GrahamH

I think the Corpo houses are kinda fun – they bring all the po-faced planned-within-an-inch-of-its-life development back down to earth :). But yes, agreed that they are out of context and they do interrupt on things, but I can’t see what can be done about them if most are privately owned. At least they’re three storey…

Some great images there (how did you get up so high for the wide?!). I’d tend to side on the demolition side of things regarding the northern terrace. You really have to see it in real life to note just how out of context it is, not that the pics don’t do it anyway. Saying that, it is a difficult case as it would be a shame to wipe away the area’s past which would be my concern, rather than wiping away a few old buildings. But the two-storeys really are so very lack-lustre in such a prominent location; it’s difficult to fight their corner, especially given the many examples of similar stock in the vicinity of the square – it’s not as if they’re the last ones standing. Perhaps a full facade stripping of all that muck could bring them out well.

The western side’s height is very refreshing I think – the disparity between this and the opposite side isn’t as great to make it preposterous – just a little awkward, but overall it works very well I think. And there really is so little left of original streetscapes of merit in the area that there’s no point compromising height in new development here – if anything the contrast with what is left is quite pleasant. The issue of massing is different to that of height, and if this can be addressed in the sensitive areas where new development meets existing grain, then everything ought to integrate a lot better.

Love the curved street: a format we seemed to have left behind in the 1770s and forgotton all about. The standard of design and materials is also commendable, though agreed with niallig that this cannot make up for the certain lack of soul that’s there at present – perhaps it will improve with time. There’s so many areas in Dublin like this now that are brand-spanking new with high quality buildings and public spaces, yet they just feel like white elephants without a soul about. They probably all just need time to grow up.

Surely this is a big joke?!

And as for Beaux Lane House’s adolescent sibling – sure don’t they grow up so fast altogether….

Truly truly hideous – even more depressing than Ulster Bank (4 storey) across the river.

1997 is astonishingly late for that Herbert St building Andrew – very surprising.

However Gibney being the architect wouldn’t surprise me at all – he seems to have made a u-turn not long after Fitzwilliam St. Much of his practice’s stuff in the 1990s has been in a vaguely Postmodern vein, and they’ve done conservation projects too I think.
Also not surprisingly it is his practice that are architects for the Harcourt Street plant shop site in Dublin, if that offers any indication as to what’s going to be erected there…
I tried to see the plans but they’ve been submitted and the application invalidated, and resubmitted and withdrawn thus far, so it’ll be interesting to see what they’ve come up with when it eventually comes to light…

On a broader (very broad) vein, and picking up on the O’Donnell & Tuomey thread, generally speaking what is influencing architecture in Ireland today? Where are Irish architects getting their cues from? Is there a distinct lack of imagination in the average urban build in Irish towns and cities – is our, what is described up North as ‘straight line brigade’ merely playing about with grid formations and making use of standard conventions in glazing and ‘quality’ masonry and other materials, or is there something better going on?

As Venturi was mentioned earlier, it seems we have moved strongly away from his thinking regarding the separation of structure and decoration, and are increasingly moving into the realm of a ‘false’ structuralism, where structure is suggested, but by means of applied decorative cladding rather than exposure of the elements themselves, which is largely a big no no in Ireland at least at the minute.

Rambling off a bit, what would you describe this as – are we still in a post-modern (as oppposed to Postmodern) phase?

Or the monstrous Lavitts Quay – is that barely out of the Postmodern closet but mainly in the post-modern category?

Originally posted by Devin

And what defines a ‘good’ building for people nowadays? It struck me that Scott’s assessment of things in that 1970s interview with Bowman shown recently are as relevant today as ever: “good proportion, quality materials and a user-friendly design”, a design that serves it purpose. But have perceptions of quality in proportion and materials changed, not to mention how a building should express itself?

Sorry this is all over the place, and I don’t claim to know what I’m talking about, but just a few notions…

It looks quite well there, though still hugely overscaled.

a boyle the money ‘not being there’ is not an excuse for such an average project on such an important site – not that I’d believe it for a second anyway. I’d sooner have a derelict site here with the challenging potential still in place for a good building to be built, then what we now have. What has been built is not disastrous, but it is standard fare in the broader context of apartment development, and mediocre for such an important location.

Agreed about the brick used – a good choice on the part of BPA I think. It reflects the general character of the street well without descending into pastiche, nor going into the opposite, often crazed realm of ‘contrast generation’. It’s an attractive contemporary brick, which is largely complemented by the light mortar used (must state an interest of being a fan of that combination), which can stand on its own two feet. Similarly the matching parapet level when looking up into the street is superb – it flows seamlessly into the upper terrace.

But it is the massing, the proportions, and the detailing that is so poor. Knowing little of contemporary design, even I noticed the tokenistic use of De B&M’s cut out corner :). It’s just been applied as a distraction on what is otherwise a giant brown box, as have the balconies and timber cladding.
Looking at their site, one would wonder if this is the first major urban commission they’ve had…
(that first house extension featured on About the House recently).

Even the original balconies could have made such a difference:

Pity bright green bricks only came later – they would have been perfect for the dome:

I must admit to having attempted a few Dublin buildings in my time, the Custom House being the only vaguely successful one – ‘successful’ in terms of the resources of a 13 year old and their broken up sets you’ll understand 🙂
I’d post the sole surviving picture, but…well, y’know…

@PDLL wrote:

they embody the aesthetic desires of the people and are, actually closer to the true representation of what the Irish domestic aesthetic ideal is as they are often built by people with enough money to make aesthetic choices, unlike the cottage which was a minimalist structure built with only the bare essentials and thereby not reflecting the aesthetic ideals of the people.

we can afford to include certain aesthetic features in our buildings. We can afford to ‘decorate’ our domestic structures in a manner that does not just fulfil minimalist functional requirements. That decoration may take many forms – porches, gazebos, conservatories, PVC windows, stone eagles etc.These are artefacts of personal choice representing an aesthetci ideal held by the home owner/builder. It is a free choice and as it is replicated time and again across the country, it can understood to represent an embodiment of contemporary domestic architectural aesthetics.

This is all very true, and well argued. Whether we like it or not, what we are experiencing only too well represents ‘the Irish domestic aesthetic ideal’ in a way that no other average dwelling outside of urban areas has ever done in the course of our history. It’s a fact that is difficult to even consider let alone admit to, but it is very much so the case.

As for how we will view one-offs in 200 years time, I wouldn’t completely dismiss the notion that they will have no appeal – one need only look at the certain charm that 1950s ribbon development bungalows are beginning to exude already (well for me anyway :o). Saying that, much of the allure of older one-off housing stems from notions of pre/early Industrial Revolution architecture and general life in Ireland, something that modern-day development will not have in 200 years time – although there may be a renaissance of sorts in the meantime, who knows. (yeah right)

Either way, what is hugely different this time round to how things were until very recently, is that fact that nothing stays the same anymore – fashion and ‘newness’ is everything. Many of the one-offs we have today will be unrecoginsable in as little as 20 years time, let alone 200. There will be no historic fabric left for us to romanticise over even if we wanted to; from here on in one-off housing, similar to most urban housing, is going to ‘keep up with the times’, so they will always be offensive to contemporary sensibilities as eyesores on the landscape should our current standards of design remain constant. However if a ‘reconditioning phase’ takes place somewhere along the line, similar to the current upgrading of 60s and 70s office blocks in Dublin, then things might be very different in the future. But even in that case these buildings will simply be more aesthetically appealling, not heritage pieces looking old and quaint and crumbly just how we like it 🙂

Indeed it is doubful we will have any built heritage of more than 50 years vintage in the future going by current trends…

😀 😀 😀

Brilliant!
That is really fantastic – the dentil course bricks are ingenious! That is by far the most important aspect of any Lego model (apparently :)) – choosing what bricks to use that will best reflect the character and scale of what you’re trying to replicate. And to think this was all done when the building was as black as coal!

The scale and proportions of the building as a whole are simply superb – from a distance its near-on perfect.
And as for the pediment from afar – magnificent! Just a shame the windows look like PVC…

Unfortunately I’d have to agree – the building simply is not of an acceptable standard for such an important site.
As can be seen in the pictures below, both the design and build quality is not up to scratch.

The two big problems are the height of the building which is massively overscaled at the southern end, and secondly the balconies which are quite appalling: in their own right but especially when seen against the adjoining Georgian streetscape. Cheap and stuck-on in appearance, they lack any substance or permanence, a silly chic distraction on what ought to be a robust, solid facade. They also act to conceal the eyes of the building, like some ignoramus speaking to you with sunglasses on. The corner is not adequately addressed at all, nor is due deference given to the fact that this is the entrance to a street, let alone one of Dublin’s prinicpal streets.

The brick itself is very attractive: a good choice I think, as well as the white mortar were it not so sloppily applied – really a very poor job. It is ironic that many painstaking hours will be spent meticulously repointing 300 year old houses next door, yet with total control of the construction process this new-build is simply thrown up. Just look at the dodgy workmanship – it really stands out when you’re up close, especially if you’ve been scrutinising the houses of Henrietta Street as most visitors to this place do.

Most disappointing of all however is that the imposing nature of the street, sited on a steep gradient, has been partially lost. The vast bulk of this building makes no concession to its sloped environment, greedily consuming the limelight. It drains the area of its dramatic gradient, devouring the crucial ‘introductory’ slope of the street by means of its huge bulk and standard level parapet, A stepped building here would have made the world of difference. The fact that it is also too big for Bolton Street makes the permission for this scale all the more bizarre – it uses of the height of the buildings on Henretta Street as an excuse to sneakily blast pout onto Bolton Street in all its seven storey glory. It doesn’t wash.

Whilst the most of the buildings on Henrietta Street are not stepped, this building ought to be – most of the upper Georgian street is flat: it is the road leading up to it that is sloped.

The apartment building’s height to the north fits in perfectly with the neighbouring Georgian terrace at least – integrates very well. Again however, the timber yoke to the top unfortunately does not relate to the rest of the building, and it seems as though there is a roof garden being built on top to capature the views over the King’s Inns and south over the city. If it generates anything like the level of clutter that’s up there already (building materials) – oh dear…

Gardiner must be rolling in his grave at the sight of those jumpers draped over the balcony – almost in full view of his drawing room windows 😮