Dublin Quays …latest addition.

it’s not bad.

This is a really great bit of regeneration in my opinion.

It was to be taller, but appealed by An Taisce to An Bord Snip Original :D, it was appropriately reduced to what now appears. The result I think looks fantastic – sure there maybe use of the current (and passing) trend of zig-zag off-setting of opes, but in this instance it all really works – with the building contemporary, yet echoing the inherited vernacular language of the quays terraces in terms of vertical emphasis of windows etc.

It appears to be an all-round good job; I can only say its a shame that “Celtic Tiger” Ireland’s development legacies were not more of this standard. Well done to all parties involved in the process – the finished product has been a good days work 🙂

Here’s another view…

Wow, don’t know if it’s just the lighting in those pics but it sure does stand out between the darker brick buildings!

I like it a lot.

Is that the site of the now closed Ormond Hotel? or is that site to the east?

this was the old eastern health board offices site

Oh right- the Ormond Hotel site is another bigger derelict building to the east- pretty much directly across from DCC offices. I think one of the big guys own it- maybe McNamara.

@poukai wrote:

Wow, don’t know if it’s just the lighting in those pics but it sure does stand out between the darker brick buildings!

Certainly does. For a sec I thought the first photo was actually a render.

Looks okay.. A light-grey finish might have fit in a bit better than the bright white? There’s a bit of the same thing going on as in this other new quayside building in that they seem to feel the need to make it look like two separate buildings side by side in order to break up the plot width:
https://archiseek.com/content/showpost.php?p=92688&postcount=73

I was going to allow this building the dignity of completion and a dash of evening sun before directing a lens at it, but as it has been raised now, and my distaste for this structure is such as it is, we might as well go for the plunge.

Firstly, the role of An Taisce, and indeed Dublin City Council, in minimising the impact of the initially proposed seven-storey building on the site must be welcomed. The outstanding inspector’s report by Keith Hamilton of An Bord Pleanála further boosts one’s confidence in the planning process.

It therefore falls to the architectural profession to take responsibility for the absence of finesse, fine-tuning, and in some aspects the patent inappropriateness, of the character of this building. Planning cannot possibly account for every detail, nor should it.

What strikes one immediately about the Ormond Building is how a decent, polite, contemporary building has been placed in the wrong location. Or to be more precise, how it has been faced in the wrong materials and finished in a manner inappropriate for its context. To all exterior impressions, it is a standard office park development with manners imposed upon it, and done so in etiquette classes which were clearly fraught by a harsh class divide and an unwillingness to be there in the first place.

In spite of the design having its origin as the winner of an earlier architectural competition for the site, and since somewhat modified, the central and glaringly obvious problem remains: this building should indisputably be built of brick. If ever there was a case for the City Architect to get their guiding hands all over a planning file, this was it. Furthermore, this was quite evidently not an architectural competition of Henrietta Street site proportions, as it ought to have been; rather it was a case of inviting architects to concoct the least intrusive Sandyford industrial estate specification for a prominent site in the midst of the Liffey Quays, without compromising developers’ gain. It is difficult to conclude from the winning design, having not viewed the other entries, that this was a competition which attracted proposals of substantial merit.

On the central issue of the choice of facing material for this building, white stone is unquestionably the most inappropriate material conceivable for use here. Not only does it stand out unduly in the midst of its neighbours, of much greater concern is that it mounts an arrogant and undisciplined challenge to the Four Courts two blocks upstream. The sheer expanse of luxurious white stone cladding, however readily and cheaply available today, is unprecedented in its use on such a scale on Dublin’s central quays since the 18th century. It is both historically and contemporaneously ignorant for such a modest building, presenting a harsh and unwarranted intrusion along the reticent northern quay-line, in a manner that holds scant regard for the quietly-held, intuitive rules of modesty and respect for the signature structures exhibited by most other buildings along the Liffey.

What a creative architectural practice would have done with this site is explored the various uses of brick – the foundation stone of Dublin’s quays and wider building stock – its forms, its textures, its innumerable applications, and moulded these qualities into a thoroughly imaginative, contemporary building which took its cue from the building practices of Dublin over the past three centuries. The façade could have comprised an essay in brick, of brick, exploring modeling, contrast, colour, texture, bonding, and design concepts informed by both adjacent classical precedent and modern architectural thinking. The greatest potential could have lain in the possibilities for its roofscape, through the interpretation of neighbouring chimneystacks, parapets and roof forms in an eye-catching and visually stimulating manner – a contemporary curiosity on the quays which provided a reticent but confident, contextual foil to the Four Courts.

Instead, we got IFSC Phase III with a flattened slab of The O2 lavatory block plonked on top.

The crudeness of this form, from near or far, cannot be overstated. This was an issue which was exhaustively explored over the course of the planning process. The fundamental problem of a full-blown storey spanning the building here is the central issue – this sheer bulk cannot be resolved through any mitigating cladding measures (although could nonetheless be substantially be improved upon). The inspector did rightly point out:

“To my mind the important aspect is that away from Merchant’s Quay opposite and the adjacent Liffey bridges, the views of the Four Courts are constantly changing with the movement of the observer and the subtle curving of the river and the changed alignments of the Quays. This dynamism results in the dome and drum moving into and out of view, at times partially hidden even by other heritage buildings. I do not believe that there is a “classic” distant view that is at risk from the subject scheme.”

However, this does not, in my view, dispel the fundamental issue that the ‘right’ thing to do in the ideal circumstance would be the removal of the top storey in its entirety in conjunction with a redesign of the wider building – by all accounts accommodating some very necessary, but lesser, forms on its roofscape. It is a difficult scenario to be presented with as a planner: do you allow a relatively decent building through in spite of its inherent probematic design concept, and modify the sticking points by condition, or rule it out entirely? Unfortunately, the Ormond Building appears to fall into the murky waters of taste rather than those of planning. The acceptable solution was probably made.

The building has some fine qualities nonetheless. The deep modeling of the façade is striking and crisply executed, if the upper voids sometimes gawky from some angles.

Very smart.

The building is shamefully let down by nastily detailed factory windows.

These compound the problem of the wider western side of the façade: appearing flat, dull and lifeless relative to the eastern flank. Some heavy solidity was required to bookend the ambition of its neighbour.

The top-out from the rear. Hardly eloquent. The contrast with the Four Courts as seen earlier, however meek in scale, is crude.

Frustratingly – ironically – brick has been used to the side and rear in an apparent sop to residents of Ormond Square.

Some efflorescence ‘issues’. Somebody was a tad trigger-happy with the water application.

An interesting use of rubble-faced stone.

A very pleasant, if stunted, enclosing of Ormond Square. Good lord, that pavilion storey really is as ugly as sin up there. Not to mention just ridiculous.

A polite bending of the knee to Ormond Square.

Even if Ormond Square does not return the gesture.

The linking laneway, newly paved in white granite.

One of the Board’s conditions was that granite paving on the quay was to be reinstated.

In conclusion, a decent, solid, above-average building, which is sadly unsuited to its context. It is shame that the latter, critical element, lets down what is otherwise a largely welcome addition to the cityscape of Dublin.

Bravo, GrahamH, excellent critique, I don’t know if I find the view of it quiet so offencive in relation to the Four Courts. As in your last photo above, there are several rendered buildings on the quays as well, perhaps not direct precident for stone, but a licence to deviate non-the-less; but agreed, a well worked exercise in brick might have been preferable. I like the resolution of the right-hand part of the facade, the left part and the corner, are less well handled, somewhat arbritary.

the mirror command 😉

OK, so the new pile is incongruous, but look at the state of the fine old Georgian block on the left in the photo.

There’s a solicitor’s office that has an absolutely awful shop frontage, thus proving that those involved in law are tight arsed and cultureless.

And the early house pub on the same block has an awful hotch potch interior.

It’s far too bright. Like the episode of Friends where Ross gets his teeth whitened… :p

GergF, that isn’t a solicitors office it’s an accountant (legal cost accountant). So another baseless smear on the legal profession!!!:rolleyes:

Don’t mean to hijack the thread (toooo much!) but was driving up the south Quays this morning on my way west and just thought what a load of disgraceful rubbish is built along both sides, from around the Four Courts and westwards. I mean really appauling stuff – some quite recent too.

Going to get the camera out one of these days and will post up what I talking about (some of the offending structures have already been discussed on these boards – not sure about others).

Regarding the above, it’s actually not too bad. Far from the worst and I reckon it will darken pretty quickly

Agreed it will sully quickly. One despairs at the photographs of the bone white Four Courts after its respective cleanings of the late 1970s and 1990s. The incessant heavy passing traffic simply destroys it, as with countless other buildings in Dublin.

I don’t mean to be unduly harsh about the Ormond Building. That would be counterproductive: firstly because it is a good building, just lacking polish, and secondly, as this would leave one wondering, well what exactly would be appropriate along the quays? The Ormond Building is a good example of what the quays need in terms of scale, massing and facade treatment, and, if not quite marks, then at least suggests, a new departure for sensitive, confident infill buildings. I agree it is not overtly cruel on the Four Courts, but without question it does not contribute to the scenic quality of its environs, which frankly is just not good enough.

The ‘brightness’ of the facade is not something which is of greatest concern – and fully agreed, spoilsport, about rendered facades which I am very conscious of (and for which, incidentally, there are absolutely no design guidelines for painting or methods of enforcement) – rather it is the choice of cladding material in the first instance. Although the lightness of the building is harsh, and further emphasised by its crisp, modular articulation, it is its fundamental ignorance of the tradition of building materials, and to some degree forms, in Dublin – on much as an intellectual level as a tangible one – that so disappoints. This ‘tradition’ is not that of preservationisim, of architectural heritage protection in its strictest sense, or that of a nostalgic mindset. Rather, it is an inherited collective agreement and vision for a city, which, while very much informed by precedent, establishes rules and commonly-held practices which are adhered to in expressing the city’s identity in restoration, adaption and new-build.

It is truly quite baffling that after literally decades, nigh on a century, of architectural critics and visitors praising the inherent hierarchy and coherence of not only Dublin’s quays, but of the city as a whole, expressed by reticent brick terraces flanking focal stone buildings, that this be so completely disregarded by this development. Whereas much of this concept has long been diluted since the 18th century, and let’s face it in some instances was never that impressive in the first place, it nonetheless comprises the very essence of the city, its backbone, its framework, its readability. To erode this concept, however piecemeal, is to chip away at the identity of the city.

It is extraordinary that this framework of established principles, so prominent in the architectural legacy of previous and current generations, can be so brashly contravened by both the planning and architectural professions, and all the more so that it be intellectually supported in the form of an architectural competition. It strikes a highly disconcerting chord that architectural and design excellence, as associated with such competitions, results in the Ormond Building. Is this what the relevant professions aspire to in Ireland? The fact that an express requirement for the use of brick as a dominant facing material in this development was not insisted upon by those organising the competition as much implicates the planning profession as it does the architectural. It suggests an ignorance not only of the site and its context, but also that of a wider vision for the consolidation of the identity of Dublin.

The office park character of the building, meanwhile, suggests a lack of imagination and ambition, and an inability to deal with challenging design concepts which so sorely need to take infill architecture in Dublin to a new level. This is something that the newly installed City Architect has made a mission to achieve excellence in, which must be warmly welcomed, if sadly too late for this strategic site.

You’re a very hard man to please Graham. It’s not often that architects get given out to for going up in standard! The stone finish here is a much higher spec than brick . . and it oozes quality, which is not what most recent city centre developments have oozed.

@GrahamH wrote:

The office park character of the building, meanwhile, suggests a lack of imagination and ambition, and an inability to deal with challenging design concepts which so sorely need to take infill architecture in Dublin to a new level.

One selectively quotes Graham at their peril . . . but, I don’t see a lack of imagination here . . . (apart from in the funky spacing of the opes in the outer frame, which, to be kind to it, is a little stiff, and maybe in the vertical strip windows, which don’t really complement either main facade approach, and perhaps in the Tegral brochure aesthetics of the recessed penthouse storey) . . . I think I see a genuine exercise in restraint.

And getting commercial clients to pay for stone is a lot harder than it looks and deliberately losing floor space (behind the facade) in the interests of depth in the architectural expression can’t have been an easy concept to sell either.

I think that the presence of a Georgian block between this building and the Four Courts is enough separation for the contextual use of brick not to be crucial here and, in any case, there’s no way the building would have turned out as refined as it did if they had gone done that route.

My only fear would be that, if we like it, and we’re all bitter and twisted, god only knows what the award citations are going to say about it!

i suppose most red brick is part facade, but it does have a structural component, does this stone facade?

too bright

doesn’t need refinement more roughness.

@gunter wrote:

I think that the presence of a Georgian block between this building and the Four Courts is enough separation for the contextual use of brick not to be crucial here and, in any case, there’s no way the building would have turned out as refined as it did if they had gone done that route.

That’s the key point in my opinion and why I disagree with some of Graham’s argument here

its easy be a critic. those who cant do ….criticise. And what is it with armchair architecture critics obsession with all things brick when it comes to infill in Dublin. All the grim ‘brick’ buildings in those photos are mediocre to average and of no significant architectural value.

I quite like this, but the rear elevation to Ormonde Square is banal in the extreme and does nothing for itself or the square. The pavilion ontop is awful, created from standard pieces from a catalogue.

PS todays Architects and Builders dont have Clients who can sit around for years waiting for a craftsmen to carve up elaborate features such as Granite doors with Neo Classical detailing.

What a tiresome arguement, Rourke. It requires little response, other than to note the fact that the idea of reworking traditional forms and materials in a contemporary manner conjures up notions of pastiche and fairytale architecture, speaks volumes about the type of architectural thinking that has so stymied good infill architecture in Dublin.

@Rourke wrote:

its easy be a critic. those who cant do ….criticise. And what is it with armchair architecture critics obsession with all things brick when it comes to infill in Dublin. All the grim ‘brick’ buildings in those photos are mediocre to average and of no significant architectural value.

I have never in my life heard of architectural critics being in favour of brick buildings – if anything, quote the opposite. Indeed within Dublin city centre, I would rank but a single modern brick building as being of real architectural excellence, namely 1 Castle Street. Little else compares (although there are some close exceptions).

I fully agree that the Ormond Building is accomplished in many respects; in fact I’d be raving over most of it at another location (take the site of Shay Cleary’s new building on South Leinster Street for example). The spec of most of the facade is of a very high standard, the detailing is elegant, and the deep modelling of the eastern wing a very successful interpretation of adjacent fenestration patterns. The facade design is for the most part very well considered.

Just, a high quality exercise in brick was cried out for on this strategic site. This would have reinforced the character of the quays leading up to the Four Courts, creating a pleasing uniformity of character, while also expressing distinct individuality. It would also have set a new benchmark for the infill of sensitive sites in the city. I see what people mean about the Georgian brick terrace providing a buffer beside the Four Courts, but we’re not talking weak compromise here. In my opinion, the best that this site warranted was nothing less than a brick composition which robustly contributed to, defended, and by all accounts helped generate a-new, a distinctive identity for this stretch of the quays, as much for its own sake as for the Four Courts further upstream. Instead, it is now unduly fragmented, with a straggling remnant of Georgiana on the corner, a day-glo, somewhat insular cube next door, and then a return to a reasonable exercise in 1970s-interpreted brick Georgian. It all simply does not add up, which is just not good enough a result from the infilling of a key site, involving an architectural competition, whose direct purpose was to restore coherence to the quayside.

In my mind, a brick design would have been a far more challenging, innovative and ultimately more satisfying project. Whilst accepting that other cities may have a more coherent look, one cannot imagine a Citywest style composition landing itself in the middle of Amsterdam et al without at least modifiying itself to the accepted dress code.

but why brick here?. chances are the exisiting buildings to the left side will be demolished in the near future now that this building has upped the development ante a notch. good riddance i say. Its likely that they wont be brick or ‘in keeping ‘ either. that leaves the little non descript pub between the 4 courts and the new building to which all newcomers must bow. Why ?
the Donnell Tuomey brick building is one of the best in Dublin. But theres no specific reason why the infill buildings should be brick on any site in Dublin other than on an otherwise well preserved Georgian street / row.

Rourke: apart from the uncomfortable fact that brick is the Dublin vernacular historic building material (apart from major public buildings). Brick is in part what makes Dublin Dublin from an architectural point of view; what is needed is a competent, confident new brick vernacular, not whimsical renderings of some vague ‘international’ (or should it be ‘global capitalist’?) style.

Nonsense. stop clinging to the past. do you travel around in a horse and carriage wearing a powdered wig ?

“Brick is in part what makes Dublin Dublin from an architectural point of view”

no its what makes Dublin Dublin from your point of view.

Don’t feed the troll.

@fergalr wrote:

Don’t feed the troll.

… just came back from italy the other day and something that struck me when i came back to dublin was the red brick! it really does give dublin its own character regardless of history.

Yep – it’s a very distinctive characteristic.

@Rourke wrote:

but why brick here?. chances are the exisiting buildings to the left side will be demolished in the near future now that this building has upped the development ante a notch. good riddance i say. Its likely that they wont be brick or ‘in keeping ‘ either. that leaves the little non descript pub between the 4 courts and the new building to which all newcomers must bow. Why ?
the Donnell Tuomey brick building is one of the best in Dublin. But theres no specific reason why the infill buildings should be brick on any site in Dublin other than on an otherwise well preserved Georgian street / row.

You see, this is the problem. Brick for some reason is deemed by many in the architectural profession, just as it oozes from your post, as being a compromise, or a sop to conservationists, synonymous with pastiche developments of the 1990s. It has an image problem in Dublin, which is really quite farcial given the city inherited by the 20th century was one almost exclusively built of brick. For this characteristic to be almost completely abandoned by modern architects in favour of a globalised international ‘anywhere’ palette of materials as mentioned by johnglas, does a grave disservice to the identity of the city.

I couldn’t give a hoot if the established brick buildings which require complementing are 200 years old or 50, 20, or 10 years old. It is not heritage-dependant (though this does play a role) – rather it’s about being confident enough to build on the distinctive characteristics of a city in new and dynamic way, using established materials where it is appropriate. When one sees the (at times, overly) strenuous lengths gone to in Bath to ensure a consistency of material across the city in new-build developments, it really is a joke in Dublin that barely anybody uses brick for standard infill buildings within the city core, with that number approaching zero when it comes to it being put to a creative application.

All I’m saying is that brick would have been highly desirable as a facing material at Ormond Quay, and it is a grave disappointment that architects did not see fit to employ this over a showy, chic, but ultimately insular, stand-alone composition that does little to reinforce the character of the quayside other than fill an unsightly gap.

Since when has brick been ‘the past’? That just makes no sense – roll on the day when everything is system-built high-rise modules and we all live in our pods playing with our blackberries (!) and running up debt on our credit cards – so modern, so cool!

There are a couple of problems.

Firstly, brick buildings in this country generally just follow patterns laid down in provincial architecture in Britain. So there’s nothing distinctively Irish or Dublin about it.

Secondly, everything built in brick in Dublin in the last fifty years is crap.

Either somebody is hiding the secret of modern red brick from the rest of us, or red brick does not suit modern buildings. One of the reasons traditional brick buildings seem beautiful to us is their old-fashioned aesthetic principles and their attention to detail. In modern contexts, especially where brick is employed in a minimalist fashion, you end up with awkward, ugly boxes. THE AGE OF BRICK IS OVER. Unless somebody can formulate an entirely new paradigm for red brick in Ireland, then we must stop littering our cities with badly designed, aesthetically repulsive brick buildings.

Is the present architectural profession so starved of talent and imagination that a distinctively Irish modern style cannot be contemplated?

The first element of such a paradigm should be aesthetic, rather than intellectual, quality. Sometimes I think architects are so taken in by the architectural ideas that they are blinded to what actually looks good. And that building beside the Four Courts looks a lot better than a red brick box would.

its nothing to do with brick being a compromise. ive been involved in the design of a contemporary building which uses brick almost exclusively, and that building is a one off you will not find repeated anywhere in Ireland.I am not decrying brick as a material to be employed in todays buildings.
My argument is that there is no rational reason why architects must defer to surrounding buildings or use a certain material because the surrounding buildings incorporate them.

the exception is for infill of derelict sites in an situation where the whole street/s are in one recognised architectural style or of one distinct era and where those surrounding structures are of high architectural value when taken as a whole.

if they wanted to do modern, why didn’t they?

modern red brick…, em the plans for the smithfield market, with those big windowed angular elevations and the fill in on the end of the row on parnell street?

although it’d be difficult to match the windows and and do something different

Glad to hear you appreciate the qualities of brick, Rourke!

@Rourke wrote:

My argument is that there is no rational reason why architects must defer to surrounding buildings or use a certain material because the surrounding buildings incorporate them.

I do find this quite an extraordinary statement. While noting your last comments about unified streetscapes etc, there is every reason to make reference to the surrounding landscape of building materials (and again I’d argue that ‘defer’ has a negative, subordinate connotation). This promotes a satisfying sense of harmony and coherence, while on an ‘intellectual’ level stimulates the eye in noting the varying stylistic approaches to the expression of a similar ideal. 1930s modernist infill and Amsterdam school buildings were particularly adept at this practice (and built at the time when the greed of pile-em-high additional storeys and annexes did not compromise their composition). These buildings were often beautifully crafted from local brick, expertly detailed and thoroughly complementary to their settings. They also age extremely well. Of course every building must not ‘conform’ – that would be daft – but as a baseline for most buildings it is a desirable goal.

@rumpelstiltskin wrote:

There are a couple of problems.

Either somebody is hiding the secret of modern red brick from the rest of us, or red brick does not suit modern buildings. One of the reasons traditional brick buildings seem beautiful to us is their old-fashioned aesthetic principles and their attention to detail. In modern contexts, especially where brick is employed in a minimalist fashion, you end up with awkward, ugly boxes. THE AGE OF BRICK IS OVER. Unless somebody can formulate an entirely new paradigm for red brick in Ireland, then we must stop littering our cities with badly designed, aesthetically repulsive brick buildings.

Is the present architectural profession so starved of talent and imagination that a distinctively Irish modern style cannot be contemplated?

Fully agreed that aesthetic takes precedent over abstract or intellectual notions, which is perhaps why the Ormond Building is more a matter of taste than stepping into the realm of what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. However, this development was the result of an architectural competition – a formula which aspires to tailor a building to every facet of its context. The fact that this was a modest infill site in the wider ensemble of the quays, rather than an isolated stand-alone site which demanded a more confident, individual approach, practically hones down the function of the competition exclusively to that of interpreting context. In my opinion, 50 per cent of this was achieved, through the matching of parapet height and the distinguished use of staggered fenestration modules. The other 50 per cent failed unacceptably – namely the arbitrary and ill-conceived roofscape, and the choice of facing material.

I could not disagree more about the age of brick being over. If anything, it’s quite the opposite, with O’Donnell & Tuomey and DeBlacam & Meagher in particular championing the material to beautiful effect. The former’s new Timberyard social housing scheme on Cork Street is easily amongst the top three buildings erected in Dublin last year, and one of the finest of the past decade. It is precisely this model of structure which would have been more appropriate for Ormond Quay, which makes it particularly galling that this is precisely what they submitted into the competition.

© O’Donnell & Tuomey (rear elevation)

http://www.odonnell-tuomey.ie/webpage/orm/orm.htm

Okay, the two-part quayfront approach and roof gardens probably didn’t win over the judges, but the material and arguably the finer grain of detail would have been infinitely more appropriate for the site (and the elevation to Ormond Square much more satisfying).

Brick is not a clinical, harsh material, and most ceertainly does suit modern buildings when used appropriately. It does not have to be all-engulfing – indeed one of the best applications of brick is its use in conjunction with other materials such as sharp expanses of glass and softening timber. Again, these options could have been employed at Ormond Quay. Instead we have a building that in terms of material expression appears to have landed from outer space. An incidentally, I am convinced that had the site in question been the corner site of the Georgian terrace, we would have ended up with precisely the same building.

@rumpelstiltskin wrote:

Sometimes I think architects are so taken in by the architectural ideas that they are blinded to what actually looks good.

That’s a good point. There’s an awful lot of idealogy out there.

@GrahamH wrote:

. . . with O’Donnell & Tuomey’s . . . new Timberyard social housing scheme on Cork Street is easily amongst the top three buildings erected in Dublin last year, and one of the finest of the past decade.

I don’t know about that. I’m glad they’re back doing urban things, but there’s something not right about that Cork Street job.

I would like to use more brick but up to now it has been almost impossible due to cost. The cost is not in the material as such but in the cost of brick and block layers. A few years ago now brick and block layers effectively held the construction industry to ransom and, as a result, contractors and developers moved away to alternative methods and subcontractors – which saw a meteoric rise in stone clad concrete and steel.

I hope that the current economic climate will allow brick to make a reappearance but I think it’s still a way away yet. The planners have a part to play in this as much as the developers and builders.

thought you guys would be ineterested in this Dublin’s Inner City Reconstructed Through Photography by David Jazay http://www.photographyblogger.net/dublins-inner-city-reconstructed-through-photography-by-david-jazay/

Dublin before the Tiger http://davidjazay.com/?page_id=2 a big pano of http://davidjazay.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/5_Upr-Ormond-Q-Pano.jpg of Ormond Quay

compare with google streetview https://maps.google.ie/maps?q=dublin+ireland&hl=en&ll=53.34521,-6.267571&spn=0.005098,0.027874&hnear=Dublin,+County+Dublin&gl=ie&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=53.345215,-6.267581&panoid=Z79fPliWWx8UYks0Dx6ViA&cbp=11,339.01,,2,-2.39