The Western Quays
- This topic has 88 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
i am just glad to hear that something is going to be done with it. i think it looks terrible the way it is. keep it or knock it. it doesn’t bother me once they make some sort of improvement with it.
Commentators have frequently criticised restoration projects that have stripped Georgian buildings down and have effectively left nothing but the front wall with everything else behind that of 21st century origin. If this building was to be restored that is effectively what would have to be done. In short, it would become a Georgian facade at best and, not a particularly gracious one at that. Fair enough, if this can be done, then go ahead. If commentators don’t find such superficial restoration objectionable, even better.
However, how much money has to be spent so that we can have a Georgian ‘wall’ on the Quays. Would it not be better to invest that money in attempting to express some form of modern Irish architectural design rather than continually trying to re-capture the style of one comparatively short period of architecture in our national history. It is unfortunate that architecture in Dublin is repeatedly reduced to a celebration of one particular period often, arguably, at the cost of contemporary architectural expression.
Perhaps the money that would need to be spent on bringing this Georgian ‘wall’ back to some sort of decency would be better channelled into preserving some other Georgian buildings that have more prominence or architectural merit.
Surely PDLL it is much greater an architectural challenge to retain the Georgian building and construct a complementary contemporary structure alongside, with a further complexity being the corner site?
Surely this scenario is much more pleasing as a varied streetscape?
Surely this is as equally visually pleasing as the scheme you propose?
It is unfortunate that architecture in Dublin is repeatedly reduced to a celebration of one particular period often, arguably, at the cost of contemporary architectural expression
With this I would fully concur, indeed there’s no ‘arguably’ about it. However it is not historic, original architecture that is causing this – it is the developer-driven rubbish that physically encircles the subject Georgian in this thread, but not the Georgian itself. Quite the opposite in fact; I think you are underestimating the importance of a Georgian house on the quays – there is literally a handful of surviving 18th century residences along the miles of Dublin’s quays, and fewer still without later additions/alterations.
It is important to preserve this building not only as good example of an 18th century Dublin townhouse, but also as a rare surviving quay-side merchant residence in a place that was once lined with such buildings.The fact that the building is currently an eyesore is of no consequence at all, it is completely irrelevant – as has been said it is the original historic fabric that is being considered here, not the decrepit veil that shrouds the Georgian building as originally constructed. This building could be exceptionally beautiful, especially alongside the magnificent Queen Maeve Bridge.
@naz78 wrote:
There are far more important things in life to worry about that bricks and mortar.
This type of comment crops up every once in a while – sorry naz78 but it completely bulldozes away everything else you say; it all turns to babble with a remark like that. If bricks and mortar are so insignificant go back to Boards.
How can anyone tell what condition that building is in from looking at it from outside?
It’s clad with 2 massive billboards and a painted over shopfront. If the roof has held up then there’s no reason to believe the building won’t be in reasonable shape inside, if a little damp. Ironically the billboards may have given additional protection to the structure from driving rain.
Am I alone in thinking the AT sketch with nice modern building framing his old one is visually interesting and not just “keeping the georgian for kepping’s sake”?
Why is such a building so important then? If it is so important why is it in ruins? It looks out of place where it is. Maybe they should move it down the road to St Stephen’s Green. I’d be more concerned with say, them wanting to demolish the GPO, the High Court, Christchurch… These sort of buildings are not being demolished though and that is why I say there could be far more important things to worry about. I would hardly call my small remarks babble.
Murphagh, the shop signage does indeed obscure two arched windows on the ground floor, as you mentioned earlier, which add to the building’s interest. In terms the value of the interior, it seems to have been altered heavily in the 20th century and is of little or no merit. Still, that’s not to say it shouldn’t be reconditioned for use as it is. But the planning process has decided otherwise…..
For the building’s detractors, I think this well-known description of the decaying state of the Quays in the mid 1970s by the UK Architectural Review goes some way towards conveying the value of the building :
In Dublin it is not so much the famous Georgian streets and squares, fine as they are, that one remembers, but the unifying presence of the river Liffey … Whereas a wide river flowing through a city tends to become a barrier, the narrow Liffey, frequently bridged, does not form a dividing line between north and south as the Thames does. There is constant criss-cross movement sewing the two sides together. And, reminiscent of Amsterdam, it runs between facing terraces of vari-coloured buildings, three to five stories in height, separated from the embanked river by quays with stone parapets … Unlike Amsterdam though, this is a city of a single, and therefore all important, waterway and the buildings which line it are sadly neglected …
While picturesque decay may have its attractions as the subject for a painting, to allow structures to rot as they are doing along the Liffey quays is disastrous, for these riverside buildings are the essential Dublin. Individually unremarkable as works of architecture, collectively they are superb and form a perfect foil to the special buildings such as the Four Courts and Custom House …
Very nicely put.
If my comment came across as patronising naz78, it wasn’t intended as such – just many people here make their living out of bricks and mortar -every single member of this site has an interest in bricks and mortar in one form or another.
To back up a position on an architecture website by saying there are more important things in life than bricks and mortar does come across as more than just a cop-out from the central arguement.Saying that a person is babbling is not nice I have to say. He/She was just expressing their own opinion.
I’d like to stay on the Quays, if we don’t mind.
[align=center:l2scb7lz]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[/align:l2scb7lz]
Huge swathes of historic building stock were lost on the south side of the western Quays from about 1960 onwards. People talk about the ESB houses on the Georgian Mile, or the Mater houses on Eccles Street, but the ‘wipe-out factor’ of Georgian buildings on the western south Quays was just as great – just that it didn’t all happen at the same time. This is why it is so important that any survivors should be kept and restored if at all possible.
Demolition of large chunks of Bachelor’s Walk and Arran Quay (on the northern Quays) in the ‘70s and ‘80s are fairly well documented, but the demolition of almost the entirety of Usher’s Quay and Usher’s Island over the ‘60s & ‘70s is not well documented at all.
But as well as demolition of the Georgian grain, landmark buildings were lost as well on the western Quays 😮 – the striking Presbyterian Church on Upr. Ormond Quay (as featured previously on the forum), and Home’s Hotel on Usher’s Quay:
An ad or billhead engraving of Home’s Hotel, showing its fine frontage. This description is from The Heart of Dublin (P. Pearson):
Ganly’s premises on Usher’s Quay occupied the former Homes Hotel, an old coaching house for those travelling to the west … The grandiose structure, which was constructed in 1826 by a Scottish developer named George Homes, contained a cloth market on the ground floor known as the Wellesley Market. Homes spent £20,000 in erecting the structure, which had a grand portico of seven Doric columns that fronted the four-storey stucco-ornamented building. Unfortunately the building was demolished shortly after Ganly’s moved to new premises in 1977.
Photographs of the hotel are quite rare. You can see it here in the background in this picture from the roof of the Four Courts circa 1920s.
The hotel is featured in a print of the Quays hanging in Dublin Airport, as part of what the airport calls its ‘Heritage Programme’ – but it doesn’t exist anymore.
Here’s the hotel and adjoining Georgian stock in the 1960s, after its portico had been removed.
And the same view today….say no more…
Fantastic series of photos. Maybe one already exists in the forum, but a ‘Then and Now’ thread might provide plenty of material for a thought provoking discussion on the development of Dublin and other towns in Ireland. If such a thread already exists, please ignore this suggestion. Any thoughts?
PDLL, i think its better to have dedicated threads to specific areas….
Great stuff Devin… not old enough to remember the hotel but have seen pictures of it before. A major loss
it really is heart breaking to see the buildings we have lost…when you see what we pulled down in the past maybe we should be more careful than those in the past . I know the building that has been discussed already is far from the best Georgian in Dublin but should we at not reconsider having it pulled down?
I partly empathise with your position, aj. The building in Devin’s images is, however, leagues ahead of the building previously discussed. I would argue that instead of a blanket policy of retaining anything of a certain period (no matter what the period) simply because it is from that period is not sufficient reason to retain it. it should also be about the quality of the structure, whether it has any intrinsic historic or architectural significance, whether its absence would be a loss to our national or local architectural heritage and so on. Blanket policies of retention simply privilege the past for the sake of the past without paying any respect for what can be done in the present or what could be done in the future (both of which might prove to be qualitatively better than what was done in the past). Eggs always have to be broken in order to make an omelette. I have not heard any argument put forward for the retention of the building on the quays other than it is Georgian and should, therefore, be retained. Humans have been in Ireland for approximately 13,000 years now. The Georgian style lasted for how many decades in total? The full palimpsest of our architectural history should be treated equally.
So would I Devin.
in behind the quays near the jervis centre there is an appartment building. i “think” it is called millennium tower. funny as that means we have at least 2 millennium towers in dublin! why was construction of this building allowed when the abbey theatre wasn’t allowed go up 11 storeys? i find that odd. the appartment building beside the jervis is also about 11 storeys.
@PDLL wrote:
I partly empathise with your position, aj. The building in Devin’s images is, however, leagues ahead of the building previously discussed. I would argue that instead of a blanket policy of retaining anything of a certain period (no matter what the period) simply because it is from that period is not sufficient reason to retain it. it should also be about the quality of the structure, whether it has any intrinsic historic or architectural significance, whether its absence would be a loss to our national or local architectural heritage and so on. Blanket policies of retention simply privilege the past for the sake of the past without paying any respect for what can be done in the present or what could be done in the future
Hands up those who are arguing for a blanket policy of retention. Come on, you know you’re out there. PDLL says so.
@PDLL wrote:
I have not heard any argument put forward for the retention of the building on the quays other than it is Georgian and should, therefore, be retained.
Then you haven’t read the thread.
Also, we do still have the building, naz78- it hasn’t disappeared. It just needs some tlc and a bit of vision. Y’know, vision? I agree with murphaph on this one- see beyond the surface.
Devin- do you know who was the architect of the hotel?
><
The following is off-topic, sort of. Feel free to ignore it.@naz78 wrote:
There are far more important things in life to worry about that bricks and mortar.
This is a built environment discussion board. Nobody believes it is the be-all-and-end-all of the world. But our interest in the built environment is why we’re here. Maybe these topics are trivial in the greater scheme (as paul lite says), but can’t we have a little perspective? Do you go to football matches and berate the players and fans for not clearing land mines in Angola?
And paul lite, I think you’ll find that Graham (the target of your ‘certain person’ remark, I presume), rather than derailing the thread was actually endeavouring to bring it back to the topic under discussion.
Finally, can we pleeeeease steer clear of the objectionable sentiment that ‘Everybody is entitled to their own opinion’. It is axiomatic, but is rarely employed to mean what it says. More often than not it turns all differences of opinion into a personal attack, thus stifling a potentially intelligent debate. If you believe that you are entitled to your opinion, then you must also believe that somebody is entitled to disagree with your opinion. Because they are precisely that- opinions. Not facts. If you’re going to have an opinion, you should be prepared to argue it or defend it rather than hide behind it.
Anyway, I know the thread has moved on, thankfully, back to the subject of the quays. As you were.
@PDLL wrote:
I would argue that instead of a blanket policy of retaining anything of a certain period (no matter what the period) simply because it is from that period is not sufficient reason to retain it. it should also be about the quality of the structure, whether it has any intrinsic historic or architectural significance, whether its absence would be a loss to our national or local architectural heritage and so on. Blanket policies of retention simply privilege the past for the sake of the past without paying any respect for what can be done in the present or what could be done in the future … Eggs always have to be broken in order to make an omelette. I have not heard any argument put forward for the retention of the building on the quays other than it is Georgian and should, therefore, be retained
You are posting all sorts of sweeping and hackneyed statements here. Really, I have never heard the like of it!! (where are you getting “blanket policy of retaining anything of a certain period” from? – nobody here anyway). Any efforts to try and articulate the “quality” and “architectural significance” of No. 2 Usher’s Island have completely not reached you – as ctesiphon said, you don’t seem to be reading the thread.
@PDLL wrote:
[Home’s Hotel] is, however, leagues ahead of the building previously discussed.
To quote the AR again:
The city must be seen as a continuous visual experience … rather than with blinkered reverence for a few famous buildings and a closed eye to the unknown many – like seeing only the beautiful people while ignoring the many plain.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
