Theyre at it again – A Georgian goes on the quays / Endangered Georgian Dublin

I didn’t get a chance to look properly but has this building recently be demolished? I was driving past and what looks like a recently cleared site on Usher’s Island briefly caught my attention but I didn’t have time to figure out what it was that had been levelled.

Suddenly it begins to become clear… Scheme proposed for adjacent site (13 Bridgefoot St):

with another elevation here:

Granted by DCC, I understand that its under appeal to An Bord. So between this and other large projects being proposed for the quays, ie the suas/ pie-in-the-sky cable car + also the Clarence redevelopment with its gigantic toilet bowl, remind me again what DCC’s definition of “Conservation Area” is… :rolleyes:

Are they out of their minds? This madness might work in Constructivist Moscow 1920 (or rather the dreams of those Russian guys) but looming over the quays…..

what the in the name of sweet jesus is that? what a shit day today is on archiseek. We’ve had the suas, the mad statue nonsense and now this. It seems DCC are doing their best to carry on the mutilation of the quays begun with the section 23 muck and the Docklands snorefest

btw where does the overhanging sanitation go?

who are the architects?

that thing honestly turns my stomach…… theres something comletely wrong about it…

Eh.. What the fuck?

I kinda like it on first look, now the demise of another georgian, particularly on the quays is another thing altogether… perhaps this is part of the upscaling for the heuston ‘gateway’.

With high rises popping up in all major suburbs & at stragegic gateway points, the concept of the doughnut city is perhaps becoming a reality.

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

who are the architects?

Architects: Mitchell & Associates, Fumbally Court, Fumbally Lane, Dublin 8

Appeal Details:
Case reference: 29S223337
Case type: Planning Appeal
Reg. Ref.: 6361/06
Location: North West corner of Island Street & Bridgefoot St, Dublin 8
Planning Authority: Dublin City Council
Development: Mixed development comprising 41 no. residential units, office space, retail and all ancillary site works.
Applicant: Flancrest Entreprises Ltd (Applicant)
EIS required: No
Appellant: An Taisce

Appeal Lodged: 08/05/2007
Status: Case is due to be decided by 10-09-2007

here are some more images of the scheme
http://www.mitchell.ie/site/bridgefoot_street.asp

@www.mitchell.ie/site/ wrote:

Client:
Private Client + DCC

So if DCC is a client how did this not go via section 8 to An Bord P? :confused:

Im amazed at this monstrosity. And the fact that it has never been heard of before. It is indeed looking pretty dire for the Quays. Absolutely no vision! Or at least a very skewered and unbalanced vision. In my opinion the quays need a proper framework plan and design statement and a commitement from DCC to invest in the public realm. Not this haphazardness

There is more information on the planning application for Nos. 1 and 2 Usher’s Island (now demolished) on this thread

https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=4432 starting on 11 Nov 2005 Post No. 11

An Bord Pleanala requested 1 floor be removed from this proposal.

@hutton wrote:

What the hell is that thing? :confused:

Same firm have won design competition for new entrance to the War Memorial Gardens
http://www.mitchell.ie/site/memorial_gardens.asp
Also, have another scheme for redevelopment of a pretty rundown council block near the Four Courts
http://www.mitchell.ie/site/st_michans_feasibility_study.asp

Mitchell pretty much get every major landscape design scheme in this country – O’connell street, Henry Street, Eyre square, Dun Laoghaire … there’s a big list. I’d say their collective noses were knocked out a little when Schwartz was commissioned to do Grand Canal Dock, as far as i know they were responsible for the scheme that immediately proceeded it.

@THE_Chris wrote:

What the hell is that thing? :confused:

Well you see this is a new development facing onto the quays using a site formerly occupied by a Georgian house – as originally posted by Sloan –

@Sloan wrote:

An Bord Pleanala requested 1 floor be removed from this proposal.

…whereas this pair of linked buildings would be another new development on a separate but adjacent site on Bridgefoot St – it would be behind the development depicted above –

@hutton wrote:

… apparently the concept of overhanging one new building behind another, ‘Doggy-style Design’, is DCC’s latest innovation – there are even suggestions that the new duo may be called “Copulation Court”…

or “Tetris Towers”

dammit now the tetris music is in my head
doo doo doo etc…

@alonso wrote:

or “Tetris Towers”

dammit now the tetris music is in my head
doo doo doo etc…

😀

“Tetris Towers” – very good… tip to get rid of tetris music – tune into youtube + type in any song! 😉

Inspecting the elevation supplied shows not only the elevation of the proposed (6361/06) but also the elevation of a proposal contained within an entirely separate and earlier application at No 1+2 (5369/04 handled by different architects and applicant). An elevation must show main features of existing adjoining buildings. As the proposal for 1+2 Usher’s Island(5369/04) has not yet been constructed, clearly the elevation as submitted was misleading.

Just to clear up the confusion: there is one building, the one directly above that is being built on the corner at Usher Quay and another, the overhanging one, going on the empty site, which has been cleared of city council housing back behind it. Is that correct or is it all the same scheme?

@kefu wrote:

Just to clear up the confusion: there is one building, the one directly above that is being built on the corner at Usher Quay and another, the overhanging one, going on the empty site, which has been cleared of city council housing back behind it. Is that correct or is it all the same scheme?

Looks to me like the overhanging building is the one set behind the quays. The building in the above photomontage seems to be the one on the right hand side of the projection of the eastern elevations of both buildings.

Oh come on, for all the bland shite that gets thrown up around town there should not be a big problem with this! Its bold and better than most. Of course I would have prefered to see the geo integrated, but hey. It will all come down to the materials and finishes.

do you not find it proportionally and geometrically ‘incorrect’?

@henno wrote:

do you not find it proportionally and geometrically ‘incorrect’?

Speaking as a complete layman: it looks awfully out of place, and doesn’t even look that nice on its own.

“M+A has been engaged by Flancrest Enterprises to assess the urban design potential for this pivotal site at the northern corner of Bridgefoot Street and Island Street Dublin 8. Massing studies and contextual analysis establish that there is potential for significant height on this corner site which is part owned by Dublin City Council.”

“Flancrest Enterprises” is the web company started by Ned Flanders in an episode of the Simpsons….
wtf is going on here?

a quick google…
http://www.solocheck.ie/FreeIrishCompanyReport?companyNumber=420034&companyName=FLANCREST+ENTERPRISES+LIMITED

but they are (ridiculously) named the same as http://www.flancrestenterprises.com/e107/news.php

nice find shweeney

@hutton wrote:

with another elevation here:

When I first saw this I thought it reminded me of something, but wasn’t sure where. Then when looking up a web-page to get an image for another thread I realised that it seemed to be taking its cue from contemporary Dutch architecture.

http://www.neutelings-riedijk.com/index.php?portfoliosection2

Great site Phil; some lovely stuff featured. Odd though how early 1980’s Harcourt Square Style is so fashionable there at the moment :confused:

I think the Dublin context in the above case is completely different however, and is yet a further indication of how the specified areas for tall buildings are becoming increasingly blurred. “Massing studies and contextual analysis establish that there is potential for significant height on this corner site” – sure this can refer to any corner or nodal point in the city.

Looks like An Bord Pleanala lopped off the top 6 storeys of this yoke – thanks An Taisce and ABP.

http://www.dublincity.ie/AnitePublicDocs/00204528.pdf

@JoePublic wrote:

Looks like An Bord Pleanala lopped off the top 6 storeys of this yoke – thanks An Taisce and ABP.

http://www.dublincity.ie/AnitePublicDocs/00204528.pdf

+ 1

I think if this building had got permission two things would had to have happened:

Seriously though, anyone who’s seen this is flabbergasted that (a) an architect working in Dublin today would propose this building one bridge westwards of the Four Couts, and (b) that Dublin City Council would grant permission for it.