Building on Sean McDermott St.

Home Forums Ireland Building on Sean McDermott St.

Viewing 96 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #708706
      AoifeR
      Participant

      Hi,

      Simple question…maybe not so simple, but we’ll see…could anyone tell me what the Greek-looking building on Sean McDermott St. is?

      I walked down that street for the first time the other day and this building (though it’s in an awful state) stands out a mile in contrast to the flats and other dreadful buildings around it.

      I coudn’t see anything on it that would identify it for me. It’s got some Greek script across the front, but I can’t read Greek… Any info would be greatly appreciated, it’s spiked my curiosity and I won’t be able to rest till I know what it is!

      Thanks,

      Aoife

    • #778250
      Frank Taylor
      Participant

      This one?

    • #778251
      hutton
      Participant

      Just seeing Franks photo reminds me how angry I get when I see the condition of that building. Its a flaming disgrace and leaves me spitting! ๐Ÿ˜ก
      To reply to the OPs question, the building was a protestant church in the Greek Revival style, circa 1810 – or there abouts.
      The facade was “retained” whilst the rest, which was derelict, was knocked and thereafter that block was thrown up behind. No effort to tie-in or rehabilitate the facade with the new block, it was simply ignored:mad: . Obviously rehabilitation should have been conditional when the new dev was given the go-ahead. Again ๐Ÿ˜ก
      Im afraid thats all I got at the mo, thou Im sure Devin or Graham H will have all the details ๐Ÿ˜‰

    • #778252
      urbanisto
      Participant

      Yes, this is one of those cases that spring to mind just when you think that planning is getting better in the city. What a mess. why not just demolish the temple and build a proper street frontage. Or if you really wanted to have it both ways remove the temple and relocate in a park as a feature, or on a street as a feature..

    • #778253
      aj
      Participant

      @StephenC wrote:

      Yes, this is one of those cases that spring to mind just when you think that planning is getting better in the city. What a mess. why not just demolish the temple and build a proper street frontage. Or if you really wanted to have it both ways remove the temple and relocate in a park as a feature, or on a street as a feature..

      wouldnt this look fantastic restored and relocated as a feature in one of the city parks

    • #778254
      hutton
      Participant

      Leave it where it is! Its not as if SmcD st is full of great architecture; this is/ should be (:mad: again) a feature to that st. Just restore it!
      IS IT AGAINST THE LAW TO LEAVE IT AS IS? Now thats the question…

    • #778255
      urbanisto
      Participant

      Its a difficult area (demolish or restore) but in this case i favour demolsih and build a proper street frontage for this block of buildings. The ruin can be relocated. It far too odd looking to be integrated into a building. As you say its against the law that it should have gotten in this condition but Welcome to Ireland!

    • #778256
      hutton
      Participant

      Ooooh look at that…DCC’s lists as 7648 on the Record of Protected Structures –

      “62 Sean MacDermott St Dublin 1. Corn mill building, former Presbyterian church (facade only)”

      Clearly the facade is protected, judging its current state:(

      Peculiarly above this listing at 7646, is listed “Sean Mac Dermott St Lower – Facade of former Presbyterian church”

      Obviously there cant be 2, so this must be a double entry…

      Hmm ..Twice the effort in listing, and half the effort of enforcement. Wonderful :rolleyes:

    • #778257
      ConK
      Participant

      another view.

    • #778258
      urbanisto
      Participant

      God what a mess! To think that this has been sanctioned by the planners is deeply disappointing.

    • #778259
      hutton
      Participant

      Have we any more information about this, ie architect, a more specific date – my one was purely a suggested date – and any site history? Ive gone through my books – the usual suspects – but to little avail ๐Ÿ™

      What were the conditions given to the new development when granting permission? Do they now own this, and so are they the ones responsible for its upkeep? Hmmm back to my enforcement point.

      As to the style, I note that the building was built for the Presbyterians. Maybe this is why its built in the Greek style rather than a Roman form of classicism, thus that they got a temple style building inspired by a (somewhat) democratic state – in keeping with Presbyterian democratic values, while not having any of the dirty popeish connotations that a Roman classical building may have given rise to? Perhaps ๐Ÿ˜‰

      Any thoughts, any further info?

    • #778260
      urbanisto
      Participant

      The new building has only gone up in the last 3 years. I cant find any record of it in the DCC planning files (online). Its a social housing complex for teh elderly built by the Order of Nuns in thed convent here, I think.

    • #778261
      GrahamH
      Participant

      What a disgrace. This certainly went up quickly, not having being round here for only a year or two either – who the heck granted permission for what would result in such a disasterous state of affairs?!

      The only explanation is that the facade is going to be moved – the grey part of the housing complex extends to the exact width of the church plot, has no windows and essentially remains unfinished in appearance, as if to be extended over the church site and out onto the street.

    • #778262
      Anonymous
      Participant

      It was in construction (finishing off) in September 2004

    • #778263
      AoifeR
      Participant

      That’s definitely the building I was talking about. Thanks for all the information, I am much enlightened ๐Ÿ™‚ Liked your take on the reason for it being Greek in design, hutton:D

      Looking at the images you’ve posted, it looks worse than I remembered it ๐Ÿ˜ฎ And from where I stood I hadn’t really registered the fact that they’d built a development directly behind it. It really is in a very sorry state.

      For the sake of the remaining facade I think maybe…possibly…moving it elsewhere to preserve it mightn’t be the worst idea. It’s such an unusual-looking facade and such a pity to see it degenerating. I don’t have a lot of faith in developers or the DCC doing anything with it because of its current location – I don’t remember ever having walked down Seรƒยกn McDermott St. before and I’ve lived in the city for 30 years! i.e. it’s not on a tourist route, it’ll only be seen by locals (cynical view, I know). I just think that, looking at the rest of the street, any building activity would be around housing and amenities rather than heritage.

      I’d really rather see the history preserved than see it continue to be covered in the detritus of people who (seemingly) could care less… ๐Ÿ™

    • #778264
      tommyt
      Participant

      @hutton wrote:

      Ooooh look at that…DCC’s lists as 7648 on the Record of Protected Structures –

      “62 Sean MacDermott St Dublin 1. Corn mill building, former Presbyterian church (facade only)”

      Clearly the facade is protected, judging its current state:(

      Peculiarly above this listing at 7646, is listed “Sean Mac Dermott St Lower – Facade of former Presbyterian church”

      Obviously there cant be 2, so this must be a double entry…

      Hmm ..Twice the effort in listing, and half the effort of enforcement. Wonderful :rolleyes:

      Remarkable to think D1 could in days gone by support two Presbyterian congregations (t’other being the gothic revival on Parnell Sq.). If this facade had have been anywhere else but S McD street there would have been an awful stink kicked up. One can only hope it is due/proposed to be removed to another location.

    • #778265
      Anonymous
      Participant

      Corner of Sean McDermott and Gardiner Sts in the rather pointless park?

      It is currently in Killarney Street.

    • #778266
      hutton
      Participant

      @Thomond Park wrote:

      Corner of Sean McDermott and Gardiner Sts in the rather pointless park?

      I was just thinking that myself – though that park is far from useless! Gets a lot of use. I revise my earlier position on leaving the temple front where it is. With that new development, the damage is done, and there is no way that it can be resolved in its current location:( . It simply looks ubsurd.

      However if moved a couple of 100 yards, it would make a great feature in that park – while still keeping it in the area. Now if we were to be really ambitious, we could look at also ressurecting the Abbey facade – the granite blocks of which lie out in garden of the late Daithi Hanley in Killiney;)

      BTW AoifeR, glad you liked my ‘greek reasoning’ + welcome to archiseek ๐Ÿ™‚

    • #778267
      hutton
      Participant

      As a curiosity fact, if the temple was to be moved, it would be the 2nd protestant church facing onto Sean Mc D st to ‘disappear’ in less than 100 years.

      St Thomas’s, built 17588-60 was built by John Smyth and modelled on Palladio’s Redentore in Venice. Pre-1922, it stood where Cathal Bugha St has been subsequently inserted, linking Sean Mac D and O’ Connell Sts. Frederick O”Dwyer gives it a page in his ‘Lost Dublin’,(p68).

    • #778268
      a boyle
      Participant

      this facade would look very well as an entrance to one of the nearby parks.

    • #778269
      Paul Clerkin
      Keymaster

      It would indeed and like said above, would still be in is original area.

    • #778270
      hutton
      Participant

      @Paul Clerkin wrote:

      It would indeed and like said above, would still be in is original area.

      What say championing it as an archeire campaign?

    • #778271
      AoifeR
      Participant

      @hutton wrote:

      What say championing it as an archeire campaign?

      How’s that done? (Thanks for the welcome hutton ๐Ÿ™‚ )

      The park you’ve all mentioned is the first one that came to mind actually. They’ve haven’t done a bad job on it, and it would be a nice addition. Not sure about it as an entrance, but it would make a great folly of sorts.

      Is that true about the Abbey facade??

    • #778272
      hutton
      Participant

      A little bit more info on this building –

      It was built by a Scottish architect called Fergusson, and actually dates from c.1850 – some 30 years later than one would think:eek:! It was abandoned in the early 20th century – probably around the time of UK Govt of Ireland Act, and subsequently was used as a granary storage depot. Finally in the 1980’s it burnt down – possibly arson – and all but the facade was pulled down. A very sad story indeed. ๐Ÿ™ ๐Ÿ™ ๐Ÿ™

      BTW Aoife, that is totally true re thje Abbey facade – I have the info on excellent authority ๐Ÿ˜‰

    • #778273
      GrahamH
      Participant

      Thanks for that hutton – some pictures to put the building in context on Killarney Street:

      With the new convent? development going up behind – it’s actually not bad:

      …as part of this project:

      Though the juxtaposing is still hideous:

      The facade is needless to say in dismal condition – the main entrance:

      One of the delightful flanking doorcases – tiny little things (this is taken from the ground!)

      The columns and steps – a few tests have been made in cleaning them in places, not really evident here though:

      The stunning Greek sculptures adorning the pediment, one of the most impressive parts of the building:

      A rather eroded granite capital and entab:

      All in all, the most charming little building; its appeal stemming from a completely unassuming character, and minute but perfect proportions.

      I don’t like the notion of moving it one little bit, but on balance it shamefully does need to be done – it’s completely overpowered by its new neighbour. It’s such a pity, as it fitted into that miniature streetscape so well, with the tiny little Victorians also alongside – a classic Dublin street scene. However if it is to be moved (and yes it should stay in the general area), it would be nice for it to address the street in its new home. It’s not until you walk past it and stand underneath its portico that you realise what a shame it would be to have it so stunted in a public park.

      Just a pity the law didn’t intervene 20 years ago.

    • #778274
      jdf
      Participant

      Hi there,

      I’m a new member to this site so I’m not sure of the etiquette. But I came across a thread which you were a part of in 2006 about the Greek facade Presbyterian church on Sean McDermott Street – I’m trying to find out more about the convent on that same street as I’ve noticed recently that has that little planning sign on it, like a mark of death I’m afraid! I would really like to know more about this – I would like to get inside it before its knocked down or turned inside out or whatever the developers have in store for it! could you maybe point me in the right direction? I am an artist who is very interested in urban planning, spatial relations and power relations, as well as the bureaucratic language of planning and development. Thanks! ๐Ÿ™‚

    • #778275
      Praxiteles
      Participant

      @AoifeR wrote:

      Hi,

      Simple question…maybe not so simple, but we’ll see…could anyone tell me what the Greek-looking building on Sean McDermott St. is?

      I walked down that street for the first time the other day and this building (though it’s in an awful state) stands out a mile in contrast to the flats and other dreadful buildings around it.

      I coudn’t see anything on it that would identify it for me. It’s got some Greek script across the front, but I can’t read Greek… Any info would be greatly appreciated, it’s spiked my curiosity and I won’t be able to rest till I know what it is!

      Thanks,

      Aoife

      From what I can gather, the church was built from 1845-1846 by Duncan Ferguson, a drawing master at the Royal Dublin Society. Well before 1900, it had been converted to a flour mill.

      Praxiteles has been unable to see the full text of the inscription, bt what he has seen translates as [Dedicated?] fo God our Saviour. If you can get the full inscription we shall have a further look. DIsgraceful what has happened to the facade. So much for the Dublin CIty Council’s committment to architecture/heritage.

    • #778276
      Praxiteles
      Participant

      @jdf wrote:

      Hi there,

      I’m a new member to this site so I’m not sure of the etiquette. But I came across a thread which you were a part of in 2006 about the Greek facade Presbyterian church on Sean McDermott Street – I’m trying to find out more about the convent on that same street as I’ve noticed recently that has that little planning sign on it, like a mark of death I’m afraid! I would really like to know more about this – I would like to get inside it before its knocked down or turned inside out or whatever the developers have in store for it! could you maybe point me in the right direction? I am an artist who is very interested in urban planning, spatial relations and power relations, as well as the bureaucratic language of planning and development. Thanks! ๐Ÿ™‚

      The Irish Catholic Directory tell us that the Convent in Lower Sean McDermott Street was that of the sisters of Our Lady of Charity. They can be contacted at their Provincialate, 3 Beechlawn, High Park Grounds, Grace Park Road, Dumcondra, Dublin 9. Tel: 01 8368887 or 8368828 or e-mail olcireland@eircom.net

    • #778277
      johnglas
      Participant

      I’m very interested in the fate of this little remnant on SMcDSt. It was designed by Duncan C Ferguson in 1845/6 and
      ‘ closed within several decades of completion’ (Pevsner Architectural Guides – Dublin; Yale UP 2005, p.137), being then used as a grainstore. The Presbyterian use of the Doric order probably refers back to their Scottish origins – bluff northern types, not like the effete (Ionic) southerners. (‘Doric’ is used as another name for the Scots (Lowland) language.)
      It deserves a much better fate and should be used as a frontispiece or centrepiece for something, preferably in situ or as close to it as possible.

    • #778278
      Devin
      Participant

      There’s a plan to consume it within a glazed building. Planning Ref. 1174/08 :

    • #778279
      Praxiteles
      Participant

      @Devin wrote:

      There’s a plan to consume it within a glazed building. Planning Ref. 1174/08 :

      Too high and out of proportion to the portico.

    • #778280
      alonso
      Participant

      if it was fully glazed and had no setback floor it may border on acceptable

    • #778281
      Maskhadov
      Participant

      think its time to clear the front facade

    • #778282
      newgrange
      Participant

      @jdf wrote:

      I’m trying to find out more about the convent on that same street as I’ve noticed recently that has that little planning sign on it, like a mark of death I’m afraid! I would really like to know more about this – I would like to get inside it before its knocked down or turned inside out or whatever the developers have in store for it! could you maybe point me in the right direction? I am an artist who is very interested in urban planning, spatial relations and power relations, as well as the bureaucratic language of planning and development. Thanks! ๐Ÿ™‚

      I believe the convent site is to be part of a new civic centre incorporating a theatre, a civic information centre and other community spaces.
      From what I can gather there will also be apartments on the site and the convent building will form one of the blocks.

    • #778283
      johnglas
      Participant

      Maskhadov: You’re just a vandal – ‘clear the front facade’! The design to incorporate it in a glazed box just illustrates the timidity and lack of imagination of ‘modernist’ architecture. Are contemporary architects afraid of voids and solids? Have they no sense of proportion? Are they illiterate in the classical language of architecture? Are they just bad architects? Is this decade just a repeat of the deadly 60s and 70s?

    • #778284
      ctesiphon
      Participant

      Sadly, all too often I suspect there is a belief that ‘glass = invisible’: All that is solid melts into air, right? :rolleyes:

    • #778285
      Praxiteles
      Participant

      @ctesiphon wrote:

      Sadly, all too often I suspect there is a belief that ‘glass = invisible’: All that is solid melts into air, right? :rolleyes:

      “Oh, would that this too too solid flesh would melt, thaw and resolve itself into a dew” .

    • #778286
      ctesiphon
      Participant

      @Praxiteles wrote:

      “Oh, would that this too too solid flesh would melt, thaw and resolve itself into a dew” .

      Wishful thinking, my troubled prince.

      ‘And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust?’

    • #778287
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      What a piece of work is this man, how noble in reason, how infinite in faculties,
      Kb.

    • #778288
      hutton
      Participant

      Ah, Im afraid I cant keep up with you folks and your secondary school Shakespeare quotes ๐Ÿ™‚

      Anyhow, what an odd montage! That the proposer has managed to include 9 vehicles in the foreground is quite an accomplishment…

      The facade is lost in the glazed box. Bizarre that the lampost is left in front with that flag being a further visual obstruction. Why is the facade not presented as being clean and pristine – it is afterall Wicklow granite.

      I cant describe this treatment and its relation the facade as an “afterthought”, as the facade predates the proposed glass box; is “a pre-thought” the best description?

      All in all, the Greek Revival facade seems to be in the way of the architect; given what’s preposed, maybe the best thing is to carefully take the facade out, and with dev levies, locate it elsewhere – the original context is long since lost anyhow ๐Ÿ™

      Btw am I correct to presume that the giddy brown box further down the street is some sort of military installation?

    • #778289
      Praxiteles
      Participant

      @hutton wrote:

      Ah, Im afraid I cant keep up with you folks and your secondary school Shakespeare quotes ๐Ÿ™‚

      Anyhow, what an odd montage! That the proposer has managed to include 9 vehicles in the foreground is quite an accomplishment…

      The facade is lost in the glazed box. Bizarre that the lampost is left in front with that flag being a further visual obstruction. Why is the facade not presented as being clean and pristine – it is afterall Wicklow granite.

      I cant describe this treatment and its relation the facade as an “afterthought”, as the facade predates the proposed glass box; is “a pre-thought” the best description?

      All in all, the Greek Revival facade seems to be in the way of the architect; given what’s preposed, maybe the best thing is to carefully take the facade out, and with dev levies, locate it elsewhere – the original context is long since lost anyhow ๐Ÿ™

      Btw am I correct to presume that the giddy brown box further down the street is some sort of military installation?

      Ah, fie on it, ’tis a garden grown to rank and seed.

    • #778290
      notjim
      Participant

      More matter with less art.

    • #778291
      Praxiteles
      Participant

      @ctesiphon wrote:

      Wishful thinking, my troubled prince.

      ‘And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust?’

      Oft expectation fails, and most oft there
      Where most it promises; and oft it hits
      Where hope is coldest, and despair most fits.

    • #778292
      johnglas
      Participant

      ‘How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable’ (Hamlet: 1,2,129)

    • #778293
      Praxiteles
      Participant

      My salad days,
      When I was green in judgment, cold in blood,
      To say as I said then!

    • #778294
      Anonymous
      Participant

      @hutton wrote:

      Anyhow, what an odd montage! That the proposer has managed to include 9 vehicles in the foreground is quite an accomplishment…

      Very true this part of town hasn’t seen 9 vehicles together in 50 years!

      Someone jumped on Mashkadob for saying it should be cleared; you were right as I’m sure he felt landfill for the portico was the way to go. I can’t see this portico ever working at this location given the prevailing surroundings and the architects on this scheme have obviously regarded it as no more than an inconvenience.

      I think that the portico should be taken down and reassembled as a folly in a city park such as St Annes or the Phoenix Park or even Mountjoy Square as it is after all local heritage.

      The proposed treatment is however the worst of both worlds

    • #778295
      urbanisto
      Participant

      That scheme looks dreadful! Absolute shite. Just take the remains down and relocate them to a park as a feature and build someything half decent on the site.

    • #778296
      Paul Clerkin
      Keymaster

      That’s a terrible proposal – the remnants of the church look tacked on like a rolls royce grill on a mini clubman.

      Better to dismantle the remains and move them to a garden / park somewhere.

    • #778297
      hutton
      Participant

      @PVC King wrote:

      Someone jumped on Mashkadob for saying it should be cleared; you were right as I’m sure he felt landfill for the portico was the way to go. I can’t see this portico ever working at this location given the prevailing surroundings and the architects on this scheme have obviously regarded it as no more than an inconvenience.

      I think that the portico should be taken down and reassembled as a folly in a city park such as St Annes or the Phoenix Park or even Mountjoy Square as it is after all local heritage.

      The proposed treatment is however the worst of both worlds

      Well I should fess up that I was reluctant to face up to the new reality… but its clearly too late now and the context is gone ๐Ÿ™

      That said, it should be a priority that any redevelopment here funds the cost of the RPS-listed structure being fully restored at a new location in the area.

      Just to return to the current proposal as depicted in that odd montage, having re-examined it, I can now only describe the depiction as laughable – the illustrator has not even bothered to unblock the front door of the concrete blocks currentl en-situ.

      Having looked over the elevations on the DCC website, what is proposed isn’t much better – the central doorway is to be a window, while perimeter railings outside are to “later detail”… It all really does seem much of an afterthought, almost as if the architect only discovered the existing structure after designing the glass box.

      It is also interesting that the proposal schedules demolition of a small part of the structure, which albeit not of great significance in itself, should imo only be appropriate in the context of a really good development.

      Ultimately the original context is now low lost and anything even vaguely sympathetic would have required a hand a lot less clumsy than that which has already mauled the setting. As with Pauls, Stephens and PVC’s suggestion, a park setting in the area may be the most appropriate.

      So where should the facade be located? I’ll throw in my twopence to begin – what say Blessington Street Basin; if the facade was to be erected on the island, facing directly the entrance as one enters from Blessington Street, it could look wonderfully theatrical. And, if suitable, perhaps the basin could used for events on special occasions much as Georges Dock is used for the Spiegal tent – what a wonderful backdrop the facade could be ๐Ÿ™‚ *hutton dreams on…*

      As is:

      @GrahamH wrote:

      The facade is needless to say in dismal condition – the main entrance:

      One of the delightful flanking doorcases – tiny little things (this is taken from the ground!)

    • #778298
      hutton
      Participant

      @Devin wrote:

      There’s a plan to consume it within a glazed building. Planning Ref. 1174/08 :

      From DCC website:

      Full Development Description

      Planning permission for development on the lands known as Convent Lands. The development will consist of the provision of 179 no. residential units (27 no. 1 bed, 89 no. 2 bed, 61 no. 3 bed, 2 no. 4 bed) and 18 no. live/work unit in five blocks, one of which is the refurbished Main Convent Building 3,112sqm local area office for Dublin City Council; 901sqm of office space incorporating the portico of the Scots Presbyterian Church/Cornmill site (Protected Structure) fronting Sean McDermott Street; 216.1sqm of office space for the Crinan Project on a site measuring 0.891 hectares. The development will comprise the following; Demolition of 77 Sean McDermott Street Lower; Construction of Block A, an eight/nine storey apartment block with terraces and balconies fronting Railway Street, consisting of 70 no. units (7no. 1 bed, 35 no. 2 bed, 27 no. 3 bed, 1 no. 4 bed); Construction of Block B, an eight/nine storey apartment block with terraces and balconies fronting Railway Street, consisting of 73 units (12 no. 1 bed, 33 no. 2 bed, 28 no. 3 bed) and a 2 storey Crinan Project of 216.1sqm of office/workshop space; Construction of Block C, a six storey apartment block with terraces and balconies central to the site, to the south of the existing Convent Building (Block E), consisting of 23 units (10 no. 2 bed, 12 no. 3 bed, 1no. 4 bed); Construction of Block D, a six storey apartment block with terraces and balconies facing onto Sean McDermott Street Lower, consisting of 13 units (6 no. 2 bed, 7 no. 3 bed); Refurbishment of The Convent Building (Block E) into apartments consisting of 18 units (8 no. 1 bed, 5 no. 2 bed, 4 no. 3 bed, 1 no. 4 bed); Construction of Block F, a three/five storey building bordering Gloucester Lane to provide Dublin City Council with a Civic Centre/One Stop Shop (three storey at Sean McDermott Street, five storey at Railway Street), with a gross internal floor area of 3,112sqm; Construction of Block G, a four storey 901sqm office building incorporating the portico of the former Scots Presbyterian Church (Protected Structure) fronting Sean McDermott Street Lower; provision of 181 no. car parking spaces in a single level basement accessed via ramps from a new access point on Railway Street. Existing access into the site will also be retained from Sean McDermott Street; All associated site development works above and below ground required to facilitate the development, including the provision of landscaped public open space along Gloucester Lane and private and semi-private landscaped open space within the development and roof gardens and construction of an ESB sub station and switch room.

    • #778299
      johnglas
      Participant

      Hutton; Who are the architects responsible for this miscegenation? I think we should know.
      You’re never wrong to dream – but I think the BB’s a bit too far away and out of context. Why not locate it at one of the very generous road intersections in this area? It could be read as a modern urban folly – why should the aristos have all the whimsy?
      Seriously, whatever is done it needs treated with respect as part of the area’s patrimony (is that gendered language?) – at the developer’s expense of course.

    • #778300
      notjim
      Participant

      Silly to move it, this fragment has lost so much, to loose its location to; besides, the BB is going to be full of this lido and the Browne doorway in Eyre Sq is a lesson in how old entranceways don’t work as freestanding follies. The proposal is appalling, but surely if we are to dream, a clever modern building could incorporate this remnant in an artful and exciting way.

    • #778301
      Praxiteles
      Participant

      @notjim wrote:

      Silly to move it, this fragment has lost so much, to loose its location to; besides, the BB is going to be full of this lido and the Browne doorway in Eyre Sq is a lesson in how old entranceways don’t work as freestanding follies. The proposal is appalling, but surely if we are to dream, a clever modern building could incorporate this remnant in an artful and exciting way.

      Praxiteles agrees!

    • #778302
      hutton
      Participant

      @johnglas wrote:

      Hutton; Who are the architects responsible for this miscegenation? I think we should know.
      You’re never wrong to dream – but I think the BB’s a bit too far away and out of context. Why not locate it at one of the very generous road intersections in this area? It could be read as a modern urban folly – why should the aristos have all the whimsy?
      Seriously, whatever is done it needs treated with respect as part of the area’s patrimony (is that gendered language?) – at the developer’s expense of course.

      The applicant is Kimtor Ltd, while the site notice was signed off by Tiros Resources of 10 Lower Hatch Street, D2.

      From the IT:
      @Irish TimesOffice and apartment scheme for Sean McDermott Street

      The Greek-style portico of the former Scots Presbyterian church fronting Sean McDermott St is part of a planning application by Kimtor Ltd which says it will form part of the faรƒยงade for a four-storey office block. The protected structure is believed to be mid 19th century but was abandoned early in the 20th century and later used as a store before being burned down in the 1980s leaving only a faรƒยงade.

      Kimtor Ltd also wants to build 179 apartments on former convent lands between Sean McDermott St and Railway St and Gloucester Lane, as well as 18 live-work units in five blocks up to nine storeys, one of which is the refurbished main convent building with 18 apartments. Around 216sq m (2,325sq ft) of office space is proposed for the Crinan project. A three to five-storey block would provide Dublin City Council with a civic centre/one-stop-shop.

      @notjim wrote:

      Silly to move it, this fragment has lost so much, to loose its location to; besides, the BB is going to be full of this lido and the Browne doorway in Eyre Sq is a lesson in how old entranceways don’t work as freestanding follies. The proposal is appalling, but surely if we are to dream, a clever modern building could incorporate this remnant in an artful and exciting way.

      Ive seen the BB proposals, and I must say frankly Im not convinced – there is a danger that the “lido” could become a failed gimmick imo; all in all the proposed intervention seems tokenistic in the context of what should be a really good redevelopment of Phibsboro and its adajacent areas. The real challenge up there is how to get the former canal to actually function as a linear park; former railways in Paris work very well in this regard, yet the current situation up there is bleak… Imo, BB should really only be approached in a manner that is in keeping with the already existing architectural genres of the area – as opposed to the disasterous reinterpretation a la Wolfe Tone Square.

      Also while the Browne doorway is now out of vogue, did it really not function in an urban context? As far as I recall it was never a centre for anti-social behaviour in the way the Anna Livia/ Floozy-in-the-Jacuzzi became. I am open to correction, as indeed I am also open to persuasion on re-incorporation of the Greek facade – but I would caution you as to the scaled-down “mini-monumental” nature of the structure being an obvious hurdle to what should be a relatively high-dense dev on that site, given the now city-centre nature of that location… Is it really compatible or feasible anymore to keep that facade there? ๐Ÿ™

    • #778303
      notjim
      Participant

      Browne’s doorway just looks silly, it doesn’t make sense as an object: it doesn’t present well as a sculpture because it was created to be an entrance, it has odd proportions standing alone making it painful to the rhythm of the urban landscape it stands in. Whenever I see it I wish it has been incorporated into a building. Galway oddly has two of these things, it also has Lynch’s window.

      I understand that the building around this facade fragment is going to the mini-monumental, but couldn’t a stone fronted building without a flat facade and strong vertical elements manage to incorporate it in a playful and striking way.

      [Well we shouldn’t discuss it here but I think the lido is a terrible idea: all BB needs is a bigger entrance on the linear park end, a bit more maintenance (maintenance to the standard of a south side park) and a more visible warden. The linear park on the other hand is a disaster. If there is to be a lido it should be in one of the grand canal basins, these are used for swimming anyway and are big enough.]

    • #778304
      Anonymous
      Participant

      The location wouldn’t give a budget to do the portico justice in relation to the facade it will front.

      The choice here is simple have a lego standard scheme in a terciary location fronted by a Doric portico left in as an inconvenient after thought or have a condition inserted to have the portico moved to a location where the portico has some context; I’m sure that somewhere the symmetary exists to mark an entrance to a park or other civic space where this feature could be admired.

      I do agree that an open Plaza is never the place for an entrance door / portico as there will always be a poor reverse view from open street; imagine the arch at Stephens Green in Eyre Square :rolleyes:

    • #778305
      notjim
      Participant

      You are right of course, so now we have it: use the portico as the entrance to the BB from the linear park: the reverse side, facing in to the basin can have ivy trained up it.

    • #778306
      hutton
      Participant

      @notjim wrote:

      I understand that the building around this facade fragment is going to the mini-monumental, but couldn’t a stone fronted building without a flat facade and strong vertical elements manage to incorporate it in a playful and striking way.

      My apologies – I should have made myself clearer, I actually meant that the portico is “mini-monumental” in scale, not the glass yoke thats proposed.

      Imo the problem with using the portico as the entrance to BB from the linear park is that it would be lost, in that wheras one approachs the basin directly from Blessington St, the linear park runs perpendicular to the basin and is very tight. Its only a few weeks ago that I was up there, and I had forgotten how confined the space is. Imo the portico should really address/ form part of a vista.

    • #778307
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Why not put it out in Dalkey, in bits, in the back garden of Daithi Hanley’s gaff, where it could repose in the orchard, next to the facade of d’ould Abbey? :rolleyes:
      K

    • #778308
      Praxiteles
      Participant

      Perhaps a solution could be found here:

      Do not forget the architect responsible for the Classical Revival in the United States of America.

      http://www.thomasgordonsmitharchitects.com/

      Thomas Gordon Smith has designed exquisite churches, a major seminary, and a monastery, plus he has groomed leading lights in the Classical Revival. Thomas Gordon Smith has remodelled the American Neo-Classical wing at the Metropolitan Museum in New York. Absolutely first-rate! And what a sterling gentleman!!

      With the Celtic Tiger roaring in full pride, Thomas Gordon Smith ought to be getting calls galore to assist in the restoration and revival of Georgian Architecture. He brings joy and vitality as well as erudition and expertise to all his projects. Floreat!!

    • #778309
      EnergRecru
      Participant

      The NEIC IAP, prepared by Dublin City Council, identified the area around the existing church on Sean McDermott Street as a flagship site for re-development of Community based facilities. As part of the masterplan a need for a new Community Complex was identified to upgrade and further develop existing community based Projects and activities such as the Lourdes Youth and Community Services, the Neighbourhood Youth Project and the Adventure Sports Project, all of which are based in the existing Ruthland St. School and the adjoining School-on-Stilts.The overall proposal is to relocate the above existing groups and their activities in new purpose-built accommodation arising out of an extensive consultation and design process with each of the groups. The proposed Community Complex is a three/four storey building, being 2998sqm in overall floor area. Each user group is provided with its separate entrance so as to create its own identity within the complex and to enable them to relate individually to the proposed surrounding re-development of the overall area. In addition it is proposed to include a separate Creche facility for 35 children at ground level for Dublin City Council. An enclosed hard surface / external area is to be provided between the Church and the proposed building.

    • #778310
      hutton
      Participant

      @EnergRecru wrote:

      The NEIC IAP, prepared by Dublin City Council, identified the area around the existing church on Sean McDermott Street as a flagship site for re-development of Community based facilities. As part of the masterplan a need for a new Community Complex was identified to upgrade and further develop existing community based Projects and activities such as the Lourdes Youth and Community Services, the Neighbourhood Youth Project and the Adventure Sports Project, all of which are based in the existing Ruthland St. School and the adjoining School-on-Stilts.The overall proposal is to relocate the above existing groups and their activities in new purpose-built accommodation arising out of an extensive consultation and design process with each of the groups. The proposed Community Complex is a three/four storey building, being 2998sqm in overall floor area. Each user group is provided with its separate entrance so as to create its own identity within the complex and to enable them to relate individually to the proposed surrounding re-development of the overall area. In addition it is proposed to include a separate Creche facility for 35 children at ground level for Dublin City Council. An enclosed hard surface / external area is to be provided between the Church and the proposed building.

      Fair enough – but there’s feck all architectural resolution with the Doric facade as is evident by the proposal, as seen in link below…

      @Devin wrote:

      There’s a plan to consume it within a glazed building – image: https://live-archiseek.pantheonsite.io/content/showpost.php?p=77201&postcount=30

    • #778311
      GregF
      Participant

      What the developers done here is appalling! And the glass block proposal is so fucking awful! Probably think that they are doing what Sam Stephenson appallingly done to the Art Deco former EBS building on Westmoreland Street or Norman Foster done to the Reichstag in Berlin. (At least the Baroque jewel, the Reichstag was firebombed and blitzed) We have seen this type of treatment of merging old with new umpteen times before. If these boys think that this treatment is original, how indifferent they are, for this is just a copy and paste job and rather lazy really! It will look as bad as that Ulster Bank complex on George Dock with the old classical pillars framing the entrance. Developer/Architect idiots like these have no appreciation of classical architecture, as demonstrated here. What do they learn in college at all?

      Despite the Celtic Tiger, architectural awareness, etc… a certain Irish thickness still remains!

      The neglect and abuse of such a fine old architectural feature on this street is incredible. Ye’d never see this happening abroad today. Imagine this happening in Italy, France, or Spain’s old cities! Britain, definitely yes!

      Does the old stigma still remain today that because it was a Presbyterian Church that the half wits at the Corpo neglected it and let it fall into disrepair!

      The fine old charming buildings of Dublin are still disappearing right before of our eyes. Where was An Taisce to raise concerns about the fate of this particular building. Too busy meddling with the high profile proposals down the docks or Ballsbridge. There will be hardly any old buildings left in Dublin city that will remain untouched and intact, everthing will have the mark of being botched or abused! Dublin City will eventually look like a suburb with it’s historical core of fine stone and brick buildings gone, replaced with concrete, PVC, suburban type shite!

      Anyone see the appalling one/two storey surburban school building that they built on Sean McDermot Street just around the corner from the Gresham Hotel and O’Connell Street. Yer man O’Rourke who was responsible for the rebuilding of O’Connell Street after the 1916 Rising is no doubt rolling in his grave when he sees the likes of this shite and some of the half-wits that class themselves as urban architects, planners and developers.

    • #778312
      johnglas
      Participant

      GregF: sympathetic to some of what you say, but there’s no need to hate yourself, fellow professionals, your city and your country in general quite so much! With friends like you, who needs enemies?

    • #778313
      GregF
      Participant

      @johnglas wrote:

      GregF: sympathetic to some of what you say, but there’s no need to hate yourself, fellow professionals, your city and your country in general quite so much! With friends like you, who needs enemies?

      Oi, ye little cheeky bastard!

      U don’t know me!

      For I have a great love for my city!

      BTW, I’m no friend of yours !

    • #778314
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @GregF wrote:

      Does the old stigma still remain today that because it was a Presbyterian Church that the half wits at the Corpo neglected it and let it fall into disrepair!

      The fine old charming buildings of Dublin are still disappearing right before of our eyes. Where was An Taisce to raise concerns about the fate of this particular building. Too busy meddling with the high profile proposals down the docks or Ballsbridge.

      If you look back the thread a bit there is information provided by a few others as to what happened to the church. An awful pity, but I am not sure it is fair to blame An Taisce for its demise (And perhaps it was not the then Corporation’s fault either).

    • #778315
      GregF
      Participant

      @phil wrote:

      If you look back the thread a bit there is information provided by a few others as to what happened to the church. An awful pity, but I am not sure it is fair to blame An Taisce for its demise (And perhaps it was not the then Corporation’s fault either).

      oh indeed I remember the Church as it stood in a sorry but somewhat intact state before it was vandalized and set alight in the 80’s.
      How the Protestant Church, St. Catherines on Thomas Street never suffered a similar fate is incredible as it stood idle, neglected and vandalized for over 30 years before some local religious and community group showed initiative and revitalized it. Pity about that other fine Protestant/Methodist Church on Merrion Square/Fenian Street that suffered a similar fate of neglect and vandalism before it was ruthlessly gutted and transformed into the O’Callaghan Davenport Hotel. The arcitectural merits of such Protestant Church’s in Dublin city centre greatly overlooked.

    • #778316
      hutton
      Participant

      @GregF wrote:

      Where was An Taisce to raise concerns about the fate of this particular building.

      They had an observation in on the most recent application, did you?

      Re the yellow brick school closer to Cathal Brugha St, afaik the school wanted the structure to be built so that it would be able to take the load of further floors in future years – however it was the mandarins in the dept of Education that penny-pinched, and so blocked even that option. I suspect the same said mandarins live in polite middle class suburbs on the southside…

      Re the general decline of Protestant Churches in the city centre – this has as much to do with the historical post-treaty demographic shifts of the Free State, as much as anything else – particularly from the inner-city (white flight)… That and possibly over-ambitious developments during the period of the evangelical movements, which often never had the populations needed to be sustainable in the first instance.

    • #778317
      Rory W
      Participant

      @GregF wrote:

      Pity about that other fine Protestant/Methodist Church on Merrion Square/Fenian Street that suffered a similar fate of neglect and vandalism before it was ruthlessly gutted and transformed into the O’Callaghan Davenport Hotel.

      Suspect fire …ahem… excuse my cough

    • #778318
      johnglas
      Participant

      GregF: you really are a head job!

    • #778319
      Devin
      Participant

      @GregF wrote:

      What the developers done here is appalling! And the glass block proposal is so fucking awful! Probably think that they are doing what Sam Stephenson appallingly done to the Art Deco former EBS building on Westmoreland Street or Norman Foster done to the Reichstag in Berlin. (At least the Baroque jewel, the Reichstag was firebombed and blitzed) We have seen this type of treatment of merging old with new umpteen times before. If these boys think that this treatment is original, how indifferent they are, for this is just a copy and paste job and rather lazy really! It will look as bad as that Ulster Bank complex on George Dock with the old classical pillars framing the entrance. Developer/Architect idiots like these have no appreciation of classical architecture, as demonstrated here. What do they learn in college at all?

      Greg, maybe you should check the status of the proposal before going on a rant. The overall scheme was granted permission last month. Owning to concerns raised by An Taisce and others, Condition 2 (iv) of the decision requires the glazing to be setback by 6 metres fron the church facade – <a href="http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=1174/08&theTabNo=2&backURL=Search%20Criteria%20>%201174/08

      The wonderful little portico will be repaired, which is obviously welcome.

    • #778320
      tommyt
      Participant

      @Devin wrote:

      Greg, maybe you should check the status of the proposal before going on a rant. The overall scheme was granted permission last month. Owning to concerns raised by An Taisce and others, Condition 2 (iv) of the decision requires the glazing to be setback by 6 metres fron the church facade – <a href="http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=1174/08&theTabNo=2&backURL=Search%20Criteria%20>%201174/08

      The wonderful little portico will be repaired, which is obviously welcome.

      Wonderful is the exact adjective to use. I was flabbergasted the first tiime I ever encountered it because it is so unexpected to think it was ever built in the context anyone under 50 thinks of Sean McD st and more so it survived!

      Was Gloucester st ever as important as Gardiner’s Mall for example? I know so little about it as it must have been one of the first streets in the area to decline and the coming of the railway and the docks nearby must have stripped away any upmarket notions the street would have had pretty quickly…

      EDIT: JJust found some good photos on this site second post down of the Gloucester Diamond and a football pitch with what I presume is the rear of summerhill in the background. Sorry don’t know how to paste the images…very interesting

      http://www.dublin.ie/forums/showthread.php?p=222173

      More photos from c.1980

      http://www.dublin1850.com/old_and_new.html

    • #778321
      newgrange
      Participant

      @hutton wrote:

      T
      Re the yellow brick school closer to Cathal Brugha St, afaik the school wanted the structure to be built so that it would be able to take the load of further floors in future years – however it was the mandarins in the dept of Education that penny-pinched, and so blocked even that option. I suspect the same said mandarins live in polite middle class suburbs on the southside…

      I work there and can confirm this – well partly, it was the Dept. who cut money but the VEC that decided to take off the top floor and not build foundations that would have allowed an upward extension should it be needed. They just lopped the top off the plans, making no allowances for things like heating and air systems within the building. As a result there are problems with air flow and leaks from the roof that should have been a floor.

      We’re now at capacity, since what should have been a 600/800 pupil school ended up as just a 400 pupil school. Mind you, we were waiting over 20 years for ‘the new school’ so even in its truncated format it was welcome.

      It’s a fine school though, with fantastic sporting facilities – easily the best equipped school in Dublin and has transformed educational attainment and participation levels among local children.

      http://www.larkincommunitycollege.ie

    • #778322
      rperse
      Participant

      the pictures of summerhill are heartbreaking. ๐Ÿ™ even in a ruinous state georgians seem to retain there dignity.

    • #778323
      George_Kaplan
      Participant

      I think it’s worth keeping this church-front as a quirky little footnote on the street, even if the overall design is lacking. Perhaps something a little more sensitive to its surroundings would be more suitable though? Around the corner (on Lower Gardiner St), there’s a Cosgrave built mock-georgian apartment complex which seems to retain that Georgian elegance, petering out on Middle Gardiner St, only to return to thunderous applause at Mountjoy Square!

      The loss of the Georgians is certainly lamentable, but it’s a much more pleasant area these days altogether, a far cry from the bleak outlook portrayed in these pictures http://www.dublin1850.com/old_and_new.html

    • #778324
      urbanisto
      Participant

      Wow what great pictures. I remember being very young and taking teh 20B around Gardiner Street and what was then Waterford Street and seeing all these empty shells.

      I cant say that its fair to say that the area is better now because the level of decay and neglect was so bad. Had these buildings been cleaned and improved and the public realm enhanced then I think the area would have looked so much better. I think the loss of this whole quarter of Georgian buildings was absolutely tragic. We usual focus on Fitzwilliam St and the ESB offices but what went on here was worse. Still as the recent RTE programme on O’Connell Street showed the dereliction was so gradual and finally so pervasive that the area really had no choice but to be redeveloped. I cant say I like a lot of whats gone up in its place though.

      A real shame. And the treatment of the remaining North Georgian core is no better now then back then.

    • #778325
      Devin
      Participant

      @tommyt wrote:

      More photos from c.1980

      http://www.dublin1850.com/old_and_new.html

      Great record. An incredible amount was demolished around there at that time. If the guy who took the ‘now’ photos has access to negatives for the 1980 colour photos, it would be worth getting them digitally scanned. I’m presuming the photos on the site are just scans of 4″ x 6″ prints, which were always printed slightly out of focus anyway to conceal dust.

    • #778326
      damnedarchitect
      Participant

      As always upon seeing how much Georgian stock was demolished, I feel physically ill. Jesus Christ, they really flattened the place. Imagine those terraces even moderately restored. What a different place it would be, Shudder.

    • #778327
      pulp
      Participant

      After seeing these before and after photos and similar from other areas of Dublin I feel physically sick at what has taken place to this city. Historic Dublin streets frontages had a consistent architectural style similar to most other European cities. So much of these streets could have easily been restored. And to think most of the dreadful replacement buildings are of public ownership.

      We are preoccupied with stopping development of tall building in newer parts of the city but arequite willing to see these historic street frontages replaced by such awful muck as long as they are “of the same height”.

      We cover beautiful stone and brickwork with render, we accept neon signs on historic buildings, we cover temples in glass and build permanent portacabins behind.

      As a nation we must be the most aesthetically challenged in Europe!

    • #778328
      lostexpectation
      Participant

      who’s we?

    • #778329
      newgrange
      Participant

      @Devin wrote:

      Great record. An incredible amount was demolished around there at that time. If the guy who took the ‘now’ photos has access to negatives for the 1980 colour photos, it would be worth getting them digitally scanned. I’m presuming the photos on the site are just scans of 4″ x 6″ prints, which were always printed slightly out of focus anyway to conceal dust.

      I’ll ask him. I have a feeling the photos were just found in a box, but you never know.

    • #778330
      GregF
      Participant

      Can kinda blame the late Tony Gregory and Charlie Haughey (and the Gregory deal that was done) for the demolishment of these Georgian buildings and their replacement with the awful ‘suburban style’ social housing.
      OK, folk in the inner city were living in squalor in these fine old but decrepit buildings (aka tenements) of yesteryear and they needed new homes, but architectural appreciation went out the window, as it would in the hands of the culturally ignorant idiots Fianna Fail and Tony Gregory.

      Their track records on understanding the architectural fabric, old and new, of Dublin City was appalling!

      Hence we have Sean McDermott Street and Gardiner Street looking as they do today!

      (Imagine something like that happening in Europe? ..Na, and any damage that was done there can be credited to the Luftwaffe and the RAF etc…. )

    • #778331
      tommyt
      Participant

      @GregF wrote:

      Can kinda blame the late Tony Gregory and Charlie Haughey (and the Gregory deal that was done) for the demolishment of these Georgian buildings and their replacement with the awful ‘suburban style’ social housing.
      OK, folk in the inner city were living in squalor in these fine old but decrepit buildings (aka tenements) of yesteryear and they needed new homes, but architectural appreciation went out the window, as it would in the hands of the culturally ignorant idiots Fianna Fail and Tony Gregory.

      Their track records on understanding the architectural fabric, old and new, of Dublin City was appalling!

      Hence we have Sean McDermott Street and Gardiner Street looking as they do today!

      (Imagine something like that happening in Europe? ..Na, and any damage that was done there can be credited to the Luftwaffe and the RAF etc…. )

      There wasn’t much appreciation of decaying Georgian Dublin within the general body of the architecture profession neither from what I have heard. An old urban design lecturer I had reckoned his whole class in the 60s in UCD hated the monotony and twee uniformity of the georgian terrace as they saw it. The same guy lived in a damp basement on upr Mount st at the time and wanted the whole D2 georgian core pulled down on health and safety grounds alone:rolleyes: I appreciate that is a bit of a stretch of a generalisation but it makes sense when you think of the protests by student architects against the destruction of Dublin are associated with the 80s onwards.

    • #778332
      pulp
      Participant

      How practical would it be in the future to tear down the current detritus and re-build new Georgian streets with a number of apartments in each “house” With 4 or 5 stories are they not be a medium density elegant solution to Dublin. A common design standard could be agreed to accurately replicate the original stock with door and window dimension specs, material specs etc with stringent sign off before anything is actually built. Over the course of 40/50 years we could recreate elegant streets and clear out all the present junk allowing beautiful modern buildings to be built in outlying areas such as East Village, SoHe etc?

    • #778333
      missarchi
      Participant

      @pulp wrote:

      How practical would it be in the future to tear down the current detritus and re-build new Georgian streets with a number of apartments in each “house” With 4 or 5 stories are they not be a medium density elegant solution to Dublin. A common design standard could be agreed to accurately replicate the original stock with door and window dimension specs, material specs etc with stringent sign off before anything is actually built. Over the course of 40/50 years we could recreate elegant streets and clear out all the present junk allowing beautiful modern buildings to be built in outlying areas such as East Village, SoHe etc?

      This is where I feel the Henrietta st comp. went amidst they deserved to win but how much more valuable would an off the shelf kit planning /Georgian passive standard/ fire cert and a price calculator? I think the black men and swans know how to do row housing it just needs to be tweaked.

    • #778334
      pulp
      Participant

      The Planning Department could put together a standard set of designs.
      A plan put together for Dublin for redevelopment of the cities streets; as and when the buildings come up for renewal they would be replaced with these new stock buildings. The interiors could have fantastic purpose designed apartments with high ceilings. If the street furniture and greenery etc was designed similarly these could become a real urban alternative to commuting. Many of the streets could be closed to through traffic or possibly or even better have parking at the back of the the buildings with no traffic at the front whatsoever.

      Yes they would be mock or fake but the original Georgian buildings are simple and elegant and enchance the city why try and create something else.

    • #778335
      johnglas
      Participant

      Heresy, folks, heresy – and dangerous talk; this sounds too much like a streetscape. And you’ll soon have the modernistas in hot pursuit…

    • #778336
      pulp
      Participant

      John, I presume by Streetscape mean artificial replicated the whole way along the street similar to what was put into Mountjoy Square and yes I agree they were of poor quality with miniature doors, incorrect materials etc but does the square not look better than if suburban legoland had been placed on one side instead.

      What im advocating is a replication of what was originally there with the design standards agreed in the city centre. Pull down the ESB building and replace with excellent quality mock Georgian, once the buildings have weathered a bit the street will look far better and consistent, likewise S Mc Dermott who looks truely hideous now. The city centre could again become a beautiful place to live. There are vast parts of the city that could be residentised again.

      Areas such as the Docks can be developed for the more mainly commercial use, where bigger floor plans are needed and where the imagination is allowed to excel.

    • #778337
      johnglas
      Participant

      pulp: I’m very much on your side, but except in very restricted circumstances I’m not a fan of ‘quality mock Georgian’ or any kind of ‘mock’ anything. That’s going down the wrong road, but building something based on ‘Georgian’ principles in terms of scale, proportion, quality of materials, relationship to context, etc. is an altogether different thing.
      A good example of how not to do it is Grand Canal Square, which is capricious beyond words, but ‘works’ because of its context; located in the Georgian core it would simply be too naff and ill-mannered. A better example is the ‘Queen Anne’ development of flats on Marlborough Street built in the early 1990s; it’s not great architecture but it doesn’t insult the street either.

    • #778338
      aj
      Participant

      . There are vast parts of the city that could be residentised again.

      I agree with the sentiment .

      We could effectively end the sprawl , bring higher density to the inner city while at the same time restoring large swathes of what are now near derelict townhouses.

      How do you think we could achieve this?

    • #778339
      pulp
      Participant

      Johnglas we are not totally in disagreement but the problem i see with being against mock Georgian or any other style is that the replacement would need to be better. Georgian is a simple, elegant and of medium density, and I would think very hard to improve upon. The Queen Anne development you mention is an example of why I believe this, it doent improve on the original design. The proportality but also the actual size as well as the materials used.

      As the state will be coming into vast tracks of land over the next few months, it would opportune to select an area in the city, designatt a heritage conservation areas and put a master plan with street grid etc into place with very specific guidelines. Then either each street could be designed and built much as surbabn housing estates are now. The mix could include private and social units but with very high standards of maintenance. There should be a rate system which would finance maintenance and an intitial high level of security. This could be relaxed as the concept becomes accepted. As the state comes into ownership of lands a decision will have to be made what to do with them.

      A developer ( if there are any left) could also instigate a development of this nature although they would need a lot of guidance.

    • #778340
      johnglas
      Participant

      pulp: it’s an interesting idea, but it needs to be pursued very vigorously so people will take notice. A denser but human scale of inner-city development, totally dumping Corbusian principles (these have had a long-enough run-out, with disastrous consequences) is the Holy Grail of development.

    • #778341
      shaun
      Participant

      I walked along the back of this building, i.e. Railway street, yesterday and it can only be described as surreal.

      I challenge anyone on this site to come up with a better example of urban dereliction from anywhere in Europe.

      I walked the whole area between Buckingham street, Summerhill, Gardner street and lets be honest, it’s a massive derelict site, anything new that has been built there is worse than any Georgian slum tenement.

      There are no Georgian terraced houses left, bar a few at thee beginning of Gardner street. The few left standing are basically filthy wrecks. Those photos that Tommyt send move me like they have other people.

      Precise copies of these houses should have been rebuilt, or else complete restoration. This is not a serious proposition of course. What we are left with is a urben decay and dereliction that would have rivalled the Bronx in the 70’s.

      As you go uptown to Hardwicke place and the church there, you will pass one slum street after another. Parnell street is the filthiest street in the world. Go up Hill street and it’s just weird, were there actually Georgian houses where those flats are ?

      I have always loved Dublins derelict sites and run-down urban decay feel. But what was done to this part of Dublin is the biggest crimes against architecture and culture ever committed in in the British Isles. Phew, got that of my chest, feels good.

    • #778342
      johnglas
      Participant

      An appropriate inscription over that convent arch could only be: Arbeit macht frei.

    • #778343
      aj
      Participant

      @shaun wrote:

      I walked along the back of this building, i.e. Railway street, yesterday and it can only be described as surreal.

      I challenge anyone on this site to come up with a better example of urban dereliction from anywhere in Europe.

      I walked the whole area between Buckingham street, Summerhill, Gardner street and lets be honest, it’s a massive derelict site, anything new that has been built there is worse than any Georgian slum tenement.

      There are no Georgian terraced houses left, bar a few at thee beginning of Gardner street. The few left standing are basically filthy wrecks. Those photos that Tommyt send move me like they have other people.

      Precise copies of these houses should have been rebuilt, or else complete restoration. This is not a serious proposition of course. What we are left with is a urben decay and dereliction that would have rivalled the Bronx in the 70’s.

      As you go uptown to Hardwicke place and the church there, you will pass one slum street after another. Parnell street is the filthiest street in the world. Go up Hill street and it’s just weird, were there actually Georgian houses where those flats are ?

      I have always loved Dublins derelict sites and run-down urban decay feel. But what was done to this part of Dublin is the biggest crimes against architecture and culture ever committed in in the British Isles. Phew, got that of my chest, feels good.

      I agree wholeheartly with your comments. The area is an absolute disgrace, as is much of the North Georgian Core.

    • #985270
      SolonHead
      Participant

      Thereโ€™s a photo in Dublin City Councilโ€™s Archive of Rutland Street Area, which shows the original building in the background.

      There also one in the RTE archive taken from street level in 1953:
      https://stillslibrary.rte.ie/indexplus/image/3005/024.html

    • #1021891
      jamescartwright
      Participant

      Wikipedia page started with more information here

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_Presbyterian_Church,_Dublin

Viewing 96 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Latest News