Henrietta Street

@DJM wrote:

Has anyone got any thoughts or opinions about the ongoing development at the junction of Henrietta & Bolton St? I was home over the Christmas & went up for a visit. Apart from the bland design, I thought the quality of the materials & workmanship were incredibly poor.

I’m beginning to wonder whether PP was actually granted! Shoddy workmanship, that’s what it is. Shoddy, shoddy, shoddy…I’m astonished that DCC have allowed such a damaging addition to such an important street, and that it is being erected in such a happy-go-lucky manner adds insult to injury.

What? You mean you dont like the telefone box onthe roof, capping it off? All things considered, a cringeworthy job that is all the more bizarre when you consider that the H St is the oldest planned Georgian st in the city 😮

The condition of Henrietta St is a disgrace as is the condition of most of the Georgian Northside. Is any one awayre of any plans to regenerate these areas?

I agree with you on most parts. The building sticks out like a sore thumb. I see it all the time and sigh.

“The brickwork, bonding pattern, mortar, windows…all have major flaws in them and the overall effect certainly makes for uncomfortable viewing…”

Agree with you in most aspects. For example the mortar joints appear too big, but it might just appear that way because the mortar is such a bright shade. Either way, bright or wide, looks awful.
But I was wondering what problem do you have with the bonding? Its completly standard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

God, that’s NASTY. The last pic Graham 😀 Headache or what?

I know I’m always going on about building height but this is far too bulky for that area. This is the first time I’ve seen this awful heap of crap and the first thing that came into my head was “abandoned council flats”

Here’s a photochop (if you don’t mind that I entertain myself, Graham :)) Something to look forward to…

Flippin heck Morlan. You don’t really like it I take it?

Excellent work – rather apt that burnt umber brick is in use 🙂

But really and truly, look at those monstrous balconies both to the side and the feckity little ones tacked on to the rear:

…and that ugly timber elevation to the bottom, which is particularly poor in real life. It looks like an original undercroft space that was filled in in the 70s with cheap prefab panelling.

So very very poor 🙁

Being a modern building it was never going to match the old houses. If they had tried to copy the georgian look it would have looked naf ( which is what i think of number 2 on the other side of the street.However if it was a great modern architectural piece in itself it would take away from the old houses.

While it could be better it does what it needs to. Scrolling up you can clearly see that the brickwork matches the old houses quite well. One of the photos shows that the line of the brickwork extends to the top of the old terrace. Because of this when standing on henrietta street the buildling feels like a natural extension of the old terrace.

In sum it’s modern and plain ,but this is probably a good thing.
I see it in the same way as the building to the left of the mansion house. Not too showy.

It is worth pointing out that this site was not part of the original terrace.There was no previous masterpiece on this site to replace. The terrace is as it is since laid out ( well just about ).This building sits on an add on to the street.

I thought it would have been a lot worse,

I agree it is quite plain but I am of the opinion right building (for infill at the equivelent land value) wrong place; Henrieta Street deserved a lot better.

@a boyle wrote:

Being a modern building it was never going to match the old houses. If they had tried to copy the georgian look it would have looked naf ( which is what i think of number 2 on the other side of the street.However if it was a great modern architectural piece in itself it would take away from the old houses.

I don’t think anyone is really arguing that there should have been some sort of pastiche of the original terrace in this location. To me it looks like a bad attempt at what was achieved at 1 Castle Street and 24 Werburgh Street:

http://www.riai.ie/goldmedal05/castlest.html

Yes 1 castle street is much better. BUT this is the idea i want to get across. castle street has very little of note at that end of the street , and so the modern building has become the main focus of interest at that end of the street.

This is not what was required on henrietta street.Having a masterpiece like 1 castle street would take away from the terrace in my view. Sometimes boring is good! .It does exactly what it says on the tin ( get lot’s of people into a run down poorer part of the city, while not detracting too much from the terraces )

While it could be better: At least it’s new money going into the northside, and with enough new money maybe some of the run down buildings in the area will get investment in the future. I just don’t think it deserves the rant above.

@a boyle wrote:

Yes 1 castle street is much better. BUT this is the idea i want to get across. castle street has very little of note at that end of the street , and so the modern building has become the main focus of interest at that end of the street.

This is not what was required on henrietta street.Having a masterpiece like 1 castle street would take away from the terrace in my view. Sometimes boring is good! .It does exactly what it says on the tin ( get lot’s of people into a run down poorer part of the city, while not detracting too much from the terraces )

While it could be better: At least it’s new money going into the northside, and with enough new money maybe some of the run down buildings in the area will get investment in the future. I just don’t think it deserves the rant above.

I agree that you don’t want something that would detract from the terrace, but I don’t think that is enough to excuse what appears to be a fairly badly designed and finished building from being built in such a location (1 Castle Street is dominant in that location I agree, but I dont think it takes away from St Werburgh’s next door: http://www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/dublin/southcity/werburgh_street/werburgh.html). I also don’t buy into the anything is better than nothing argument in terms of the rejuvenation of an area. Whilst it might seem of quality to some people at present, it is not sustainable in the long run. The problem with many mixed use schemes that end up in multiple ownership is that they have a greater degree of permanence about them than office buildings. Therefore, if this building starts to wear badly it will be hard for it to be replaced, which then has a negative effect on the area in the long run.

No point in saying it could have been worse – it’s a pile of shite – cannot believe that it was allowed in such an important position.

It looks like a prison

As said, the building is ‘in the style of’ deBlacam & Meagher (soft dark brick & lime mortar pointing, timber panelling, undercut at the front), but has none of the sensitivity of their work. It is a greedy monolithic building. A building here so obviously needed to follow the scale of Bolton Street and so maintain the scale hierarchy between Bolton Street and Henrietta Street.

The passage of the building through the planning process was highly suspect. As you might expect, there had been objections to it from residents of Henrietta Street and other groups, but there was a series of planning applications lodged for it (some invalid), and in the confusion one of them received no objections and was granted by Dublin City Council, so that was that; there could be no appeal.

The sickening thing is DCC knew there had been earlier objections to it so there was a much greater onus on them to get it right (given that there were no objections in on this one & could be no appeal). It shows you that they will grant permission for almost anything … scared shitless to remove a storey. The city is stuck with this wrong building now forever, because of some stupid planner. I think that after this construction boom, questions are going to be asked about DCC decision making. You just have to look at this building and what’s happening in somewhere like Cork Street ….

allright fair enough, it’s no peach. I am just more of a realist: there simply isn’t the money there to fund a beauty at this spot. On one side there is noisy bolton street and the other council flats. Despite it being no peach it does in fact fit in very well when you stand on henrietta street.

The photos above mostly focus on the bolton street view. I am going to stop posting on this topic , it is too easy to slate something instead of taking the whole impact into account. I feel that having more people living here with perhaps a few shops in an okay building is pretty good for the area. Henrietta street might deserve much better , but the money isn’t there to make it happen, so there is little point in sobbing about it. Overall it’s a four of ten , a bare pass.

Yes, the repopulation of the area is of course welcome. The problem is the building is overscaled on a strategic site on probably thee most important Georgian street in the city.

@a boyle wrote:

the modern building has become the main focus of interest at that end of the street.

This is not what was required on henrietta street.Having a masterpiece like 1 castle street would take away from the terrace in my view.

In my opinion this building does take away from the terrace, only not because it is a “masterpiece” such as castle street. But because it is so very badly built. alot of people here have problems with design elements. a boyle you think they are fitting and so have tried to justified. But the BIGGEST problem is the downright bad wormanship, esp with the brick work. It is this messy work that makes the building stand out, as being an eyesore. They tried to make it plain and unnoticed but it stands out from the street completely. Walk up Kings Inn street and you will see what an eyesore it is.

I have looked at it closely . The reason the brickwork looks this way, i suspect is because it is an attempt do it as it was done a few hundred years ago.I can’t be sure however.

To my eye the brickwork is similar to the brickwork on some of the buildings that form the terrace. perhaps i am too kind. I expect that it will weather quite well in time. Much better than number 2 across the road which looks like it’s made of shiny new orange lego bricks, although i know it to be around ten years old.

I totally disagree. It would not be a good idea to encourage a change to mix office res use , that would enevitably results in structural changes to the buildings ( firedoors , lifts ,etc etc) . You also display an ignorance of the street’s current state. Infact except for the two houses the council is trying to buy in order to restore, and one other house, the rest of the houses are in very good nick on the inside .

The reason that the bricks on the outside look poorly is because noone is very sure how to restore them . You see the bricks were made from the clay dug out to make the basements/foundations for the the terrace. As such they are a little tricky to replace!

A good few of the houses are lived in which is as it should be. Increasing the number of people using the street would totally change the feel of the street. It was built as a cul de sac for the mega rich. It has the same quiet residential feel it always had. ( excepting when it was used as tenements ) . By staying hidden from bolton street it keeps it’s quiet charm.

If the new building was inline with the terrace it would give the impression that originally the site of the ‘new building’ formed part of the original terrace : it didn’t. Henrietta street as originally layed out started where the cobbles start today.

A few people have said that it looks poorly from kings street and bolton street , fine. It looks quite good from henrietta street and that is what actually matters.

i fully accept what your are saying.You have pointed out the basic difference of opinion. I do think that the improvement to the area in terms of new people (who hopefully will get rid of a few winos junkies) and some new shops just about negate the admittedly average building.

Perhaps after years off seeing utter muck built my expectations are too low. Honestly i was surprised that it is as good as it is. Perhaps i should expect better. I just don’t see it happening.

On a more positive note I had the oppurtunity to look inside the house being refurbished by the kings inn and , and Hhhhm hhhhmmm it looks good! Would you agree ?

Who are the Architects?
I’m assuming (please god!) that it isn’t De Blacam & Meagher despite the completely blatant rip offs of elements of both Castle Street (check out the steps out in the facade above the corner entrance), and the Wooden Building in Temple Bar (the rustic arts & crafts style brickwork and lime mortar.).

@a boyle wrote:

A few people have said that it looks poorly from kings street and bolton street , fine. It looks quite good from henrietta street and that is what actually matters.

Why is it only Henrietta st that matters. I don’t agree with you that it looks ok from henrietta st, but even if it did, how would that excuse the way it looks from Bolton or Kings INN street. It is just as much on Bolton street as it is on Herrietta, and alot more people are going to see it from Bolton/Dorset/Kings Inn streets so would these views be equally important. I see this building everyday, If I look the window now i could probably strain to see it, but i won’t torture my eyes any further.

@BTH wrote:

Who are the Architects?

http://www.bpa.ie/

Thought it might be useful to see how they wanted it to look. This was the idea. Not exactly whats is delivered.

It looks quite well there, though still hugely overscaled.

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

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

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

Even the original balconies could have made such a difference:

I did a college project a couple of years ago in which I had to object to the granting of permission for this building, so I became fairly familiar with the site.

aj- DCC did have a conservation proposal for the whole street coming on stream in early 2004, but I don’t know if they followed through with it. I certainly haven’t seen any results.

Most of the opinions expressed here would reflect my own- overscaled, lazy workmanship, cheap materials. (I loved your description of the balconies, Graham, as being “like some ignoramus speaking to you with sunglasses on”:) ).
I agree that the building properly belongs to the streetscape of Bolton Street rather than to Henrietta Street, and should have been scaled accordingly. As Devin said, it should have respected the scale hierarchy of the two streets (see my quote below).
The reason for its similarity to the building on Castle Street was that the planner in question, in refusing permission for the first scheme on this site (if you think what we now have is bad, you should have seen the first one:eek: ), recommended that the architects look at that building for an idea of how to deal with a corner. So it appears that they took him a bit too literally.
(See this thread for a previous mention of this matter, where you’ll notice that I’m also not a huge fan of the Castle Street building.)

Anyway, rather than rehash the arguments from my college project I’ll just quote the relevant bit regarding my main objection to this building:

As previously outlined, Henrietta Street is one of the most important urban set pieces in Dublin. Not only are its houses some of the grandest town houses anywhere in the country, it also possesses a feature which makes it unique among its peers. The Georgian era followed a classical model in both architecture and urban design. The rules of proportion and harmony in building design had a wider application in the formal layout of streets and spaces, as evidenced in Dublin by such compositions as Fitzwilliam, Merrion and Mountjoy Squares, and the works of the Wide Streets Commissioners. This rational process was also manifest in the hierarchical design of the streets, where the sequence of main street, subsidiary street and mews lane was reflected in the diminishing scale of the buildings associated with each. Georgian buildings also display a markedly frontal character, the classical symmetry not extending to the rere or sides, and this results in subsidiary streets seeming to split the continuity of terrace facades. This was the case with Bolton Street and Henrietta Street in their original form: standard plots on Bolton Street of a street-fronted house with a rere yard and mews building, divided by the entrance to Henrietta Street.
However, what makes this example unique is that instead of a lesser scale, as would be expected, Henrietta Street is considerably grander than Bolton Street. This is not apparent from vantage points further along Bolton Street, and part of the character of the street is the surprise experienced as this semi-formal set piece is revealed in such an unlikely situation, an effect heightened by its narrow ‘entrance’ at the eastern end.
The proposed development would diminish this sense of discovery by announcing the location of the junction from afar, and would soften the abrupt juxtaposition of scales on which the surprise is based due to its imposing height and volume. While the Planner’s Report argues that ‘The proposal… provides a presence of scale onto both Henrietta Street and Bolton Street, which is essential at this prominent corner location.’ (Evaluation), we would submit that this opinion derives from an understanding of urban form consistent with contemporary trends, but inconsistent with the Georgian tradition of planarity, linearity and sequential hierarchy.
Any development that would serve to undermine the character of this area should be resisted. We realise that the site underwent many subsequent changes throughout the nineteenth century, with the original relationships of scale blurred by infill buildings facing Henrietta Street, and we would generally be in favour of acknowledging all phases of urban evolution. But owing to the uniqueness of this setting, there is a strong argument to be made for re-establishing the original form.

‘A [conservation area] scheme…may include objectives for:
…
(c) the renewal, preservation, conservation, restoration, development or redevelopment of the streetscape, layout and building pattern…’ (Emphasis added.)
(Part IV, Section 84, subsection 2, Planning and Development Act 2000)

Although the completion of the Conservation Plan may be some time away (currently intended for September 2004), the fact that the process has begun is a positive development for the area. There is a danger that any scheme undertaken in the meantime would not be consistent with the findings and recommendations of such a plan and could compromise the future proper planning and development of the area. According to the Planning & Development Act 2000 (4th Schedule, Section 3), refusal without compensation is appropriate where:

‘Development of the kind proposed would be premature by reference to the order of priority, if any, for development indicated in the development plan or pending the adoption of a local area plan in accordance with the development plan.’ (Emphasis added.)

I had other grounds for objection too, such as refuse storage, inadequate parking, overloking and overshadowing, but they aren’t apparent from an external examination of the building.

Shame it was only a college project, as it got a bloody good mark from a former Board Inspector who was our tutor for the module.

I have pictures of the site pre-development if anyone’s interested. A funny two-storey carpet showroom of no merit, but as has been said there’s only one chance to get something like this right, and if in doubt it should have been left alone.

EDIT: It appears I have already attached one! Sorry it’s in Word, but it’s all I’ve got.

Can someone explain why there are all those doors to nowhere in the walls? Surely it can’t be just for their “good looks”!

@DJM wrote:

Incidentally, I’ve heard that Hidden Dublin on Newstalk 106 have recorded an episode on Henrietta Street that is due to be aired in the very near future. I think the shows go out on Mondays/Tuesdays at about 12pm, but it’ll be available on the web via Podcasting in any event.

On Now on 106fm – http://www.newstalk106.ie

H

Devin wrote:

“The sickening thing is DCC knew there had been earlier objections to it so there was a much greater onus on them to get it right (given that there were no objections in on this one & could be no appeal). It shows you that they will grant permission for almost anything … scared shitless to remove a storey. The city is stuck with this wrong building now forever, because of some stupid planner. I think that after this construction boom, questions are going to be asked about DCC decision making. You just have to look at this building and what’s happening in somewhere like Cork Street ….”

I’m not sure if I have the correct building – but if I have then I beg to differ. A quick search on 43-45 Bolton St/17 &17a Bolton St shows just 5 applications, dating from 2003 (2), 2004 (2) and 2006 (more anon).

Two of these (in 2003) appear to be the effective ‘parent permissions’ and the two 2004 applications were for modifications. Of these 4 three were granted and one was invalidated. They all appear to me to be uncomplicated applications, certainly not confusing.

I know the planner involved (as mentioned on the file) to be very highly qualified and very well regarded.

The main parent permission contained 24 conditions – one of which deals with the need to ensure that bricwork and bonding must be of the highest quality and that bonding should be to the traditional method.

The reality is that the “stupid planner’ (who probably only has 2 or 3 relevant degrees) must address what the “clever architect” designs. It would not be appropriate for stupid planners to design (or redesign) such structures. Rather he (or she) must try to balance the need for renewal with the appaling mediocrity churned out by the (considerable) majority of architects. Generally the best that the stupid planner can do is to mitigate the worst excesses of the architect.

Personally I think that the building is quite typical of the rubbish currently being produced, and is particularly grotesque in this particular setting.

But the stupid planner didn’t design it , the file is not in the least complicated and Henrietta Street has a number of residents who are expert s in the the planning system. Seems (to me) a bit hard to blame the planner? Maybe you should have lodged an objection (I often do).

ps. the latest (2006) application is for an off licence. (and you are too late to object).

pps. I am not an architect 😀

Fair points, publicrealm.
My understanding of the case was that the original scheme was somewhat bulkier and clunkier than the existing one and, through consultation between the planner in question (agreed on his reputation too, btw, from what little I know) and the architects, a new scheme was submitted, with amendments suggested by Conditions (including a reduction in parapet height of approx. 1.5 metres, if memory serves). It was at this consultation stage that the suggestion of taking inspiration from Castle Street was first made. So the planner actually made a poor scheme better, but I still think it falls short of what this site requires.

However, I’m somewhat cloudy on whether the revised scheme was submitted as a new application, in effect resetting the clock on the third party submissions process, or if it was done simply as a Further Information type affair, which might have militated against the involvement of interested parties or at the very least might not have been in the spirit of the game, so to speak.

I still stand over my previous point, though, that the planner’s “opinion derives from an understanding of urban form consistent with contemporary trends, but inconsistent with the Georgian tradition of planarity, linearity and sequential hierarchy.” It might sound cheeky, not to say nit-picking, but at this site I think nothing but the best should have been permitted. And as I alluded to above, other areas such as parking, refuse, etc were problematic, in some respects falling below DCC minimum standards.

Publicrealm,

I am not having a go at planners here. I hold the Irish planning profession and everything it stands for in the highest regard. As you will know it has a history of inadequate resourcing and subversion by non-planning local authority staff or other outside interests, but it remains the critical determinant in the quality of our built environment – as has all-too-unfortunately been borne out in case of the Henrietta Street building.

With regard to use of the word “stupid”, I think a sense of perspective is needed. It is the internet and the planner in question is not being named, so I reserve the right to use the word “stupid” if I wish. Worse is said of named individuals in the media every day.

The planner involved may well be “highly qualified”, but they made a grievous mistake in passing this building in its current form, especially as there had been detailed submissions in opposition to it, to plans previous to the one which was passed. I cannot check reference numbers at the moment, but I know that two separate applications for the building were running concurrently – this is why I use the word ‘confusion’.

Some contributors to the thread have criticised the materials and finishing of the building. I wouldn’t have any problems here. I think the brick was carefully chosen for the context and the so-rarely-used lime mortar was a treat (though the brick bonding is not in fact in the ‘traditional’ method as you say (‘Flemish bond’), but is the quicker and easier ‘stretcher bond’). I even like some of the architectural detailing such as the frosted glass balcony panels and their steel frames. I think the timber panelling was well-used. Had the building been at an appropriate scale and articulation, I think its materials and finishing would have been most complimentary to Henrietta Street, and the building as a whole could have been a great success.

But it is a tragically overscaled building. Even by the standards of the planner’s argument (as indicated by ctesiphon’s quote that their “opinion derives from an understanding of urban form consistent with contemporary trends, but inconsistent with the Georgian tradition of planarity, linearity and sequential hierarchy.”) the building not a success. It is monolithic and unbalancing.

The planner, not the architect, was the final determinant of the building that is now on Henrietta Street. You say (sarcastically) that “the best that the stupid planner can do is to mitigate the worst excesses of the architect” – but that wasn’t done in this case; i.e. reduction of the building to an appropriate scale / requesting of an appropriately-scaled redesign. This is a tragedy for Henrietta Street and a blow for Dublin’s Georgian planning in general.

As well as anything could possibly do today, I think Rocque’s map of Dublin (below) – 250 years old this year – illustrates the hierarchical relationship between Bolton Street and Henrietta Street. The consideration of this relationship should have been the starting point for development proposals at the corner:

@publicrealm wrote:

Maybe you should have lodged an objection (I often do).

ps. the latest (2006) application is for an off licence. (and you are too late to object).

As a matter of fact I have lodged an objection to the off license and signage design for a Spar convenience store in the ground floor of the building (Ref. 1199/06).

As a building material is this type of brick gone from grace or is it merely the way it was used that has caused offence?

Devin wrote

“You say (sarcastically) that “the best that the stupid planner can do is to mitigate the worst excesses of the architect”

I’m afraid I was not being sarcastic. And I am not as comfortable as you are in describing a hardworking public servant as stupid on a public forum (it seems that a number of people already know the individual’s name – those who do not merely have to check the file reference on the DCC website). Of course you do have the right to do so.

Nor am I suggesting that planners always succeed in their endeavours (I agree that there are numerous examples of failure – including the case in question) – just that most planners are well intentioned and diligent and are trying to deal with an unrelenting tide of architectural mediocrity against strict statutory deadlines and under the beady eye of the Manager and his apparatchicks.

I would tend to agree that there is a lack of appreciation of heritage matters within the planning profession however – and it is in this area that An Taisce has an invaluable role to play (but that could be a whole new thread .:D

I really think it is unreasonable to expect planners to prevail in such circumstances. I do not know what the answer is but a large part of the problem stems from the greedy and underdesigned applications – (and I know too that many jobbing architects are under immense pressure to maximise the floor area and minimise the cost – the cost to the developer that is).

Make no mistake about it – the Henrietta Street decision was a bad decision by Dublin City Council planner …….. . ……… (Ooooh, nearly said the name there!! 🙂 ).
As I said, detailed 3rd party submissions were made (on plans almost identical to the approved one) on the huge scale of the building and the need for significant scaling-back. These concerns were ignored and the building approved, and – even more ominously – with the knowledge that, as there had been no 3rd party submissions to the approved plan, it could not come before the appeals board (thanks to the restrictive measures of the Planning & Development Act 2000 on the taking of appeals).

@publicrealm wrote:

I really think it is unreasonable to expect planners to prevail in such circumstances.

What?!! 😮 Are you serious?! Well they had bloody well better be able to prevail when there’s a site like the Henrietta Street corner at stake!! (Ok, I’m being OTT, but you get the drift).

To be honest, publicrealm, I can’t make that much sense of your last post at all. You seem to be trying to tell me that most planners are well-intentioned and diligent – did I say they weren’t? You tell me planners are under-resourced and under pressure from other forces – did I not say this in my last post? You seem to think I’m attacking planners as a whole – already said I’m not. Good decisions are made. Bad decisions are made. As it happens the proportion of good decisions (decisions that accord with proper planning and sustainable development) would tend to be higher in Dublin than elsewhere. Dublin City Council have just refused an overscaled 8-storey building on a rear site behind protected structures on Aungier Street (Ref.1037/06) – a good decision. But Henrietta Street was a bad decision. Where did I say I there was a lack of appreciation of heritage matters among the planning profession? – the issue with the Henrietta Street building, as I and others have maintained, is good urban design & cognisance of historic town planning.

@publicrealm wrote:

I do not know what the answer is but a large part of the problem stems from the greedy and underdesigned applications

The answer is – would you believe – MORE RESOURCES! 🙂

The Henrietta Street building just gets worse …
Check out the completed roofline from the Bolton Street approach:
.

Sadly, it’s actually the best building in that shot. There is a neglected townhouse squeezed in there, but it’s in very poor condition.

I agree but feel that your observation speaks more about the functionality as opposed to beauty of its neighbours than the design suitibility of the subject design for this location. In most other City Centre sites this would be a highly welcome design it is simply the location at the end of Henrietta Street that is problematic

The unfortunate thing about Georgian Dublin is that for some reason architects appear to feel somewhat compelled by its legacy to design every inner-city building which they design in a basic rectilinear block form adorned with a facade of standard red brick. The above photo encapsulates that perfectly. Will Dublin ever blossom into a city with architectural forms that are not based on red-brick rectangles? Personally, I hope so as the sad streetscape shown above is hardly going to make Dublin a world heritage city in the next 500 years.

That building is a travesty of good architecture and good planning. Those responsible should honestly be ashamed of themselves…

I would love to see the marketing for it though…. “Stunning new development on one of Dubl

There is a huge difference between the proposed image in post 30 and what was actually built particularly in relation to the treatment of the balconies as stated in the post as well as the ommission of the glazed rail to the left of the Bolton St elevation.

If the proposal was built as per the first image it would not look as cheap as it currently does; I wonder if this proposal was in a less sensitive location would we be discussing this?

Dublin City Council launched a Conservation Plan for Henrietta Street yesterday. Hard to make out if the plan is definitely completed from the press release though. Seems that it is, but then I wonder why it isn’t available to download in pdf if that is the case.

DCC are obviously having a laugh – after giving PP to that bit of gik at the bottom of the street!
40 years too late for them to start taking an interst. They should be leading conservation not just trailing the private individuals who have spent their own money and lives trying to save the street.:eek:

Wednesday 13th December 2006: The Henrietta Street Conservation Plan will be launched today by Lord Mayor Councillor Vincent Jackson and the Dublin City Manager, John Tierney at the King’s Inns, Henrietta Street at 6pm. The Conservation plan re-affirms Henrietta Street as one of the principal architectural and urban ensembles of this country.

“This conservation plan is essential in highlighting the architectural vulnerabilities on Henrietta Street and will help to re-affirm its significance through the implementation of appropriate policies”, said the Lord Mayor.

http://www.dublincity.ie/press_news/press_releases/conservation_plan_launch_for_ireland_s_first_georgian_streetscape.asp

…as imported white granite is being laid on the street outside the conference room window…

The building on the other corner of henrietta street and bolton street, The Kings Inn, Has an application in to knock the three floors over basement and build appartments. Lets hope the DCC get it right this time.

@Bren88 wrote:

The building on the other corner of henrietta street and bolton street, The Kings Inn, Has an application in to knock the three floors over basement and build appartments. Lets hope the DCC get it right this time.

It along with the four buildings beside it are for sale with the signs advertising their development potential.

I was on Henrietta Street today. Even with many of the buildings in poor condition, it really is an incredible street.

@vitruvius wrote:

DCC are obviously having a laugh – after giving PP to that bit of gik at the bottom of the street!
40 years too late for them to start taking an interst. They should be leading conservation not just trailing the private individuals who have spent their own money and lives trying to save the street.:eek:

Spot on. Henrietta St is already covered by both the HARP IAP and the 2001 Dorset St And Environs Area Regeneration Plan. During this period “the incredible bulk” has been permitted at the bottom of the St, while on Dominick St Upr the Corpo erected a block in the mode of Eastern Europe circa 1952 – adding nothing to the context of H St. The other outrage is of course the lousy job done – by the corpo – on resurfacing H street 15 years ago which led to the collapse of the cellars.

The Dorset St plan, as is the case with this plan, incorporated some fine ideas – but with likewise no budget; 5 years, on what implementation except for a couple of trees now being planted during election year?

The public domain of Henrietta St is a disgrace; in the abscence of this plan indicating a basic schedule or budget to resolve the mess created by the corpo, it is an exercise of futility – or worse hypocrisy.

As inventories go, Grainne Shaffery has done a careful and well researched job – I can only commend her part.

However, what is the point in DCC bringing out another ‘plan’, after the horse has bolted, without even funding earmarked for the public domain… never mind taking into account the fiscal realities faced by the owners of the properties themselves?

It is now clear to owners on the street that they will get no support in continuing to run the houses as they do – incorporating many artists studios as well as maintaining heritage properties. It would seem clear to me that they will have to review their affairs – and most likely rely on themselves in putting their properties on a more commercial footing. And what will Dublin get – most likely the loss of an active cultural quarter in that the artists studios will go, to be replaced by another Georgian office quarter that dies after 5pm.

Still, Im sure that the canopies were nice at the launch :rolleyes:

PS For anybody who wants to see DCC’s actual level of commitment to the area, have a look at Bolton St at the entrance to Henrietta St where there satellite dishes continue to have a population explosion on the facades of buildings – nice unauthorised shop fronts too … grrrr… 😡

Has anybody else had a look thru the DCC ‘plan’?

I keep hearing that cash is being earmarked for the st – and yet I see no mention of it in the doc :confused:

A plan without a budget iis not a plan – at best it ia an inventory. 🙁

Over on another thread the PVC King tells me that the DCC Legal Department are “reasonably Pro-active” when dealing with Housing Matters.

It is now over 30 years since I first began inhabiting Bolton Street`s motor engineering departments and using the Hen St as a short cut (!!) Through the Kings Inns.

In all of that period successive Corporations and now Councils have sat and watched as a piece of REAL old Dublin collapses …..

Probably waiting for JC Decaux to offer a multi screen adframe outside the benchers before they take any real action.

@hutton wrote:

Has anybody else had a look thru the DCC ‘plan’?

I keep hearing that cash is being earmarked for the st – and yet I see no mention of it in the doc :confused:

A plan without a budget iis not a plan – at best it ia an inventory. 🙁

Is this plan available on-line? If not, do you know how I would get a copy of it?

Thanks,

Phil

Thanks for that DJM,

Will do so in the next day or so.

My folks received this christmas card this year (it was the King’s Inns card, don’tcha know:cool: ), and I thought it might be worth posting it here. Maybe some of you have seen it before, but I hadn’t.

It’s by Stephen Conlin, and comes from a book called Dublin One Thousand Years, published by the O’Brien Press, so Copyright all of the above.

@alonso wrote:

Wednesday 13th December 2006: The Henrietta Street Conservation Plan will be launched today by Lord Mayor Councillor Vincent Jackson and the Dublin City Manager, John Tierney at the King’s Inns, Henrietta Street at 6pm. The Conservation plan re-affirms Henrietta Street as one of the principal architectural and urban ensembles of this country.

“This conservation plan is essential in highlighting the architectural vulnerabilities on Henrietta Street and will help to re-affirm its significance through the implementation of appropriate policies”, said the Lord Mayor.

Don’t look now, it’s the latest Conservation plan at work. Just think how much easier it will be to ‘highlight architectural vulnerabilities’ on Henrietta Street with this imported white granite! I’m getting out my higlighter now…

Not that we needed a closeup:

And finally:

If this is how they treat one of the ‘principal architectural and urban ensembles of this country,’ it doesn’t bode well for the rest. Not that any of this is news. Still, the evidence is pretty appalling. Oh, and don’t forget to wave hello to our friend in timber cladding on the right.

It is an absolute disgrace! I completely echo the scepticism that Archiseek and contributors express about the Conservation Plan. Fine words but thats about it. The fact is the street has been in bits for years without any attention from DCC. Now when they do feel spurred to get invloved this is what happens! I notice the Plan also calls for more sympathetic street furniture….that’ll be stainless steel bollards then. What a scandal!

Thank you for posting those pictures manifesta. They say all that needs to be said about the council’s policy on the city’s old granite pavements, and indeed the situation on the ground with regard to the new Henrietta Street Conservation Plan.

And I challenge anyone to try and find out who in the council is actually responsible for a given job on the city’s pavements. I tried when this job was being done last month. There was some contractor from the sticks doing it:

“Who are you coordinating with in the council?”
“Who is overseeing and checking the work?”
“Who is ensuring consistency of the new pavement with the old?”

The only piece of information I got was that there’s no more old granite to be had – “you can’t get it anymore”.

What did they do with all the old granite kerbing running down both sides of O’Connell Street before the repaving? the much old granite taken up for Luas? for the Talbot Street improvement scheme a few years ago? Where is it all?
Something doesn’t add up.

Absolutely – there’s tons of this lying about somewhere, even from very recent works. What’s particularly ludicrous about this job is that the city-wide method of retaining just the kerbstones for continuity hasn’t even been adhered to, and yet kerbstones are the most widely available form of antique granite. There’s bucketloads of the stuff recently extracted from countless streets, with Upper O’Connell Street alone capable of lining Henrietta Street twice over. Indeed what was on this site beforehand? Are the paving works the completion of the reconstruction following from the collapse of the roadway into some of the basements? Where’s the granite gone that was here before?

To put this travesty in context, note the discrepancy between the public face of the Conservation Plan as highlighted in the below RT

I can’t find it using Google or the site search function but there was an article on Henrietta Street in the Sunday Times, yesterday. Among all the lofty aspirational statements from the council, there wasn’t a single mention of the irreparable damage done to the steet and it’s context by the appartment block on the corner. If I hadn’t seen the state of the street recently with my own eyes and through the photos on this page, the article would have given me hope as it’s all very positive. The council are very well coached for dealing with the media, I must say.

The funny thing is that there was no mention at all of the work on the footpath but obviously neither the reporter nor the council spokesperson had the neck to simply not mention it at all. So in the middle of the article, with no context or prior mention, there’s a sentence to the effect that the work on the footpath is “temporary” as they are trying to source old granite. I reckon this is pure spin; I imagine that it was only after the contractors left the site that, even with their myopia, they realised what a horrible mistake they’d made and now they’re trying to wriggle out of accepting responsibility for it. I mean come on! You don’t use granite – even cheap stuff – for temporary footpath surfacing. :rolleyes:

Sorry to be vague but there was also mention that the next thing on their agenda was the bollards. Having seen what they did to the footpath, this gives me a sinking feeling – how about some nice shiney polished stainless steel bollards to match that new granite? 😀 Out with the angle grinders, lads, there’s a few square holes to be cut out the old curbstones and bring a bucket of cement to secure the new bollards.

Interestingly, their midas touch with heritage is mirrored in their legal department. They are being sued by the previous owners of two of the buildings that the council CPOed a couple of years ago because of some dodgy sale they tried to arrange. Again, it smacks of headless chicken stuff with no long term plan for what they were going to do once the CPO was done.

Great viewpoint, DJM!

@DJM wrote:

Since the cellar collapses of No 7 the pavement & road above had been tarmacked over. As far as I can tell, the kerb was just cast insitu concrete.

Nice Pic DJM?

Unfortunately they’ve made the road look like the sole of that boot Charlie Chaplin eats in “The Gold Rush”. Surely there is another way to prevent parking than messing up the street with bollards!

Nice snap there DJM 🙂
On foot of the city council’s report, is there any news on whether theres a budget or schedule? :confused:

No matter what way I look at this, it’s always a fresh feeling of repulsion that I get.

i think its lovely, so striking :rolleyes:

What was there before they built that shite pile?

Theres a well appointed SPAR in the retail unit that slightly redeems the building.

Henrietta Street was the scene of a period drama last week – probably the historically dubious ‘The Tudors’ which is being shot around Dublin at the moment. They commandeered the Chapel Royal this week with enormous lights melting all the Viceroys’ coats of arms as they blasted through the windows, and folk in medieval dress strutting about the Toyotas and Volvos in the Lower Yard.

Henrietta Street was quite the odd juxtaposition.

Wonderfully evocative street scenes.

Some Tudor pigeons.

But The Yoke making its presence felt as ever.

Some lumps of city.

Bit of rustication, a classical plinth or two, some railing – what more do you need?

No crown glass – tsk 😉

And how classical doorcases tie in with medieval streets is anyone’s guess…

Amazing though how this…

Creates this.

The bare minimum required is done for maximum impact on screen.

Bit of atmospheric smoke to cover the dodgy bits and you’re flying.

I assume that is meant to be Portugal Street in London? There is an Old Curiosity Shop just beside Portugal Street near Aldwich and Kingsway.

It can’t be “The Tudors” what with the OCShop and the street sign. Might be something Dickensian.

Those film crew carpenters should come back and do a camouflage job on the Walsh Maguire Building. “The team that delivers” That slogan makes me cringe!

Saw that set in a trailer for UTV dramas (it is the old curiousity shop by the dickens himself)

Number 7 is for sale. 3.5 Million.
It is almost derelict. It’s on daft.ie.

Can anyone lend me a few bob?

http://www.etenders.gov.ie/search/search_show.aspx?ID=OCT093130

Closing the stable door after the horse (in fact the whole mews!) has bolted.

Pic of No. 7.

Click the ‘view all sizes’ button above a photo and it takes you to a new page where you can choose the size you want, each one having a URL in a box below the image. Use that for direct linking. If you use the page URL in the toolbar at the top, it can give others access to your entire folder, which you may not want.

I think.

Anyone see this last night? On UTV I think it was. Missed it myself

[ATTACH]6597[/ATTACH]

16/1/2009

Good to see the Conservation Plan in full force as ever.

From Polish magnificence to pole wars.

Lovely.

Now most of these preposterous articles were here already, but it appears they’re being replaced with new ones rather than actually being removed. Why in the name of all that is sane are parking signs required where there are bollards blocking off most parking in their vicinity?

And of course the delightful entrance to the street.

How many years has this apartment barracks been completed now? How much was the development contribution to DCC – surely approaching the million mark?

A moment of sophistication indeed.

I find it interesting would Henrietta ever make it to UNESCO? now theres a few days left to apply to DOE? If some one is game
another development plan zoning is needed…
it reads… special public space… you put your pole in it and you lose your job/contact and or face a significant fine…

I have contacted DCC about protected poles but someone or thing is perverting things
I believe… I may have to resort to registed post

who can be bothered?