The Western Quays
- This topic has 88 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
The Quays, west of say Grattan Bridge, get relatively little discussion on the forum – unlike a certain OTHER 🙂 street running at right angles to the Quays! (Graham, I’ll be expecting hefty contributions from you on this thread!).
Of course the area is famously blighted by bottom-of-the-barrel 1990s urban renewal architecture, but still somehow manages to be one of the most evocative parts of the city. Anyway, some recent/recently-approved development to start off with:
Usher’s Quay. This was granted as seen here by Dublin City Council earlier this year, then went to An Bord Pleanala and lost a floor (DCC Ref. 5654/04 – ABP Ref. PL29S.211865). By Gilroy McMahon Architects.
Ellis Quay. Newly completed. By Burke-Kennedy Doyle Architects.
Opposite Heuston Station. Completed 2001. Standard noughties stuff, but this was one of the first ‘signs of light’ for new development on the riverside. By Anthony Reddy Associates.
Anyone ever wandered into Kings and Queens? Old Phoenix Cinema – walk in, observe the staircase to the left and right leading to the upper foyer… continue forward, down a few steps and turn around… and look up…
Lived there for a year myself, Andrew, top floor, end of block seen in photo. Great view of the city from balcony. Liked it a lot actually, and not just for the good pubs in the vicinity.
@Devin wrote:
Ellis Quay. Newly completed. By Burke-Kennedy Doyle Architects.
.Don’t think much of this but lightyears better than the block to the left of it.
Well worth a look if you can get into it
St Paul’s
http://www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/dublin/northcity/quays/arran/stpauls.html@Paul Clerkin wrote:
[Ellis Quay]
Don’t think much of this but lightyears better than the block to the left of it.I don’t think much of it much myself – the corner feature is a bit meaningless (is it supposed to relate to the Calatrava Bridge, which is beyond the next building?).
The former Phoenix Cinema is part of the holding. They originally sought to demolish it for the new development. An Taisce Dublin City expressed concern, mainly because of – as Thomas Cooley says – the unusual interior. It was subsequently retained. The exterior is very plain, but in old photos you can see that it had plaster decoration.
@LOB wrote:
The Ellis Quay development is pretty awful, especially from the Benburb Street side.
i agree. i don’t like it either. i don’t like the use of red brick with timber.
@Paul Clerkin wrote:
Lived there for a year myself, Andrew, top floor, end of block seen in photo. Great view of the city from balcony. Liked it a lot actually, and not just for the good pubs in the vicinity.
Those darned immigrants with their massive sattelite dishes ruin it though! 😀
ABP have just granted permission for demolition of this (unlisted) Georgian building on the Quays, No. 2 Usher’s Island, at the corner with Bridgefoot Street (DCC Ref. 5369/04 – ABP Ref. PL 29S.212354). It’s been covered nearly from head to toe on two sides with billboards for years, right in front of the most distinguished classical bridge on the Liffey. See pic here also: http://www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/dublin/bridges/maeve_lge.html
After they recently granted permission for demolition of No. 134 Thomas Street, a similar unlisted Georgian building at the far (top) end of Bridgefoot Street (not to mention the Ormond Hotel further down the Quays), I just knew the Bord were going to grant this! 😡 .
Look at the delicious old brickwork and lime mortar pointing ….. so Dublin … sob!
How could you demolish a genuine historic quayfront building, surviving to full height, through all the visscitudes of contempt for the inner city, large-scale demolition of historic fabric, road-widening and bad-quality renewal?? And with the proper regeneration of the riverside finally in sight, with traffic removal & creation of public spaces, as hinted at in the new City Development Plan?
An Taisce Dublin City had produced this sketch, suggesting what might be done: removal of billboards and repair and retention of No. 2, and new building on the site of the single storey structure at No. 1. But now it’s complete demolition of all remaining structures at Nos. 1 & 2, and new replacement building 😡 .
And this is the new building as approved by DCC. ABP have since knocked a floor off it.
I must say, I’d prefer the new proposal to what is there at the moment anyday. I don’t think knocking this one building is a bad thing as we do have a huge amont of georgian buildings anway. They are all over the place. Dublin City does have a lot of these derelict/unattractive sites and I am pleased to see them being replaced with fresh new buildings. Having said that, they should come up with something better than what is proposed.
The modest stock of Dublin’s quays is arguably more important than the Fitzwilliam Squares of this city, as unlike the two Georgian cores, it is the Quays that are the most powerful force in defining the character of the capital. On a number of levels this building should’ve been preserved:
1. (and above all) it is a beautiful building – attractive by any standard and self-contained with that little pitched roof so typical of the quays.
2. It forms a crucial setting for Queen Maeve Bridge.
3. There are exceptionally few Georgians remaining on the quays, let alone in their original, unaltered state.
4. It is a breath of fresh air in a sea of dross.
5. The contrast between it and an elegant contemporary corner building with chamfered edge would’ve been striking (the AT proposal is reminicent in shape of the Irish Permanent on the corner of Eden Quay and O’Cll St)Those chunky exposed window rails look very early too – a sad decision, and most surprising it wasn’t protected.
Presumably therefore the mere Georgian remnants of a house on perhaps Merchants Quay aren’t protected either? (not sure which quay it is)Does that AT sketch accurately reflect fanlights above the windows? (the old shop signage obscures them if they’re there). If they are hidden behind there it would make the little building even more adorable. I also think the sketch with chamfered corner modern building framing this one is very natural. That whole area is really depressing with Guiness’ boundary wall looming over Victoria? Quay.
Knock it, it’s an eyesore. If it had of been maintained in the first place it wouldn’t be on it’s way out.
The curse of the Georgian strikes again. Retaining this building jsut because it happened to be built in a certain era and certain style that has been defined as Georgian should not imply:
1. all things built in this era or in this style are architecturally significant;
2. all things built in this era or in this style are worth retaining at any cost;
3. all things built in this era or in this style should prevent contemporary development;
4. all things built in this era or in this style should take absolute precedence over modern developments at the cost of Ireland not being able to define its current identity;
5. all things Georgian should be revered and bowed to.Objectively, the building is an eyesore. Unless it could be re-developed into a spanking example of a Georgian building (which would probably involve destroying everything behind the facade and that would also raise complaints), it is probably worth letting it go. On a cost-benefit analysis, I am sure that what one would get out of this building following a redevelopment investment in the region of 1,000,000, simply doesn’t justify its retention. If people want to see great Georgian architecture, they will go to Bath or Edinburgh, not to the quays of Dublin and certainly not to this buidling renovated or not.
Put it and Dublin out of its misery.
😮
YAWN, sorrry, I little bit boring. However, I do have some quality snaps of this area to be shared… soon enough.
Constructive response. Please proceed with all haste with your exciting photos, Morlan, we are waiting….
naz78-
The logical conculsion of your argument is that if anyone wants to get rid of any building all they have to do is buy it and let it go to ruin. That’s certainly how business was done in the past in this city (see the South Great George’s St thread for a perfect example), but no more. Haven’t you ever heard of a ‘duty of care’? It’s an eyesore because it wasn’t cared for, not because it’s a poor building.PDLL-
1) I don’t know any conservationist who would espouse any of your five points, but there is a perfectly good argument for the protection of this building. It is a relatively intact example of a building of its period that, though not of the first rank, is more significant due to its rarity, i.e. if they were ten-a-penny the case for protection would be weaker but, as one of the few Georgians on this stretch of the quays (otherwise blighted by mucky urban renewal apartments), there is a stronger argument for its retention.
2) The building ‘is an eyesore’ because it has been allowed to deteriorate, not because it was inherently ugly to begin with.
3) Why does it need to be ‘re-developed into a spanking example of a Georgian building’- retaining good examples of more modest buildings is as important as retaining the Fitzwilliam and Merrion Square examples. Then as now, not everyone lived in palatial splendour.
4) ‘If people want to see great Georgian architecture, they will go to Bath or Edinburgh’: Dublin is acknowledged as one of the great Georgain capitals of Europe, regardless of the vandalism and neglect that took place in the 20th century. Further, Bath Georgian and Edinburgh Georgian are as different from each other as they are from London Georgian, Dublin Georgian and Cork Georgian. A quick look around any of those cities would tell you as much.
5) Further again, the argument that one city can satisfy the scholar’s, the layman’s or the tourist’s (or the philistine’s) desire for a particular style of architecture probably applies more to contemporary design with its global aesthetic (Calatrava in Dublin, Gehry in Bilbao, Heneghan Peng in Cairo, etc. etc.) than to Georgain architecture with its regional variants, and there is good reason to believe that this trend might only become more pronounced due to the desires of many architects to stay one step ahead of the pack and to the instantaneous transmission of ideas around the world. The stage is now the world, not a town or country.ctesiphon, yes I have heard of duty of care. That is exactly what I was getting at. I pointed out that if it had of been taken care of in the first place we would still have it in years to come! It’s their own fault for letting it go to ruin. It’s disgusting with that derelict shed attached to it. There are far more important things in life to worry about that bricks and mortar. That building is not important compared to the GPO, the Custom House, the High Court…. There are trees growing out the top of it! I think we should let go. That is just my opinion and I can accept that we all have different ones.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
