The Western Quays

I live in the last one, but not for much longer.

The Ellis Quay development is pretty awful, especially from the Benburb Street side.

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

Interior
http://www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/dublin/northcity/quays/arran/stpauls_interior.html

@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! 😀

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.

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.

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.

Delete……..

It wasn’t meant that way. Never mind.

Saying that a person is babbling is not nice I have to say. He/She was just expressing their own opinion.

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.

What a disgrace 😡

I wonder why the fine portico was removed? That in itself sealed its fate.

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.

That quote is on the money.

Also- any leads on the hotel architect?

@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.

@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.

@Devin wrote:

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.

I think it is largely accepted that in the history of human ideas, theories, methods, concepts and approaches have been born out of arguments and counter-arguments. A sheet of metal can only really take on a usefullness after it has been beaten, battered, and moulded into something by a hammer and heat – an idea can only take on life or meaning after it has been beaten by words and moulded into shape under the heat of argument and counter-argument. If that doesn’t happen, the idea remains a blind dogma. If the presentation of arguments and counter-arguments displeases you Devin, that is singularly unfortunate – I am of the belief that internet fora are based on the democratic principle of equal voices where ideas can be expressed and challenged as necessary. Perhaps, then, it would be useful to know what the function of the forum is: is it to present architectural photographs, is it to make some timid passive informative observations, or is it to engage in critical discussions on where architecture and urban planning is going in Ireland from the architectural and sociological perspective. If it is the former, then I warmly welcome the pictures just posted – they certainly illuminate the thread. If it is the latter, I hope those pictures stimulate further discussion which hopefully you will constructively contribute to.

@Devin wrote:

ctesiphon, there doesn’t seem to be any record of the architect.

Thanks for that, Devin.

@Devin wrote:

Sorry if you think my comments are unfair,

It just doesn’t help to 1. antagonise other members as it gets us nowhere, and 2. (more importantly) suggest that other members be stifled either because of an opinion they hold or the way the present it – even if they do get up your nose 🙂
I find PDLL’s argument and presentation of it as valid as anyone else’s – even if I don’t ‘quite’ agree with him…

Not to digress too much, but just on the post-colonial hangover thing, and how Georgian architecture and Georgian Dublin in general in the 1960s and 70s was supposedly undervalued if not systematically attacked because of its provenance – where exactly is the evidence of this? Sure 18th century heritage, indeed all built heritage was undervalued at the time, but are there any express examples of buildings being knocked etc because they stood as symbols of ‘oppression’?

Or was it more of a culture at the time, a view imbued in the planning and political system that combined with an ignorance of the value of older stock caused so much to be lost? Just it’s very easy to say in a sweeping fashion, as is always said, that Georgian buildings were ‘hated’ for what they stood for – but where’s the evidence of this?

If it ever did exist, certainly times have changed. I was always struck by the RTÉ corporate promotion that ran in 2000, which showed beautifully shot sequences of urban and rural Ireland over the course of its two minutes, with images of the broadcaster’s services superimposed over the various landscapes. And at the very end, the final shot was a graphic saying ‘We are Irish’ which then cut to a woman holding a baby standing at the head of Upper Mount Street with all of its Georgian splendour stretching into the distance behind.
A very deliberate move. and very effective at that.

@Devin wrote:

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.

The quays look superb in that old engraving/print. It is sad to see that this part of the city has badly regressed with time. It needs a major overhaul. What a shite view in the last photo!

Yeah I think an IAP to deal with the quays once the current ones are completed (!?) would be in order.

Does anyone know how high the storage/fermenting silos in the Guinness Brewery are. As a guestimate, I would reckon about the height of a 7 storey building, possibly higher. The western quays would benefit greatly from the out-of-city-centre re-location of the Guinness Brewery and the construction of a cluster of appropriately designed office buildings on the site – ie buildings more befitting the centre of a capital city in a post-industrial revolution age. Indeed, given the height and sheer ugliness of the industrial architecture that currently occupies the site, there would even be great difficult in opposing a few high-rise buildings on the site. I am surprised, indeed, that Guiness hasn’t even mooted the suggestion of selling the site, knowing the value of the land – given traffic difficulties etc, one wonders how economical it is to have a city-centre location for such an industrial plant, although maybe its proximity to the docks answers that.

I believe Guinness considered such a move within the last couple of years but decided against it. I don’t know what the company’s rationale for its decision was. It’s a pity as you say, as that stretch of the quays is one of the bleakest of the whole stretch (except for the funny little ‘house’ set into the boundary wall), not to mention the dead canyon of Steeven’s Lane. I’d be of the opinion that it should be apartments or mixed-use rather than exclusively offices, though, and I’m not sure I’d agree that all of the industrial buildings are ugly- some of them have a stark functional beauty that I’d like to see incorporated into any future scheme (though it’s a moot point at this stage).

EDIT: This link was posted on archiseek back in August. Don’t know if you saw it, but they’ve obviously been thinking along the same lines.
http://www.udi.ie/osud/00003/index.html

Dublin wouldnt be Dublin if the brewery was moved imo – its more than the physical, its the smell….

Ya, the brewery kills the western quays – one long featureless wall for half a km at least. The corresponding northern section isn’t much better either. However there is a great view of the brewery from the Phoenix park through the main Parkgate St. entrance which frames some of the silos and chimneys. It looks magical – like Willy Wonka’s factory.

Looking at the site using google maps, it seems to consist of a lot of empty space. Even if Guiness were to maintain operations there, it looks like they could easily sell off a significant strip along the quay front edge for development. It would be a great spot for development beside the Luas and Hueston for public transport and with the Park five minutes walk away.

would have no problem with a mixed use of the space – offices and residential and commerical would be good. Indeed, I would agree – some of the industrial buidlings on the site could be nicely re-invented.

Here are some pictures of a fantastic example of re-invented (or renovated) industrial architecture in Vienna:

So that’s why you took the apartment opposite Heuston Station, Paul. 🙂

I agree that the brewery is part of the fabric of the city and I too wouldn’t like to see it gone, but I think its physical effect on the quays is pretty powerful and depressing. Perhaps there could be a case for building along the perimeter (which seems to be used predominantly as parking from what I can see from the bus), thereby preserving the historical land use, the smell and the key industrial buildings while humanising the quayfront elevation (incorporating the aforementioned little house, obviously)?

EDIT: Cross-post with jimg re the quayfront strip- great minds etc.

and some more

@ctesiphon wrote:

So that’s why you took the apartment opposite Heuston Station, Paul. 🙂

I agree that the brewery is part of the fabric of the city and I too wouldn’t like to see it gone, but I think its physical effect on the quays is pretty powerful and depressing. Perhaps there could be a case for building along the perimeter (which seems to be used predominantly as parking from what I can see from the bus), thereby preserving the historical land use, the smell and the key industrial buildings while humanising the quayfront elevation (incorporating the aforementioned little house, obviously)?
.

What would you consider a reasonable adjustment to the quayside then? While maintaining the fabric afforded by the brewery?

Perhaps private land sales toward the waterfront with a scaled element running west toward Heuston??? (Obviously with respect to the landscape and important structures).

What makes me wonder is if there is a good strip of ‘developable’ land along the quay side of the Guinness site, why hasn’t Guinness itself exploited its potential. Not sure I would agree with the sentiments that glorify the smell of the brewery. Sounds like the peculiar sentimentalization of polution to me. I am sure that Dublin would still be Dublin without the smell, in the same way that the narrow streets of Galway are still the narrow streets of Galway without the medieval pig shit and human piss flowing down the gutters.

@PDLL wrote:

Sounds like the peculiar sentimentalization of polution to me. I am sure that Dublin would still be Dublin without the smell, in the same way that the narrow streets of Galway are still the narrow streets of Galway without the medieval pig shit and human piss flowing down the gutters.

Hmmm there’s a nice image to tell the kids. 😀

Oh I don’t know PDLL- I’d take the smell of the brewery over the smell of manure any day. I know very few people who find the smell unappealing, though I do know one person who disliked it so much he moved to London.
As for Guinness’s reasons for not developing, I haven’t the faintest idea. Perhaps there was little incentive in the days of development doldrums, and then when land values started to shoot up they decided to sit and wait. It must still be rising in that area, I’d have thought.

Lex,
There seems to be a strip of land about the width of the Liffey immediately behind the boundary (see the google map above) that is ripe for development, moreso when you consider that the traffic will eventually be reduced along this stretch (see Devin’s DCC extract) and the trucks that park there routinely will be removed. No doubt this strip could be widened if the site layout were to be rationalised internally; quite possible as most of the noteworthy buildings are further up the hill.
There could be a problem with views southward over the industrial land, but this might be offset by the sunshine. 🙂
I’d also like to see more of a plaza created in front of Heuston Stn- some sort of square through which runs the Luas rather than the messy junction that currently occupies the ground.
There could be an argument on the quayfront for buildings higher than the standard quayside 4 storeys too, though I’m not suggesting towers! And this would be subject to their deference to the setting of the station itself. Any shadow would be cast over the river, and they’d have the benefit of views over the Croppy Acre.
If not privately developed for mixed use, I see no reason why Guinness couldn’t build a decent hotel instead- it would be close to different modes of transport and the range of amenities in the western part of the city- their own Storehouse (number 1 in the league), IMMA, Kilmainham Gaol, Collins Barracks, Phoenix Park, etc.
This is all off the top of my head though and it’s a year since I last walked that stretch of the quays. Another visit might make me think differently…

EDIT: I’ve just remembered a development in Cork (no doubt you’re familiar!) that won some sort of prize last year, where a series of buildings (3-4 storey?) was set almost perpendicular to the river with higher ones behind. Something like that might work, though I think the Cork site was deeper and shorter (i.e. not as elongated as the Guinness strip).
Do you know the one I’m thinking of?

“TLM,
The Council have an objective in the new Development Plan to produce an IAP-type plan for the Quays (page 18):

The river Liffey has always been at the heart of the city’s identity but has been marred by the use of the quays as a major traffic artery and the main route for heavy goods vehicles coming to and from the port. The presence of traffic has created a hostile traffic environment and has impacted negatively on its built fabric. As a result, its role as a central civic spine with the potential to link the Phoenix Park and Dublin Bay has been seriously compromised. The forthcoming completion of the Port Tunnel (2005) provides a major opportunity to develop the public realm of the river and to anchor it as a central civic spine.

Objective CUF 1
It is an objective of Dublin City Council to prepare a Framework Plan for the city quays during the lifetime of this plan.”

Thanks for that devin, I await it with interest.

@Devin wrote:

Anybody know what that gate with parapets is towards the background of that picture?

That’s the Richmond Gate
http://www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/dublin/kilmainham/rhk_gate.html

Cheers Paul, I was thinking it looked like that gate (though I didn’t know its name) but knew it wasn’t in that area. Interesting that it was moved like that.

Does anyone know who did the art installation (I am assuming that’s what it is on the Dublin quays?) Sorry if it’s been discussed elsewhere.

It consists of flags of all nations flying on teh flagpoles but they are done in shades of grey, as if looking at a blakc + white film – looks really fantastic and not a little unnerving..

@Devin wrote:

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!

What happened to this building?

https://archiseek.com/content/showpost.php?p=42210&postcount=31

That really is tragic; how anyone could not have seen the value in that building’s facade defies belief, I imagine that the original proposed scheme foundered in the 1979 property collapse and that the garage use only became viable a decade later when land values has totally collapsed on foot of the carry on within the Oliver Bond complex which has thankfully changed beyond all recognition.

The real tragedy is that if this could have held on another 10 years at least the facade probably would have been saved as per most of the Merchants Quay redevelopment.

The speculator behind its demolition should have a plaque on the first floor of the International Bar

Distinctly better than its neighbours, I would say that its a marked improvement on the usual standard of quays development. Perhaps the division into three “buildings” is a tad contrived? If it encouraged replacement of its rather dull and uninspired neighbours it wouldn’t actually be a bad thing.

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

Perhaps the division into three “buildings” is a tad contrived? If it encouraged replacement of its rather dull and uninspired neighbours it wouldn’t actually be a bad thing.

+1
Just too much going on overall.