexperience over the system that allows these people to be involved at that level of decision-making. Either way it results in a mess!

I agree that it’s the system that allows this and it is up to those with experience to guide those without. There is a vacuum there. Where do we look for for good practice? We’ve been looking to the continent for decades yet seem intent on always aping failed anglo American models – maybe not in architecture itself but in our entire approach to the built environment and how we move through it. My point was mainly related to the lack of sympathy for the profession – I agree that in total there can be no sympathy for the planning profession and architecture. There is no excuse for what’s gone on. If we built absolute shit pre-boom, worse shit during the boom, what the hell are we gonna do in the recession?

However i do have sympathy for all involved who are being pushed to the dole queue or the Airport – most of who i’ll wager are under 35, even 30

@alonso wrote:

However i do have sympathy for all involved who are being pushed to the dole queue or the Airport – most of who i’ll wager are under 35, even 30

Yep totally agree. And its a real shame to see so much talent, which has been developed over the last 10-20 years in this country begin to drift away.

I’d say we’ll see some very skilled Irish architects making names abroad in the next few years. Hopefully some of those left can do the same.

Pity they havent made names here…

no mention on their website – http://www.comma.ie, not that it would be at the top of anyone’s portfolio list.

they are however responsible for the new ‘costa’ & associated signage next door, which oddly enough only went in on march 16th, with a decision still pending …

Collins Maher Martin Architects (formerly known as Lynch O’Toole Martin) – explains a lot

Shock!

If ever there were two cases that demonstrate how the precedent of lax planning informs future development.

It is this sort of accumluation of ignorant design concepts that has compromised so much of the appearance of the city centre – firms acting exclusively in the interests of their clients, and a planning system which assists them in their aims.

So make a bad building even worse? I couldn’t give two hoots about the effect it has on the building – it is the streetscape impact, which is vulgar and unduly cluttering. Yeah I agree it’s nothing major, but it is symptomatic of how these places go unregulated, and often aided and abetted – as in this case – by architectural practices who wouldn’t know anything of a sense of streetscape if it hit them in the face; as their other masterstroke around the corner has further proved.

So what next for these guys – a Heineken smoking canopy outside Buswells?