The Western Quays
- This topic has 88 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
@Devin wrote:
…
What an extraordinary building! Never come across it before, though I do recall seeing it in the very place mentioned, the Airport, and wondering what building or even what city it was!
What the heck sort of columns are they under the portico?! – bizzare proportions.
When was the portico demolished – part of another road widening scheme?To think how famous that Statoil garage is for all sorts of reasons ;), not least as being probably the only petrol station in the city centre, it is extraordinary that such a prominent building once stood on that very site with little to nothing written of it.
What is equally notable is just how cohesive this quay once was, the rubbish that lines it today, and most prominently of all just how much the garage scheme completely destroys the very nature of the Liffey quays in this area – punching a devastating hole into the riverscape. Unfortunately it is this that forms the abiding memory of the western quays for me every time I walk down there, indeed even as a child in the back of the car I remember hating this area because of sites like that – you always got the impression of the city just gradually crumbling away the further west you went 🙁
Well clearly you haven’t.
Not wanting to stir things up again, but the ‘babble’ referred not to the content of your post – rather as you described bricks and mortar as not being of significance, if this was your view, whatever opinion you expressed in your post would by definition be of equal insignificance if you cared so little for the built environment.
I’m not saying this is the case as I know nothing of you – just explaining the context.they could do wonders with that building if they wanted to. i kinda like the an taisce sketch.
Anyway, more to the point, the proposed scheme looks like yet another eyesore for the quays, yet another “feature” on a corner without meaning or historic precedent along similar lines to the Bargaintown development across the river. At this rate the second “phase” of redevelopment of the western quays will end up even less visually appealing than the legoland apartments of the first.
The quays do not need a series of architectural “statements” and “features” screaming across at each other on every street corner. The quays need to form a more modest “grain” to allow the important buildings due precedence. As such the An Taisce sketch looks like an exemplar or the sort of massing and simple detailing which should be mandatory on such sites whether a georgian exists on it or not. Personally I would like to see the building retained although I can fully understand the economics etc. of it’s demolition. I’m much more concerned about the dross that will replace it.
@Devin wrote:
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). /I]
Among a few other minor arguments presented in this thread on why this building should be retained, here are two or three of the primary comments that have been made:
‘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’ (Devin)
‘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’ (Graham Hickey)
‘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? (aj)
Implicit in all of the above comments is the suggestion that the building should be retained because it is Georgian. In that regard, it is far from ‘sweeping’ to state what I already stated – it is in actual fact a reasonable conclusion to draw from the comments above. No need for hysterics on this one.
@Morlan wrote:
What a disgrace 😡
I wonder why the fine portico was removed? That in itself sealed its fate.
i am guessing increased traffic on the quays
Some great photos there folk!
This area of the city has been neglected for far too long. While it is good to see newer developments finally springing up, it is shocking to see any of the remaining old historic building stock demolished. Bargaintown while spearheading some newer recent developments are one of the major culprits however for not maintaining their older property. The Kings and Queens shop is a tawdry eyesore with those 2 trees plonked in front of it. That petrol station across the river is bloody awful too and should go. Homes Hotel was a priceless jewel in comparison. It’s a pity that there is an abundance of ignorant butchers in Ireland ready to cut and chop, botch and knock.To play devils advocate here, I would probably support something fairly close to a policy of blanket retention of historic stock. Demolition is terminal, so there is no symmetry in the choices available; If it turns out to be a mistake to retain the building, you can order in the JCBs later but if it turns out to be a mistake, then there’s practically nothing you can do. Because of this lack of symmetry, the case for demolition must be “above and beyond doubt”. There is a similar lack of symmetry in criminal law for example; if you hang someone (or put them in jail for twenty years), then you cannot reverse what you’ve done to them while you can always try them again if new evidence appears. The legal system solves the problem by insisting that the burden of proof lies with the side advocating the “non-reversable” outcome. A similar burden should apply when people are applying to destroy historic building stock. It should have to be proven “beyound a doubt” that the retention of the building would retard the development and improvement of the city. People make mistakes all the time – the system should attempt to ensure that terminal mistakes are more difficult to make than non-terminal ones.
In the case of this building, I don’t see a compelling case for demolishing it. This building isn’t an impediment to the development or improvement of the city – it’s just an old building which has been willfully neglected. What exactly is the social/economic case for getting rid of it? All I’m hearing from the knock-it-down side are general claims that “old buildings” shouldn’t be kept just for the sake of it.
Visiting beautiful towns and cities around Europe in countries such as France, Spain, Italy and Germany for example, makes it obvious to me that the retention of historic stock is almost NEVER damaging to cities or towns – the opposite is the case. I think in Ireland familiarity has bred contempt for Georgian architecture while we are happy to ooh and ahh over historic buildings in France or Spain.
Cripes, jimg! I hope you’ve got a good helmet. They’ll be raining down blows on you for weeks for talking like that. 🙂
For the record, I’d agree with much of what you’re saying (but I shied away from such a position above [despite what PDLL says] as it tends to entrench the anti-conservation lobby and I was keen to debate the merits of this one).It’s interesting to compare the attitude towards Georgian buildings in Ireland and the UK; 18th century stock over there is pretty much akin to how Victorian stock here is perceived – ten-a-penny and intrinsic to and characteristic of the built environment, especially urban areas – but nothing out of the ordinary.
By contrast Georgian buildings here seem to be considered so much more of value than their UK colleagues, being granted an almost servile level of respect. And with good reason in my view: they are our oldest buildings surviving on a mass scale, and the earliest stock of ‘modern’ times, that laid the foundations for how we build and live today.
Every country makes an effort to protect their oldest buildings regardless of how high they rank in the international hierarchy of ‘oldest civilisations’.The approach to 18th century heritage here seems much more in line with the protectionist measures afforded Jacobean and Queen Anne buildings in Britain, as ought to be the case. We’ve damn all else prior to 1700, 1730 even.
I don’t like the term ‘blanket policy’ in that it suggests everything is worthy of retention which is not the case. But broadly in agreement with what jimg says, a tread-carefully approach ought to be taken, i.e. assume 18th /early 19th century buildings to be worthy of retention and protection, and work back from there taking into account the architecture of the structure in question, the amount of original fabric remaining, and context context context on a host of levels.
Whether we like it or not, there is a value in ‘oldness’ – whether it simply be the aesthetic of ‘traditional’ design, how buildings stand as reminders to how previous generations lived, or even how the process of aging itself generates a visual and often intangible allure. I think what makes your analogy to the judicial system somewhat incompatible with the built environment jimg is that unlike in criminal cases where it just may be possible for one to be found innocent with the passing time, buildings are pretty much gauranteed to be uncovered as whiter than white as time progresses 😉
@Graham Hickey wrote:
they are our oldest buildings surviving on a mass scale, and the earliest stock of ‘modern’ times, that laid the foundations for how we build and live today
To be strictly correct on this topic and to avoid any unwarranted privileging of the Georgian period, it could be argued that ringforts are ‘our oldest buildings surviving on a mass scale’. There are estimated to be 60,000 ringforts still extant in Ireland, far in excess of the number of Georgian buildings surviving throughout the country.
Yes, people will argue that they are not ‘buildings’ in the usual sense of the word (however, they were comprised of a variety of built structures in their original functional state). They were human made structures that were designed and built for human habitation. In that context, their function is the same as that of many of the Georgian buildings in Dublin.
I am not espousing any form of anti-Georgian aestethic, I am simply trying to keep the rather brief period of Georgian architecture in Ireland within its cultural and historical context.
This has now descended into a simple points scoring thread, with little relevance to the western quays of Dublin.
PDLL- I think you’re being too literate in your interpretation- I can’t imagine anyone living in a ringfort these days. And most definitions of ‘building’ (as opposed to ‘structure’) refer to its habitability, often requiring the presence of a roof and walls. You mention that “they were comprised of a variety of built structures in their original functional state”, but that would make the original structures the buildings, not the forts themselves. (Oh and by the way, “to be strictly correct” [your phrase], nothing is ever “comprised of…” anything.)
Nobody here is prioritising Georgian above other eras. It happened to be the most prosperous phase in this country’s history (at least until recently- and our current built legacy can’t compare at all to that of the Georgians). The ‘Georgianness’ of the building is only one of the reasons for believing that this building should be kept. But this point has been made before and seems to be falling on deaf ears.
So what about those western quays?
Just a few minor observations for the sake of argumentative accuracy:
@ctesiphon wrote:
This has now descended into a simple points scoring thread, with little relevance to the western quays of Dublin.
@ctesiphon wrote:
(Oh and by the way, “to be strictly correct” [your phrase], nothing is ever “comprised of…” anything.)
Is this what you meant by simple points scoring?
Point of information: ‘be comprised of – make up, constitute’ (Concise Oxford Dictionary 10th edition).
Relevance to a thread on the Western Quays? The thread had moved towards a discussion of one building and whether it should be retained/restored or not. Participants then proposed arguments and points of view on why the building should be retained. Some suggested that it should be retained on the basis of it being a Georgian building and that there is a dearth of such buildings on the Quays. I proposed some counter-arguments to that which explored the privileging of Georgian buildings. Sounds like an acceptable degree of inter-relatedness and natural continuity to me. Of course, the moderators can impose extremely strict parameters on how horizontal the flow of the discussion can be, but it will stifle inter-active debate.
Yup- that is exactly what I meant by ‘simple points scoring’. I’m glad you took the bait. Annoying, isn’t it?
Re your point of information: my Concise Oxford lists no such acceptable usage (though admittedly it’s only the 7th Edition), while my Chambers (1999) states specifically, with reference to ‘comprise’: “often, incorrectly, with of“. Dictionary.com states:
Usage Note: The traditional rule states that the whole comprises the parts and the parts compose the whole. In strict usage: The Union comprises 50 states. Fifty states compose (or constitute or make up) the Union. Even though careful writers often maintain this distinction, comprise is increasingly used in place of compose, especially in the passive: The Union is comprised of 50 states. Our surveys show that opposition to this usage is abating. In the 1960s, 53 percent of the Usage Panel found this usage unacceptable; in 1996, only 35 percent objected.
And then there is also this: http://www.languagehat.com/archives/002040.php Sadly I don’t have my Fowler to hand.
For the record, while things like this do bother me I tend generally to let them slide on a forum, but when punters get nit-picky, well I can’t resist.
Were I to be driving my point home about linguistic accuracy, I could dwell on your use of ‘argumentative accuracy’, but that would be just petty and it makes me smile as it is (in a nutshell, your sentence means that your accuracy is characterised by argument/is given to being quarrelsome).To return to the thread:
It wasn’t your counter-arguments that I found unrelated to the thread (however much I might disagree with them), but your apparent belief that by disproving Graham’s claim about the predominance of Georgian architecture you were in some way disproving the right to protection of this building. In fact, this counter-argument actually strengthens in a small way the pro-retention case. You say that Georgians aren’t as numerous as others believe, which seems to me to add weight to the case for retention. If it was a ringfort on the quays we could bulldoze away at will, but as it’s a building of a type less ubiquitous than those forts, wouldn’t that make the case all the more compelling?
Further, your claim that “I am simply trying to keep the rather brief period of Georgian architecture in Ireland within its cultural and historical context,” misses the critical point in this debate that the cultural and historical context of Georgian architecture is the evolution of the very quays that are the subject of this thread, so the retention of this building would in fact reinforce your position.
I have a sneaking suspicion from your posts on other threads that the association of Georgian architecture with the period of British rule in Ireland undermines in some way the validity of its claim to heritage value. Correct me if I’m wrong, please.Anyway, I have made my position clear elsewhere and I fear that this hair-splitting is of only minimal interest to the other readers, so that’s probably my lot on this one, enjoyable and all as it has been.
@ctesiphon wrote:
I have a sneaking suspicion from your posts on other threads that the association of Georgian architecture with the period of British rule in Ireland undermines in some way the validity of its claim to heritage value. Correct me if I’m wrong, please.
Having spent much of my life earning my bread and butter reveling in the joys of early modern British culture, it would definitely be inaccurate to suggest the above.
Regarding Georgian Dublin and the Western Quays, the reason I have difficulties with the prioritization of Georgian architecture has to do with the fact that Dublin’s architectural development has been almost systematically stymied by what one might call Georgian lobbyists. This has nothing to do with English colonialism and everything to do with my criticism of contemporary attitudes towards development in Ireland (guess I will be accused of unionism now). I am endlessly frustrated by the number of developments shelved or rejected because of their lack of sensitivity to the Georgian cityscape of Dublin, yet people go weak at the knees when a less-than significant Georgian building is threatened with destruction. Ya, its a great example of a Georgian merchant’s house (we have heard all of those David Bellamy type arguments before) – no doubt it is, but in two hundred years time did people ever think that some of the much berated shite recently built will be seen as classic examples of extremely fine late twentieth century capitalist Ireland yuppy apartment architecture and contributors to Archiseek of the 23rd century will be drooling over the infamous Statoil station on the Quays. You can hear pseudo-aesthetic justifications already – ‘how bold, how brave, the courageousness of its curves, its revolutionary design and to think that was built in the days when Ireland was a Catholic backwater – audacious’. Maybe the lucky citizens of Georgian Dublin looked at the building under discussion and thought – ‘what a cheap load of old crap – couldn’t even stick a portico on it. For Christ’s sake, can we not do better than that’. We, however, tend to be blinded by the Emperor’s new clothes phenomenon to the extent that people are reluctant to say that a building from the Georgian period is far from worth saving in case they will be accused of architectural, cultural and historical ignorance.
Why should one period hold up the contemporary re-development of Dublin? Yes, there are fine Georgian streets and squares in Dublin – they are architectural gems and worthy of retention and preservation at all costs. Nobody is disputing this. If visitors want to see Georgian Dublin let them peruse some of the south-side’s finest streets. But Dublin is no longer a ‘Georgian city’ (if it ever could have been solely described as such). As I said before, like most other cities, it is an unfolding and living palimpsest involving different layers of architectural development. It should not be forced to wear a Georgian mantle at all costs, in the same way that one should not force one’s children to wear patchy old flairs because you might consider them to be the very zenith of achievement in human fashion.
What to do with the Quays – those smoke stained beauties that line the main entrance to Dublin’s city centre, those glistening Bargaintown outlets, those ramshackle old buildings with their unintentional roof gardens that give the city so much of its earthy proletarian feel that accompany the Liffey and the endless lines of traffic on their way to O’Connell Bridge. In a utopian world, I would flatten the whole area (with some carefully selected exceptions – buildings of recognized national or historic importance) and give 21st century Dublin a chance to express itself as it is today – a city of the 21st century. Wouldn’t it be fantastic to have a Dublin with an old Georgian quarter and a modern 21st century quarter or is Dublin too small to accommodate such divergence. The Georgians gave us food for thought, let us not disappoint the next generations by giving them nothing more than restored Georgian buildings of average quality and significance.
You make many valid points PDLL, particularly regarding how attitudes towards buildings can change so radically. What is perhaps a close example to the prospect you cite of the mundane of today being valued in the future is post-war emergency pre-fabricated housing in the UK – at this rate it’s entirely possible some of these structures will become listed buildings in the not so distant future.
Everything is relative. When we consider conservation in Dublin, it is nothing compared to Bath or Edinburgh, and they in turn nothing to Venice or other similarly preserved ancient cities. They have been dealing with conserving and protecting old buildings for generations and all the issues this raises – by contrast in Dublin, and indeed Ireland has a whole we are only beginning to get to grips with the concept. It is still very immature by comparison to other places.
For me, I suppose the general rule of conservation would be that a building which is broadly considered to be worthy of protection be conserved on the condition that it does not adversely disrupt or affect ‘the greater good’, which may perhaps involve a proposed scheme of architectural merit or a development of social value etc. Of course the ‘greater good’ may well be the retention of the structure itself, so it is the juggling of these many factors that decides what is worthy of retention/protection and what is not. Admittedly this is very general, and can only be worked out, if at all (as opinions will always differ), on a case-specific basis. Inevitably it is the compromise of conservation of the subject building and the redevelopment of adjoining structures/lands that takes place and for the most part this proves more than satisfactory.
Regarding the protection of what would have been considered in previous times to be of little or no merit, at the end of the day it is what is generally considered contemporaneously of value that counts. Just as Cork County Hall may have been reviled when first built, or Bank Of Ireland HQ considered outlandish, or even more modest buildings like that concrete building that was on the corner of Pearse St and Tara St in Dublin – times change. By all accounts we may come to treasure the plastic residential development of today in 200 years time, in which case so be it, as much as it is difficult to say :).
Indeed what is currently deemd to be acceptable as just mentioned – having new next to old – may well be considered horribly inappropriate in 50 years time.I wholly disagree with your assertion that architecture in Dublin has ‘been almost systematically stymied’ by the Georgianists – I challenge you to list the instances of architectural castration in this city as inflicted by Georgian conservationists, of which you imply there are a great many.
The lack of architectural ‘progress’ as it may be perceived has come about through a host of reasons, not least a fundamental lack of interest in design itself, and of which I would rank conservationism as such an impediment at the very very bottom.Wouldn’t it be fantastic to have a Dublin with an old Georgian quarter and a modern 21st century quarter or is Dublin too small to accommodate such divergence.
Yes and no it’s not. Many Spanish towns and cities are like that. Or for example, I was in Havana for a couple of weeks and it’s striking how the city is actually a collection of cities pressed together – each with their own historical period and asscociated street layout and building style. Each phase of the city’s expansion did not require demolition of historic (albeit in some cases not very old) stock. Their old town is now a WHO site. So despite huge economic hardship and delapidation, the city is still interesting and fun. I’d love to see Dublin develop along such lines but I feel the opportunity, for example, to create a 21st centruy expansion of urban Dublin into the docklands has been lost.
The Georgians gave us food for thought, let us not disappoint the next generations by giving them nothing more than restored Georgian buildings of average quality and significance.
I’d say the ratio of effort and finance behind developing new buildings and restoring georgians in Dubln is about 99 to 1, if even that. Like I said earlier, I don’t see how retaining this building retards the development or improvement of Dublin. If it was doing so, I’d back knocking it.
PDLL, I have had enough of you. You are a drama queen.
Bulldozergirl once managed to block garethace’s 9,000-word monologues by stuffing her thread with pictures 😀 – https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=2917&highlight=bulldozergirl – so maybe if mostly pictures are put on here PDLL will shut up.
The view of the Quays & Home’s Hotel which appears in the airport.
– an engraving after a drawing by W.H. Bartlett, from Ireland Illustrated, 1831. The bridge is the same one that’s there today!
ctesiphon, there doesn’t seem to be any record of the architect.
View from Sean Heuston Bridge before Frank Sherwin Bridge was built – (Sam’s bank about to be hung from its core in the distance).
Gorgeous bridge, but relegated to spare part status when FS Bridge was built beside it in ’82. But I suppose it has had a happy ending as a Luas bridge.
Frank Sherwin Bridge.
@Devin wrote:
PDLL, I have had enough of you. You are a drama queen….so maybe if mostly pictures are put on here PDLL will shut up.
That’s unfair Devin, even if said tongue in cheek. Just because you are so immersed in conservation does not mean everyone else is or shares your opinions.
Valid points have been raised that are too often glossed over.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
