GrahamH
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
I broadly agree. I think it is too easy to row back on current ‘thinking’ regarding shopfronts for fear of over-regulation, as is fashionable at the minute in a number of spheres. It is not that regulation has not worked, or that guidelines are too onerous – rather the model has not proven to work yet.
I agree some businesses need high impact on the streetscape, but very simply you choose your pitch according to your requirements. What on earth are Supermac’s doing in a Protected Structure featuring a deeply modelled ground floor facade, a narrow street frontage, with limited scope for signage on a fully fitted Victorian shopfront? Simply put, they shouldn’t be there. It doesn’t suit their needs. By contrast, their O’Connell Street outlet has considerable streetscape impact by virtue of its prominent corner location and expansive glazing. Problem solved. The interior on Westmoreland Street doesn’t suit them either – long and narrow, with limited scope for seating, a cramped staircase catering for a high volume of patrons, and a soaring high ceiling that neither matches their image nor their business model – paying for airspace rather than floorspace. Westmoreland Street should not have to suffer the loss of a prestigious retail unit nor quality streetscape for what is a bad business decision.
The other aspect to bear in mind is that if everyone is on the same playing pitch, the competitive streak is negated and the whole urban environment becomes more sedate. In this respect, clever design gives retailers a competitive edge rather than who can shout the loudest. Likewise, redesign of the public realm is a critical component in changing how shops interact with the passing pedestrian. In the case of Westmoreland Street and Dame Street, pavements are so narrow and congested that shops cannot even be seen. Is it any wonder retailers jostle for attention in the loudest manner possible.
Absolutely – this was a comprehensive and much needed 30-something page document to the Council listing all the old favourites in the increasingly commonplace field of unauthorised development. The principal commercial streets of the city centre have been descending into a tawdry parade of tat in recent years, with a disconcerting feeling across the board of nobody being in control. This is a timely and very well detailed submission with no wriggle room.
What is particularly galling is the extent to which brand new retail developments, on paper executed according to exacting and ‘world class’ shopfront guideline plans, are in reality presented in an entirely different manner. It’s hilarious how retail outlets, forced to spend considerable sums on well detailed capital works through aspirant planning policies, seek as much as possible to negate the impact of their own costly investment.
In this respect, I would also have included the breaching of ACA and SPCS polices in relation to the new Londis and associated café on O’Connell Street regarding postering, shelving against windows and stands out on the street. The various units at the lower end of Grafton Street could also be included, one of whch has had ‘temporary signage’ erected in the past fortnight, but in all honesty where do you draw the line? The message was well and truly sent, including the critical issue of better resourcing of the Enforcement Department, which I believe now has only six enforcement officers for the entire city. Take account of complaints over domestic extensions, boundary wall disputes and large commercial and residential developments, and one gets a very real sense of the resources available to the city centre.
Doh – Google is your friend.
http://www.mejewelanddarlin.com/Introduction.htm
A smart design. Considerable efforts were gone to to make the case virtually bullet proof while keeping it sharp.
Oh good – it must be artist Sean Lynch’s new installation Me Jewel & Darlin’, notjim. A glass case designed to house artifacts from the Civic Museum’s collection and other thought-provoking historical artefacts related to Dublin in this time of ‘transition’ – in effect, forming part of the parade of public monuments that commemorate individuals but diverting to commemorate the city itself.
A worthy concept I think. It’s taken a little while longer than expected to get off the ground. It is intended to rotate the exhibit every couple of months. I think he mentioned the first exhibit was to be related to Harry Clarke.
Alas, the very nature of the space, with major thoroughfares entering from all sides, coupled with the advent of omnibuses and trams in the 19th century, ensured College Green served as a busy traffic intersection from a relatively early point.
A modern-day comparison.
Jaysus.
Yes, in principle this is a welcome planning application, one that seeks to retain an important, prominent early building and regenerate a strategic site at the confluence of two major streets. Not to mention an embarrassing blight on the city for the past two decades.
However, there are a number of concerns. It should of course be noted that the original proposal put forward barely two years ago was to bulldoze the entire site back to Henry Place, including the Protected Structure of what is likely to be O’Connell Street’s oldest building, and all historic structures comprising this critically sensitive corner in the O’Connell Street ACA. In this context, the applicant’s effusive, buttery words referencing the “sensitive architectural heritage” and the “vital single entity Georgian building” they were forced to keep are just a little hard to swallow – a “vital” building that would now be a pile of rubble were it not for the intervention of informed, and one suspects begrudgingly supported, conservation professionals. Likewise, the design rationale by McCauley Daye O’Connell Architects, with a raft of pictures lazily pillaged from Archiseek, including my own without even a reference, puts forward a number of development options which are clearly predisposed to, at the very least, a partially cleared site.
There are welcome parts to this application. The superb conservation report, expertly and comprehensively compiled by Molloy & Associates Conservation Architects (with some Archiseek reference), proposes the ideal-case restoration of the c. 1750 corner building to its c. 1849 altered state, with exposed brickwork. The c. 1849 stucco surrounds are to be replicated where they have been replaced, while late Georgian sashes are to be reinstated throughout based on those surviving on Henry Street from the 1840s. The render is going to be tricky to remove, but is not beyond the bounds of possibility (we don’t know from the report if it is red or yellow brick). The type of pointing employed will be important – the facade was probably wigged rather than tuck pointed. If the brick is too badly damaged, the whole facade can be rendered in a warm, naturally toned lime render. An elegant, contemporary stone shopfront is also proposed that makes strong reference to the original 1740s centrally-positioned entrance on Sackville Mall. I feel a sultry, smokily painted timber front would work better, but hey. The interior is to be largely conserved, though one side of an early angled chimneystack will regrettably be lost for a major circulation staircase.
The new building on Henry Street is altogether another matter, which involves the demolition of two historic buildings. There is, nonetheless, scope for intervention here. Given the drastic alterations that have taken place to the interior of the central building proposed for removal, which probably dates to the 18th century, and its minimal streetscape value, to the extent that it has become unreadable in nearly every facet of its being, in addition to its relative un-viability as a standalone retail premises, there is justification I believe for its replacement with a high quality contemporary building that links into the O’Connell Street building as is proposed. This in turn makes the O’Connell Street premises more appropriate to catering for a modern function.
However, the demolition of the late Victorian building on the corner with Henry Place is as unacceptable as it is unimaginative. The architectural assessment has proved that, with some modification of floorplates, this can be successfully integrated into the overall ensemble. The reasoning given for not pursuing this option is that facadisim is not considered an appropriate conservation approach. While there is little doubting this, equally it does not mean that we must lose good street architecture just because interiors are unremarkable. Indeed, this corner building’s exterior is much better than its interior. How is total extraction of architectural heritage a better conservation approach than partial retention? This scheme calls for imagination, not an ego.
Nonetheless, the interior of the proposed new building does look impressive, dynamic and well designed. Finally, a purpose-designed retail building in Dublin that does justice to its function. Either way though, from the fuzzy renderings online the facade appears unduly fussy for this modest infill location, and utterly at odds in its decadent use of stone cladding. As is typical with many architects, the design cue is being selectively taken from wherever suits – in this instance O’Connell Street where “stone, metal and glass predominates”. Yah – this is a bit of infill lads. On Henry Street. Brick, minimal stone dressings, timber. There’s your answer. Stop trying to make a silk purse. Subtlety, reticence and sophistication are themes that should define this project. Chipping in an elegant tuppence-worth like everyone else on the street.
As an aside, we just have to quote leading consultants Colliers International in their Retail Assessment of Henry Street. They cite amongst Weaknesses in their SWAT analysis of Henry Street:
“Many elderly, tired and inefficient buildings”
“Bland street-scaping”
“Current lack of shopping experience” (what?)
“Too many small shops which attract lower order comparison uses”
In addition to this odd array of observations – with the exception of the occasional shop unit size, the very elements that make Henry Street a desirable place to be – they go on to state that the planning system needs to be “more flexible” to allow for “more efficient buildings” on Henry Street, which faces stiff competition from the future Northern Quarter and Dublin Central schemes hoovering up the best tenants. One can only deduce from this that a planning policy is being proposed that encourages the demolition of historic building stock, to counter pressures from new development whose very purpose is to accommodate larger floorplates within the city core while protecting more sensitive areas! You couldn’t make this stuff up. Of course there is a need for a gradual upping of unit size in specific locations, but this can be done sensitively and imaginatively, retaining the grain and character of the city core that makes it an attractive and unique shopping and leisure destination.
Of course ‘professional’ opinion across the board in this city is that all of Henry Street, including the rear of the GPO, be whacked, preferably extending to most of Grafton Street while you’re at it. In fact, the Dublin Chamber would level half the city if they got the chance. ‘Ah sure tis good for d’towin and tis good for de buildin’. There is enormous potential to significantly adapt the handsome Edwardian stock of Henry Street if the will was there. Unfortunately, Dunnes were let away with precisely the same policy now being approached with the Henry Place building.
I see Percy Nominees, a subsidary of AIB, are lodging the application. It will be interesting to see the details of what is proposed – certainly No. 32-33 Henry Street is of early vintage, but goodness knows what’s behind that facade.
Fine pictures of Spain (?) Stephen – they really sell the concept of a high quality public realm. And not a HEINEKEN brolly to be seen! It really isn’t rocket science. Beautiful, simple planting too.
Yes the Londis store pictured above got ‘sorted’ Morlan by an amalgamation with the adjoining unit to form in effect yet another fast food café. But of course within hours of the shopfront being finished, which incidentally was not completed in compliance with submitted drawings in terms of materials (cheaper granite instead of approved limestone) or lighting (a rank of floodlights tacked above the fascia), postering went up all over the windows and display stands were pushed out onto the pavement – all in contravention of the planning permission. And it’s been like this for the past year. The Spar at the upper end of the street has identical standards of presentation – also in contravention of its permission, never mind ACA and ASPC provisions.
In other news, McDonald’s on O’Connell Street Lower are having their mixumgatherum red brick facade cleaned by Interclean, which is welcome. I don’t think there are any plans to replace the shopfront though. Burger King next door has just undergone a remarkable ten-day or so refurbishment of their ground floor. Nothing like stalled turnover on a busy street to light a fire under contractors! The new fit-out is cool from a distance, but sadly gawdawfully cheap and somewhat incoherent up close. It should have aspired for better at this location – they could attract a much broader daytime clientele if they made a classier effort. Especially with that stunning first floor level – the best munching view in Dublin.
As outlined on another thread, it was open source material being used in this case, so a perfectly legitimate practice.
Otherwise though, this case just gets better by the second. If you don’t get permission, well, sure feckit – chuck it up anyway lads. Spar today.
All of the elements that were refused permission have been ordered and installed regardless. Welcome to the applicant’s ‘foremost street of the Irish capital’.
As can also be seen above, the semi-permanent new fascia sign has literally been screwed up over the authorised chrome Spar signage, the logo of which you can just about see peeping out at the top right.
Every piece of projecting signage has been erected in the past year. Indeed, the Western Union sign went up on virtually every convenience store in Dublin in 2010.
The standard Insomnia seating and hoarding that was rejected by the planner. As expected, the chairs are decent nonetheless.
Notwithstanding a lack of design guidance for outdoor cordons, very simply there should be a baseline policy of rejecting all such contraptions unless expressly needed due to location requirements. Why on earth are they needed at all? Most European cities employ well designed tables and chairs spilling out in an orderly manner onto the pavement. The only reason they’re used here is to increase commercial presence on the streetscape, host corporate branding, and hold in an extravagant use of heat from outdoor space heaters. A short and practical, snappy design guidance manual wouldn’t go amiss on the subject.
Ha yes – Heuston is sadly the worst, as it is one of the most striking and elegant lighting schemes in the city. Waiting outside it for the Luas the other week, I counted of the 37 lamps on the central block facade a grand total of 7 working. It would be better if they were just turned off.
Back on O’Connell Street, the notorious Spar shop in the Lynam’s Hotel building, with its host of long-term unauthorised signage and attendant street frontage clutter, has just been granted planning permission for on-street tables and chairs. A number of issues are raised by this permission.
Firstly of course, the shop is already riddled with unauthorised signage, including the recent re-erection of a SPAR banner in front of the principal reticent chrome signage as erected in accordance with the ACA and Area of Special Planning Control (ASPC) provisions. This banner recently sat there for well over a year until it was removed on foot of at least one, if not multiple, DCC enforcement notices (only as a result of complaint, needless to say). Extraordinarily, they’ve put it up again and it’s been there for months already – almost without question at the time of the planner’s site inspection, when the shopfront was also littered with unauthorised postering and all manner of stands positioned out on the pavement in contravention of the ACA and ASPC. This was neither referenced in the planner’s report, nor was the new permission made conditional on these elements’ removal.
Secondly, as highlighted on this thread at the time of the ASPC’s statutory six-year revision last year, absolutely nothing constructive or of substance was added to the provisions of the ASPC as part of this process – in fact, the ASPC was weakened with the removal of at least one important control in relation to upper floor presentation. Areas highlighted here at the time as requiring addition included design and management regulations for outdoor seating, barriers and cordons, building floodlighting, canopies and awnings, etc – all glaringly obvious elements in need of policy guidelines. A year on from this non-entity of a revision exercise, and hey presto, the Spar case planner observes: “There is no specific guidance in relation to the provision of outdoor seating areas in either the Architectural Conservation Area or the Area of Special Planning Control”, and was therefore forced to rely on vague brushstrokes contained in the IAP for guidance.
Thirdly, the submitted report from Dublin-based Tom Duffy Architects is an exposition in student internet copy and paste at its best. It is disheartening to say the least to read one’s own internet material on O’Connell Street being churned back verbatim in an exercise promoting the grubby interests of non-compliant convenience stores. The report doesn’t even relate how the proposed seating will impact on the Victorian double-plot facade of the impressive former Royal Bank, instead listing the likes of interior elements and even the roof with the remarkable observation of ‘no impact’ – eventually arriving at the insightful conclusion that on-street seating does not impact on historic fabric, without so much as a description of the architectural character of the building nor the potential streetscape visual impact.
Nonetheless, a number of encouraging conditions were made for the grant of permission. The crude proposal to erect shoulder-height plastic panels adorned with Insomnia logos topped with Perspex screens surrounding the entrance to the shop was rejected by the planner in favour of waist-height, plain canvas cordons erected on dark-coloured weighted metal posts. Oddly, no stipulation for canvas colour shades was made. The proposed brown plastic, wicker-effect chairs were also disregarded in favour of “the quality and materials of the existing street furniture provided by the City Council in O’Connell Street”. In my view this marks a deterioration in design standards, with untidy looking, crass chrome-effect metal chairs now almost certain to replace the more muted aesthetic proposed. Due to understandable concerns of the case planner regarding the management of the proposed seating area – serving a convenience store rather than a full-time café or restaurant – a temporary permission of three years’ duration was granted. This seems an extraordinary length of time for a development model that has ended up non-compliant within six months nearly everywhere it exists in the city.
Also, if those awful plastic pens are rightly deemed as unsuitable for O’Connell Street, why are they being used without authorisation and with full corporate branding by Beshoff’s directly across the road – never mind on nearly every commercial street in the city?
We seriously need some joined up thinking, in terms of planning policy, design vision, consistency of decision-making, and planning enforcement.
4/1/2011
Exactly two years since installation, it is disappointing to observe Ulster Bank’s so-called ‘fit and forget’ LED lighting scheme falling apart.
A rather unflattering short exposure is required to demonstrate the on-street effect.
No less that ten different LED strips, and what is probably a Decoflood uplighter, are blown, flickering or otherwise unoperational. Indeed, most of these have been like this since last summer – barely 18 months after erection.
A real shame. LED lighting isn’t all it’s claimed to be when weather, bad connections or faulty units are factored into the equation.
By contrast, it should be noted the GPO’s LED scheme is holding up fully intact, without a single unit blown in over two years, which is both impressive and encouraging. Still, a pity its pediment and statue lighting is so commercial and trashy – I wish they’d blow and give the building back some dignity. Also, I’m almost sure the remarkably intrusive pediment strip, as with the rest of the building’s lighting, has no planning permission – seemingly erected under exempted development.
Aha – Stephen’s eyes have been assaulted by the new Polish supermarket opposite St. Mary’s Church! Did ya ever see the like in all your days? Any other European city and this would be a quaint historic church surrounded by a civic square, little cafés and provisions shops and a daily on-street flower market. Here, we get a redundant roadway – newly paved specifically to make it more redundant – an industrially-railed off church curtilage crowded with commercial tat, a Polish supermarket straddling at least two historic properties forming the setting with newly mauled upper facades, and a fascia board ya can see from outer space!
Dublin city centre is coming down with unauthorised retail development at present – journalists really should be picking up on this. The entire city is transforming itself into Frank McDonald’s trashy honky tonk O’Connell Street of twenty years ago. Westmoreland Street as we all know is a complete write-off. Dame Street is without question within 18 months of being the same; indeed it is almost there, riddled with unauthorised uses, shopfronts and signage. Lower Grafton Street – give it a year at most based on current trends. Dawson Street is a complete kip and has been for years – how nobody else sees this is beyond me. Grafton Street gets worse by the second. Even South William Street has been losing the modest gains of recent years.
Everywhere you turn, a new Book Value has cropped up with its lurid turquoise plywood shopfront. What trades as a ‘pop-up’ bookstore is in fact a thriving chain specialising in unauthorised development – South Great George’s Street, Westmoreland Street, Bachelor’s Walk, lower Grafton Street, Merrion Row and elsewhere. Projecting signage is spreading like wildfire through the city. Postering and banners galore. Unauthorised fascias, facade-mounted signage, flagpoles, speakers – you name it. O’Connell Street has got so bad it is virtually impossible to keep track of what’s going on over there – every second store is breaking the law. Carroll’s Irish Gifts and Griffins newsagents have the entire centre wrapped up through unauthorised development – a mass action should be taken by the Department of Environment at this point against these persistent offenders.
It is well known that DCC Enforcement is grossly under-resourced thanks to the embargo on public sector recruitment and the loss of critical staff in the past year – including the only conservation enforcement officer. Similarly, the push for rates must surely be mitigating against any desire to push for standards across the city centre.
This just has to change. Dublin has actually been very lucky thus far – there has been relatively few closures in the past few years, in spite of the downturn in spending, and footfall is still holding up. Dublin never seems to suffer the fate of UK urban centres where clusters of vacant units tend to emerge as an immediate sign of a downturn. However, the new year will surely bring a whole new host of realities, and if decent planning codes and standards of presentation are not adhered to – in what is already a distinctly shoddy public realm in the city core – Dublin will only shoot itself in the foot. Indeed, even as we speak, the new Costa on College Green have just waltzed in, set up shop in one of the most prominent and architecturally significant buildings in the city in the former Daly’s club house, without so much as a peep from the planning authority, erected signage, flagpoles and lighting all over the façade, and are now applying for retention permission, plus permission to chop out the granite aprons of the arched shopfront! It simply beggars belief. The fact they think they can get away with this speaks volumes about the authority, the interest, the policy and the vision of the planning body running Dublin city – and for that matter, the mediocre and parochial standards of most of the merchants operating here.
It’s not all doom and gloom – the Henry Street axis is now without question the best looking street in Dublin, with Mary Street of a truly international – if somewhat soulless – standard. Grand, tall, gracious, immaculately designed and presented shopfronts, good displays, beautifully presented and illuminated historic facades – it makes Grafton Street and most of the city centre look like a landfill site. Needliess to say, it takes international retailers and their own handbook standards to improve the otherwise shoddy urban environment and standards of presentation in Dublin. Likewise, Exchequer Street is now the new Grafton Street – no question about it. The crown has been taken.
Planning policy leaders, planning enforcement, merchants and business associations seriously need to pull together to get this city into shape.
Yep those South William Street bollards have been whacked out and replaced a long while now. It beggars belief that not even purpose-designed, flagship curtilages of prominent buildings are safe from such treatment.
And they don’t even bother painting the new mega-bollards! Just left rusting with a white band around them as if sitting on the quayside in Clogherhead! Where would ya find it…
Fully agreed hutton with every word of your post. You sum a number of matters succinctly. The impact of the additional storeys on the city for the rest of us to look at for the next century, simply for minimal private gain, is something that deeply grates, perhaps above all else, and a theme that was sadly replicated in many developments during the boom years.
On your last point about active participation, I was surprised and disappointed that An Taisce did not appeal this. Of course it has a giant workload for a voluntary organisation, and the turnaround it effected with so many developments during the boom years is a positive and enduring legacy for the city. But in this particular case, the sole reason I did not appeal it to the Board was on the basis of its initial submission to DCC and the critical importance of the subject, I was certain AT would. All of the above would have been clearly spelled out to the Board in such a case. In honesty, I’m fuming about it. But a collective blunder it is fair to say – not that it should be our job to police such baseline matters as the redevelopment of the iconic street triangle in the heart of the ceremonial core of the city.
@gunter wrote:
or whether it was a fading of an original red wash or coloured pointing on the adjoining original sections
Heh, you’re not starting that one again!
Fantastic aerial view showing the nature of the fake attic storey there, with all but the three bays of the curved end hosting their roofs behind the windows. In the case of the final house, this was the last to be built, probably c. 1815, when presumably there was more money around to go the whole hog.
The lack of uniformity amongst the restored chimneystacks is also unfortunate, particularly when seen from O’Connell Street.
The scale and character of the Westin is mind boggling. If ever there was a development that was patently unsuited to its location, this was it. Shovelled in.
Thanks everyone for your comments – more opinion on the development in hand would be welcome!
I think you have a point there gunter that’s worth reiterating: that most of the elements which went wrong here are indeed not huge, but the cumulative effect is what is damaging – and what is most frustrating. But ultimately with a project of this kind, with a group of buildings of such significance, the devil is in the detail. It’s everything. Without it there is no soul, no interest, no point. Nearly everything that has been done here lacks even a passing interest in the special character of this terrace, never mind the healthy glow of an all-consuming love affair one expects of a critical group of buildings like this after works of this kind.
It all stands in stark contrast to the gushing, enthusing, velvety words submitted as part of the planning application, extolling the unique significance of The Irish Times terrace as the last example of a relatively intact Wide Streets Commissioners terrace. What has come of this? How has this recognition manifested itself on the ground? In any way? Painting the windows? Converting old offices into new offices? If maintaining the function of a building is considered the optimum result of restoring an historic structure, then we have a long, long road to walk.
Sadly, amongst many professionals, this is indeed the ultimate goal, or as far as the vision extends. To a certain degree it is the purpose of conservation staff to inform and to educate in this respect, but a dismal absence of influence is clearly apparent, and has been for some time. Dublin City Council, as the pre-eminent planning authority in the State, demands a major Conservation Unit, with policy, planning, architectural, advisory, research and administrative staff, all based in the Planning Department, not in the Architectural division as at present. And this is a minimum requirement, never mind a major grant aid budget and wider links within the Council. We are still in the 1990s in terms of infrastructure and this has to change. I think rather than constantly blaming the planning division, as with countless cases throughout the boom years, efforts need to be concentrated on bolstering conservation and its influence within the planning process. This is the key to effecting change.
Just encountered a lovely first-hand reference to the 19th century fashion, in its very infancy, of cutting out glazing bars from sashes in favour of expansive sheet glass. Suffice to say, at this early stage, the reference relates to the most prestigious building in Ireland, where major furnishing and redecoration was taking place at the same time:
October 27th 1825
To Francis Johnston Esq.
I enclose herewith […] requisitions which have been received from His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant’s Private Secretary viz.
To have the Glass taken out of the lower part of the Windows in the West Wing of the Vice Regal Lodge and to put in muffed or ground Glass in place thereof.
Estimated at: £14.2.7½
This is interesting, as we rarely hear of polished broad cylinder glass or ‘muff’ glass being used in Ireland prior to the adoption of the much better cylinder sheet glass which exploded in use here after 1850. Crown glass was actually better than muff glass in its raw state, unless it was polished or ‘ground’ as indicated above, which was expensive.
£14 in 1825 was neatly the equivalent of about £1000 sterling today. Given that the ‘west wing’ of the Viceregal Lodge in 1825 constituted only the three-bay section highlighted below, as built by Robert Woodgate in 1802, and if we presume the works were confined to the three gound floor windows, this was an expensive business – remembering labour was much cheaper than today.
Still, perhaps not as expensive as we might have imagined polished broad glass to be.
Ha, this is brilliant. First we have Frank this morning giving a thinly veiled critique bordering on disgust for the Conference Centre, followed tonight by Sean O’Laoire on Vincent Browne employing every trick in the book to avoid stating his opinion on it. Quite the sketch.
Who’ll be next? This is worthy of a theatrical comedy in the new auditorium.
A beautiful curved staircase survives inside the former public office unit of The Irish Times, where its mezzanine with reproduction balustrade as per the Georgian layout of the shops has been retained.
It is going to be a challenge finding tenants for these units, but there are plenty of quality service-style uses that would suit them well, in addition to a staple café or retail store.
Related to this project, underscoring the lack of clout the conservation sector has in Ireland, there is little question that compulsory works should have been initiated by Dublin City Council – remember, at the very height of the boom years – to have the final pair of WSC houses, complete with largely intact original shopfronts, restored as part of the composition. In any other developed western society, this would not be given a second thought. Indeed it would be deemed imperative. Here, it’s not even on the radar.
Unquestionably, these should have been considered for restoration as part of a cut price contract with the adjacent development. Again, no joined-up thinking and no will.
Outside, and the reinstated public realm, as expected, is thus.
Complete with poured concrete scored to imitate paving. Truly, a world class public realm as aspired to in the upcoming Development Plan.
Meanwhile, a new pedestrian crossing has been clunkily dumped outside the iconic rounded corner of one of the city’s most important terraces. Paving aside, why are two traffic signal poles being used, when one suffices to hold both signals?
Never mind the aesthetic damage, why is our money being wasted like this? The same across the road.
Around the corner on Fleet Street, this is the new, er, public realm. Leaving aside the general absence of, well, anything, why is there a hump in the pavement?
So the newly created risk of pedestrians falling off can be used as an excuse to put another railing in?
Really and truly. Honestly…
In conclusion, this project represents all that went wrong during the boom years, where major development interests won out over the common good, and where economic buoyancy was not utilised for planning gain in the broadest sense. Equally, and more pressingly of all, it showcases in very stark terms the underdeveloped and under-resourced state of the conservation sector in Ireland. There was a perception throughout the Celtic Tiger years that with the passing of the 2000 Act, conservation was dealt with once and for all – ‘sorted’. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, we have legislation to safeguard built heritage in the courts, but on the ground we have failed abysmally at local authority and government departmental level to ensure the mechanisms, human resources, planning influence, and fundamentally the funding are in place to actively protect architectural heritage. This simply must change.
The curious little doorcase around the corner is one of the delights of this terrace. A real charmer. It has been beautifully conserved.
Some images of the rear area during construction. If there is one overriding sense of awe about this project, it is the immense skill, dexterity and professionalism displayed by the contractors, architects and project managers in working with one of the most challenging, dense and sensitive urban sites conceivable. It is of enormous credit to them to have executed this project under such testing circumstances.
Most of the cement render appears to have been removed and renewed in lime to the interior of the new atrium. The rabbit warren of the former The Irish Times offices is clearly apparent.
The demolished 20th century houses and retained red brick façade to the centre.
The site of the former 1950s printing works, looking west to the rear of the former EBS offices on Westmoreland Street.
Back to the front and the finishing touches that make every development, the developers saw fit to apply for planning permission for the erection of LED lighting strips the entire way along the terrace’s street façade, at both shopfront and attic storey level. Naturally, any design professional with an eye in their head would never propose such a brutal concept on a spartan, classically ordered Wide Streets Commission terrace, nor would an informed planner even consider it, or an active conservation office approve it under any circumstances. But this is Dublin.
One could not conceive a greater slap in the face to this elegant terrace if one tried.
Again, the very concept of applying floodlighting to a group of buildings such as this demonstrates a risible lack of understanding amongst design and planning professionals of what this terrace even is. This is streetscape. It is not a signature building – it is not even a building. It is a collective, an amalgam – ordinary street grain designed to complement wider urban set pieces. To increase its status in such a manner is to distort the very hierarchical design philosophy of the Wide Streets Commission that brought the terrace into being in the first place. The lighting’s addition so late in the day was merely the icing on the cake of a thoroughly misguided project.
John Spain Planning Associates spuriously claimed: “The classic lighting design will enhance and highlight the façade of this historic landmark in keeping with the area’s Architectural Conservation Area status and will bring life to the existing relief decorations of the façade.” “The proposed small lighting units’ size will result in an unobtrusive addition to the building”. “It is submitted that the proposed lighting scheme will provide visual interest, an increased feeling of public safety and accentuate the site’s local and national importance as a landmark structure.”
What?!!
What is more frightening is that the case planner backed it up, in the process erroneously stating that “the units shall be mounted on and concealed by the existing corbels at 1st and 4th floor levels.” Corbels? Concealed?
In some fairness, one cannot expect a planner to know all the ins and outs of historic building stock, so again we must turn to the Conservation Office for advice, only to find that no report was submitted on this case. Thus, there was no conservation input at DCC’s end into this critical planning decision. Yet again. The sole consolation is that that the lighting has a permission of only four years, after which time its impact shall be reviewed. I couldn’t be bothered going to the effort of taking a night time photograph of the lighting, as it is so gobsmackingly awful – even worse than the daytime impact of the units – that it would be unfair to disturb people any more than is necessary.
The shop units have great potential. The dual aspect corner shop would make a lovely café, with a charming shape and aspect, and bathed with sun until midday.
Running mould cornicing seems to survive in many of the units, and was well repaired/reproduced.
