Thomas Street demolition
- This topic has 15 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
An Bord Pleanala has just approved demolition of a Georgian building facing St. Catherine’s Church on Thomas Street (on the right in the above pic.), as part of a new development on the Thomas Street/Bridgefoot Street corner. The original planning application (Ref. 6082/04) to demolish the building – No. 134 Thomas Street – was refused by Dublin City Council (good on them!) but appealed by the developer and then granted by the Bord against the recommendation of its planning inspector. An Taisce also made an observation to the appeal, recommending the retention of the building.
Put the last six digits of Ref: PL29S.211413 in here to see the details, including the Inspector’s Report: http://www.pleanala.ie/numeric/indexnum.html
The building is not a Protected Structure, but it’s in a Conservation Area (along with the whole of Thomas Street), and it adjoins two Protected Structures (the two to its left in the pic above). It’s a nice building. Refaced with Victorian (or later) brick but keeping the tall classical proportions, it adds to the rich mixture of buildings on Thomas Street and contributes to the setting of St. Catherine’s. It just needed to have sash windows reinstated and an improved shopfront design. Two buildings on its east were demolished in the ‘70s to widen Bridgefoot Street.
The decision to approve its demolition is most unfortunate. If the same building were on Camden Street or Dorset Street I’d say, well, 50/50 that it should be kept. But Thomas Street has a remarkable wealth of old buildings of various periods – it’s the one street in Dublin that I think deserves to keep all of its older buildings. Additionally, on the opposite corner of Bridgefoot Street, a similar non-protected Georgian building with Victorian refacing – No. 131 Thomas Street (seen behind scaffolding in the first picture above) – is being retained as part of a new development to its rear (Ref. 1766/03) by architect Edmund Fitzgerald Selby.
So, HKR Architects – who appealed on behalf of the developer – and Lindsay Conservation Architects (huh!) – who wrote a report saying the building was not worth keeping – ye got that one by the skin of ye’re teeth!!
[align=center:3p9hcnk6]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[/align:3p9hcnk6]
On a related note, I currently have an enforcement complaint in against No. 136 Thomas Street (on the left of the group of three above). A recent planning application (Ref. 4491/03) sought to refurbish the building, to include reinstatement of timber sliding sash windows. But instead they went and put in cheap timber swing-open windows (similar to what was there before). I wouldn’t mind but some good work was done on the building, like the repointing of the soft old brickwork in lime mortar. The building is also unusual for having camber-headed window opes. That’s almost totally unseen on Georgian buildings in Dublin…it’s more of a Cork thing.
A really Dublin street. Walked the full length about two weeks ago and marvelled at the array, mix and colour of the streetscape. Here it’s not a question of leaving good alone,but making good better.
I moan at the thought of what’s going to replace these two buildings.
Thomas Street/James’ Street are great Dublin thouraghfares reeking with history, ie, Guinness’s Brewery, Robert Emmet’s rebellion and subsequent hanging, St. Augustines and St. Johns Church, the former Jameson distillery now the NCAD etc,…. Too bad that they are a rather neglected part of the city, especially as they are an important tourist route. However, at the other end of the street I notced that two adjacent buildings have been somewhat reinstated/restored, but overall a more extensive approach is needed to turnaround this sadly neglected street. The demolition of the above mentioned building is an act of vandalism.
I wouldn’t describe it quite as such, i.e. the loss of the building itself, but certainly there’ll be an undesirable impact on the streetscape at large.
The corner building reinforces the traditional classical make-up of the area, even if it is bordering between ‘modest’ and non-descript 🙂 – and most importantly if forms an appropriate setting for St Catherines.
What swung it in their favour I think, and I can see why, is the blank 80s wall to the side – it’s terrible.
Nothing that couldn’t have been fixed, but the notion of a ‘signature’ corner building, catering for modern residential accommodation seems to have been too tempting. To try and put it in context, if this building was sandwiched between two tall classicals, it is very difficult to see any plan for replacement being granted.The architect’s submission of “The existing building cannot be upgraded due to its condition.” is irritating. No building is beyond repair in this day and age, and comparitively speaking this is hardly the worst case to sort out, not by a long shot.
It’s a pity the character of what is an unusually intact traditional street being eroded.
It’s the corner that swung it.
No. 134 Thomas Street (approved for demolition).
View looking down Bridgefoot Street from Thomas Street.
View looking up Bridgefoot Street towards Thomas Street.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another factor that ought to have been taken into account in deciding on the demolition of 134 Thomas Street, but wasn’t, is that the western lane of the Bridgefoot Street dual carriageway is now effectively redundant. A few cars use it to get into the side streets off the street, but very few overall. Otherwise, the dual carriageway heads down towards the Liffey and suddenly goes back into a narrow, one-way city street. The council had actually planned to complete the mad 1970s widening plan down to the Liffey until quite recently, but it would have destroyed the enclosure of the best historic bridge on the Liffey, Mellowes/Queen Maeve Bridge. See here also:
https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=3296&highlight=bridgefoot
Anyway, the point is, since the west lane of Bridgefoot Street is now largely redundant, there was scope for reclaiming part of it to be developed (but not so much as to upset the great view up the street of St. Catherine’s tower). This would have allowed for a well-articulated corner in place of the existing very badly finished gable of the Georgian house where earlier houses were demolished (this is assuming the Georgian house would be kept, which it should have been any which way). To use a glib phrase, a ‘win-win’ situation.
But the apartments built further down have also established the expansive width of the street; were you to build an extended corner would you not end up with a narrow stretch, then a wide almost plaza-like space in the middle outside the 70s flats, then a narrow stretch again down at the Liffey?
Agreed about the lack of traffic though, it’s almost eerie – you can easily stroll from one carriageway to the other. What has caused this – was it not much busier 5-10 years ago?
Access from Marrowbone lane to the newly widened Cork st is much more difficult than before.
It is pretty busy as you travel up the hill, obviously moreso in the morning.
But it was never really busy in the south-north direction.
What many people don’t realise is that you can still drive down Bridgefoot Street and turn right on to Usher Street and follow the road around back on to the quays. It’s one of those routes popular with taxi drivers but does involve a fairly treacherous right turn.- Graham Hickey wrote:But the apartments built further down have also established the expansive width of the street]Yeah. The first phase of the Bridgefoot Street flats redevelopment (twee townhouses replacing ferocious blocks of maisonettes) was built on the widened streetline, but this only takes up about a quarter of the flats’ street frontage – further phases could utilise some of the space in the redundant carraigeway. But no matter what happens now, there’s always going to be an element of ‘stupidity’ about the whole situation since the widening plan was only ditched after the flats redevelopment had begun.
How about redesigning the street to include a market space in the wider stretch and move the traders off Thomas Street onto it – proper facilities, semi-permanent stalls?
I’m not advocating a design led / take four years approach like the one that ruined Smithfield, just the city architects department getting the finger out and a quick rearrangement of traffic / pedestrian space.
I see that the For Sales signs have gone up in James Street area. Several plots are up for grabs, all part of the ‘Digital Hub’ project. Included are the last of some fine old Georgian buildings, which if cleaned up would keep the historical character of the street, ie the surrounding setting St Catherines Church. No doubt they will be subjected to the developers demolition balls. There is a lovely old red brick Guinness tower with green onion dome roof thats part of the redevelopment area too. I hope its not vandalised either.
@hutton (on ‘Planning chief warns of scant regard for design’) wrote:
…..[The Chairman of An Bord Pleanala] said many…proposals involved the “unnecessary demolition of older buildings” that formed part of a streetscape and made an “essential contribution” to the character of a town….
© The Irish Times – Fri, Oct 21, 05
While broadly speaking ABP are one of the few planning bodies in Ireland to take planning seriously, the above comment does make me ask why the Thomas St. building was passed for demolition by the Bord…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
