GrahamH

Delete……..

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.

Very nicely put what?.
It will mellow very well over time, indeed this is the greatest appeal of it for me even now – it’s a lovely ‘soft’, subtle building that sits in its environment exceptionally well.

It is also eye-catching on another level too, as when you see that sandy brick for the first time in the coner of your eye, you immediately dismiss it as just another structure that’s been clad in ‘quality’ brick to compensate for a complete lack of design or innovation.
Realising it is much more than this simply adds to the appeal of what is a thoroughly attractive building.

Another case of mosaics being covered over is in a modest but significant Ralph Byrne church c1920 in the North East, where the usual finance commitee of the parish elite saw fit to cover over the highly attractive grape vine mosaics of the altar floor with ‘a nice bit of carpet’ in the late 90s.
A large timber step was also partially built on top to regularise the step line and was also covered in carpet, which not only completely altered the nature of the altar design, but no doubt damaged the mosaics beneath too by its attachment to them, as with the carpet grippers drilled or glued onto the marble edging.
You see this type of practice a lot in small to middle-sized churches which is a great shame.

A pertinent point, though it depends where you’re talking about – the inner city, the Docklands, the outer city (beyond the canals, Huestonish etc) or right out to the M50 – all have different factors to take into consideration.
Specifically on the two-storey development you mention jimg – it is a pathectically relevant point you make, in that it is absolutely correct. There is two-storey suburban housing on St. Stephen’s Green for crying out loud – to the rear of the Ardilaun Centre! There is two-storey housing from the 1980s almost across the road between Harcourt St and Cuffe St!
There is two-storey housing on Clanbrassil St, and similar stuff all over the northside, indeed all over the city, right in the very very heart of the capital.

Likewise all around Liffey St, Capel St, going west along the north quays; again vast tracts of land of two, if not single storey housing, commercial buildings and shops just in off the Liffey, and hundreds of garages and warehouses and stores and all the rest of it – all sprawling about the inner city in the most astonishing waste of space.

Personally I wouldn’t like to see anything over 7/8 storeys in the immediate city centre, with an even lower 5/6 level being maintained along the quays to Heuston – though there is probably room for additional setbacks. Further away from the river and principal streets is largely capable of absorbing 8/9 storeys, but wouldn’t like to see any higher. If this is conservative, so be it.
Dublin’s very appeal is its low-rise character.

The Docklands really is the place for height, and even then anything above 9/10 stoerys as a stanadard level I find unpleasant – probably tainted by the initial Spencer Dock scheme. The way buildings mass together and loom heavily over the ground below when above 10ish stories on a large scale just isn’t appealling at all – again admittedly probably an opinion formed by SD1. Any pictorial examples of where this works?
The 8-10 storey carpet with skyline-forming 20-30 storey taller buildings seems more in tune with a ‘human scale’ city, and more in tune with the modest size of Dublin (the city, not the ancillary county or two).

All kinds – frilly ones, Venetian ones, Roman ones, naff kitchen ones with the brass bar through the base 🙂 – you name it they’ve got it.
Just the miniature samples are something of a drawback :rolleyes:

Though you do have to consider that 1940s/50s vitrolite in the 1970s was the 70s muck of today.
Indeed in most quarters it probably still is.

The white above is attractive alright – though the window above equally so 😉

The washing symbols at the top of the window in rayc’s picture are a fun feature.