60s and 70s office blocks - love them or loathe em?

JupiterKid

I'm taking this from a few posts I did in another thread - namely the destruction of much of Dublin, and to a lesser extent, our provincial cities' historic cores for what I consider to be abominations of buildings built in the name of "progress".

Aside from the failed Ballymun high rise scheme (1966-69) that was hearalded as part of the "vision for modern.Ireland" - as early as 1974 the scheme was rated as a failure - there were the architecturally inarticulate concrete and glass office blocks that were thrown up in Dublin 2 and Dublin 4 in the 1960s and 1970s. Buildings like the currently occupied Apollo House (1969), the despicable Hawkins House (1963) around the corner, nearby Liberty Hall (1965), the Setanta Centre (1975) and so many others. Some were okish - the ones clad in red brick have fared better - but most were pure sh*t. They replaced beautiful historic Georgian houses that were wantonly demolished.

At the time, the attitude was " ah sure they were built by the Brit aristocrats, get rid of them" and few stood against this orgy of destruction until the mid 1970s. By then, it was already too late really.

Now don't get me wrong, some modern buildings had merit, like the Bank of Ireland complex on Baggot Street (1972) or the controversial Central Bank (1978) but look at Wood Quay beside Christchurch for instance - an archaeological site of massive importance concreted over for the really vile bunkers of the Civic Offices (1985). The destruction continued well into the 1980s, historic buildings being razed to the ground to make way for the Stephens Green Centre (1988) and so much of North inner city Dublin didn't even get to see anything replacing the knocked Georgian houses - just derelict sites. Places like Parnell Street and North King Street were like bombed out wastelands until the 1990s urban renewal apartment boom.

What do you make of this destruction? Was it necessary or could a better way have been found? Paris and Amsterdam for instance, preserved their historic urban cores and placed their new office towers at the edge of the inner city. La Defense is a good example of this in Paris. London, on the other hand, knocked down beautiful Georgian and Victorian buildings for office blocks - all in the name of 1960s so-called "progress."

Ironicially, some of these 60s and 70s offices are now themselves getting knocked down for newer generation offices, but will they be any better? What do you think of all the modern offices and apts built in the Docklands, for instance?

Stigura

Ye had to have been there, man .....

JupiterKid

Stigura wrote: »

Ye had to have been there, man .....

I wasn't - I was busy being born in the mid 70s as the first wave of destruction was coming to an end. My late father's partner was there (she moved to Dublin from Rome) and was involved in campaigns to save historic Georgian houses, such as those at Hume Street and on Dawson/Molesworth Street. She just couldn't believe how we Irish were obliterating our past for vile concrete monstrosities.

osarusan

Blow this place up please.

The_Valeyard

Lot of them are sh*te.

stevek93

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-us22afpZ0

Dr Crayfish

They are horrible. Mount St, Baggot St, Kildare St, Nassau St... the list goes on. Would have been beautiful grand streets in the past, now they're a mish mash of old buildings and ugly office blocks. How did they let it happen? I work in one, it's horrible, no air, bad architecture. We have some offices in a lovely Georgian Building on Merrion Square and it's a way more pleasant and comfortable place to work than our ugly office block.

Dr Crayfish

JupiterKid wrote: »

Ironicially, some of these 60s and 70s offices are now themselves getting knocked down for newer generation offices, but will they be any better? What do you think of all the modern offices and apts. jolt in the Docklands, for instance?

Yes Molesworth St is being rebuilt now, the horrible old passport office and the one across the road from it. Whatever they put in place has to be better than what was there, at least.

JupiterKid

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Yes Molesworth St is being rebuilt now, the horrible old passport office and the one across the road from it. Whatever they put in place has to be better than what was there, at least.

As early as 1973 some more progressive developers were building pastiche style office buildings with Georgian facades - like on Harcourt street but most simply weren't arsed even making such an attempt. It really was an orgy of destruction and few shouted "stop." The Irish Georgian Society was one, and the saved the magnificent Castletown House in Celbridge by buying it up. Thank goodness some historic buildings were saved. I think if developers could get away with it, they would have razed The Customs House and City Hall. I really do.:mad::(

Them there were the crazy destructive road plans for Dublin - fill in the Grand canal with a dualler, knock half of Clanbrassil/High Street/Parnell st down for more dual carriageways. At one point around 1972, there was a plan to put a 6 lane motorway right under the arch at Christchurch. I saw the original plans while I was in college and I couldn't believe it.:eek:

andekwarhola

I kinda have an affection for brutalist architecture although I think it's rooted in generational nostalgia and context (70s/80s urban working class).

The thing I just don't really like is when it's badly juxtaposed with older architecture, like a lot of Georgian Dublin.

I know it's 50s, but Busáras should be preserved as architectural heritage and perhaps our standout effort at modernism, even if it might be considered ugly. But some of the ones you mention don't have any real merit IMHO and could be torn down.

JupiterKid

Deleted User wrote: »

I know it's 50s, but Busáras should be preserved as architectural heritage and perhaps our standout effort at modernism, even if it might be considered ugly. But some of the ones you mention don't have any real merit IMHO and could be torn down.

Busaras was the first modern building in inner city Dublin and one of the best, definitely. I think it is now preserved. The nearby Irish Life Centre (1974-78) isn't too bad itself either but I worked in there for a while and you couldn't open the windows and the interior was vile.

andekwarhola

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I know it's 50s, but Busáras should be preserved as architectural heritage and perhaps our standout effort at modernism, even if it might be considered ugly. But some of the ones you mention don't have any real merit IMHO and could be torn down.

It's a good point about some buildings, albeit as you say, not all.

In my lifetime, Dublin has only ever been a scattershot architectural melange of decayed Georgian grandeur and brutalism and maybe that's part of its charm now instead of trying to restore some simulacrum of a particular past.

Rumpy Pumpy

The ESB Head Office is being demolished and redeveloped. Due to start this year. The new design appears to be more sympathetic to the Georgian buildings surrounding it on Baggott Street, Fitzwilliam Street, Mount Street and Merrion Square. Current one is a terrible eyesore.

andekwarhola

The newer ones on Lower George's Street are also a bit of an eyesore against the older buildings.

Then again, you have brutalist stuff like the Central Bank which is an interesting/striking contrast.

wakka12

JupiterKid wrote: »

I'm taking this from a few posts I did in another thread - namely the destruction of much of Dublin, and to a lesser extent, our provincial cities' historic cores for what I consider to be abominations of buildings built in the name of "progress".

Aside from the failed Ballymun high rise scheme (1966-69) that was hearalded as part of the "vision for modern.Ireland" - as early as 1974 the scheme was rated as a failure - there were the architecturally inarticulate concrete and glass office blocks that were thrown up in Dublin 2 and Dublin 4 in the 1960s and 1970s. Buildings like the currently occupied Apollo House (1969), the despicable Hawkins House (1963) around the corner, nearby Liberty Hall (1965), the Setanta Centre (1975) and so many others. Some were okish - the ones clad in red brick have fared better - but most were pure sh*t. They replaced beautiful historic Georgian houses that were wantonly demolished.

At the time, the attitude was " ah sure they were built by the Brit aristocrats, get rid of them" and few stood against this orgy of destruction until the mid 1970s. By then, it was already too late really.

Now don't get me wrong, some modern buildings had merit, like the Bank of Ireland complex on Baggot Street (1972) or the controversial Central Bank (1978) but look at Wood Quay beside Christchurch for instance - an archaeological site of massive importance concreted over for the really vile bunkers of the Civic Offices (1985). The destruction continued well into the 1980s, historic buildings being razed to the ground to make way for the Stephens Green Centre (1988) and so much of North inner city Dublin didn't even get to see anything replacing the knocked Georgian houses - just derelict sites. Places like Parnell Street and North King Street were like bombed out wastelands until the 1990s urban renewal apartment boom.

What do you make of this destruction? Was it necessary or could a better way have been found? Paris and Amsterdam for instance, preserved their historic urban cores and placed their new office towers at the edge of the inner city. La Defense is a good example of this in Paris. London, on the other hand, knocked down beautiful Georgian and Victorian buildings for office blocks - all in the name of 1960s so-called "progress."

Ironicially, some of these 60s and 70s offices are now themselves getting knocked down for newer generation offices, but will they be any better? What do you think of all the modern offices and apts built in the Docklands, for instance?

Amsterdam had its fair share of destruction . The entire ancient jewish quarter was completely levelled with no traces left in order to make way for this pile of crap http://photos.wikimapia.org/p/00/05/23/67/62_big.jpg

And yes its a crying shame, all over the world its the same sad story. Even the most bland buildings of the 19th and 20th century put some of our best most 'innovative ' modern buildings to complete shame. We just no longer value well made structures anymore, cheap and fast is the game now. And its not to say that Im against modern buildings, there are some very beautiful modern buildings, but good well made well designed modern buildings are a rarity and so most of the slap dash cheap crap put up in the last 70 years pales in comparison to most older buildings from pre ww2.

JupiterKid

When the Stillorgan dual carriageway was being built in the early 70s there was talk of taking the dualler right up to the Grand Canal by knocking half of Donnybrook village, Morehampton Road and upper Leeson street. Thankfully these plans never came to pass.

Glasgow, on the other hand, rammed a 6 lane motorway right through its inner city. They really regret it now...:(

Barry Badrinath

Is thart Art Deco or Art Nouveau?

Dr Crayfish

andekwarhola wrote: »

I kinda have an affection for brutalist architecture although I think it's rooted in generational nostalgia and context (70s/80s urban working class).

The thing I just don't really like is when it's badly juxtaposed with older architecture, like a lot of Georgian Dublin.

Some of it is great, I can't think of any examples of it that I like in Dublin though. I love the Barbican in London, the way they cover the balconies with flowers brings so much life to the Brutalist architecture. Always reminds me of the High Rise book by JG Ballard.

Dr Crayfish

andekwarhola wrote: »

The newer ones on Lower George's Street are also a bit of an eyesore against the older buildings.

Then again, you have brutalist stuff like the Central Bank which is an interesting/striking contrast.

I don't think the Central Bank is brutalist, maybe the old Motor Tax office is a good example. I wonder what they're doing with that building now?

Dr Crayfish

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

Is thart Art Deco or Art Nouveau?

Is that art, Deco? No it's just a building, Anto.

JupiterKid

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

I don't think the Central Bank is brutalist, maybe the old Motor Tax office is a good example. I wonder what they're doing with that building now?

Chancery house, built in 1973? Thankfully demolished now. Don't know what it'll be replaced with but IMO an empty space is better than that 70s monstrosity.

Zaph

Deleted User wrote: »

I know it's 50s, but Busáras should be preserved as architectural heritage and perhaps our standout effort at modernism, even if it might be considered ugly. But some of the ones you mention don't have any real merit IMHO and could be torn down.

Busaras is one of the first buildings in Dublin I'd dynamite if I could. I think it's an absolute eyesore.

wakka12

Zaph wrote: »

Busaras is one of the first buildings in Dublin I'd dynamite if I could. I think it's an absolute eyesore.

It will be around a long time to come due to its historical/architectural significance, its really quite an interesting building if you look beyond its somewhat unappealing facade

A rake of London tower blocks designed by Erno Goldfinger were given Grade 2 listing over the last few years. Not all tower blocks are equal and I'm quite fond of some as they represent an all but gone population of working-class Londoners living in the city.

I absolutely hate Trellick Tower, regardless of it's status as a Brutalist masterpiece. Tiny one-beds on the lower floors go for around £400k, the floors with the views for much more. I suppose it's in W10, so it has that going for it.

Wood Quay in Dublin is horrendous, the Central Bank is beautiful. It's hard to be absolute about any kind of architecture when context is so important.

Zaph

wakka12 wrote: »

It will be around a long time to come due to its historical/architectural significance, its really quite an interesting building if you look beyond its somewhat unappealing facade

Tbh I'm not into architecture, so other than it being the first building of its type in Dublin I don't see anything particularly interesting about it and all I see is that unappealing facade. That in itself is reason enough to demolish it imo - just because it was the first modern building in Dublin doesn't mean that it deserves to be preserved.

Junkyard Tom

Old stuff should be destroyed.

Elemonator

Hate them. It's only the past few years I have began to appreciate Georgian architecture and as an extension of this, what these concrete jungles replaced. Go up to Leeson Street and look around Ely Place, when fully restored it is amazing to look at.

JupiterKid

Candie wrote: »

A rake of London tower blocks designed by Erno Goldfinger were given Grade 2 listing over the last few years. Not all tower blocks are equal and I'm quite fond of some as they represent an all but gone population of working-class Londoners living in the city.

I absolutely hate Trellick Tower, regardless of it's status as a Brutalist masterpiece. Tiny one-beds on the lower floors go for around £400k, the floors with the views for much more. I suppose it's in W10, so it has that going for it.

Wood Quay in Dublin is horrendous, the Central Bank is beautiful. It's hard to be absolute about any kind of architecture when context is so important.

There's also the concrete brutalist apartment towers of The Barbican development in London, built in the early 70s. Reviled in the 80s and 90s, the architectural revisionists now hail them as modernist masterpieces.

Cromwell tower, Barbican, London



But I'd say that easily 80% of office blocks built in Dublin between 1960 and 1985 were utter rubbish. There are some notable exceptions.

I love Cromwell Tower.

Dr Crayfish

Candie wrote: »

A rake of London tower blocks designed by Erno Goldfinger were given Grade 2 listing over the last few years. Not all tower blocks are equal and I'm quite fond of some as they represent an all but gone population of working-class Londoners living in the city.

I absolutely hate Trellick Tower, regardless of it's status as a Brutalist masterpiece. Tiny one-beds on the lower floors go for around £400k, the floors with the views for much more. I suppose it's in W10, so it has that going for it.

Wood Quay in Dublin is horrendous, the Central Bank is beautiful. It's hard to be absolute about any kind of architecture when context is so important.

I love the Trellick tower! I used to hang out around that area. Most of the flats in it are privately owned now though I believe, you wont get too many working class in Notting Hill!
Did you know that Ian Fleming named his villain "Goldfinger" after the architect, because he wasn't fond of his building work at all!

Dr Crayfish

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

I love the Trellick tower! I used to hang out around that area. Most of the flats in it are privately owned now though I believe, you wont get too many working class in Notting Hill!
Did you know that Ian Fleming named his villain "Goldfinger" after the architect, because he wasn't fond of his building work at all!

I can't even look at it. I know, it's become a very sought after address, especially since it's grade 2 listing. I heard that about Fleming, I think it was specifically revenge for Trellick Tower.

I'd sooner have preserved 'Nelson Mandela House' than TT.

andekwarhola

JupiterKid wrote: »

Cromwell tower, Barbican, London

I think it's a very striking building.

Then again, I spent my youth hanging around crappy 60s estates, tower blocks and precincts so I'm biased

somefeen

I can't talk about Dublin, But Cork County Hall has to go. It always seemed to me like they just wanted to build something tall and that was it. No thought put into it, just make it tall.
Connolly Hall always reminds me of a miniature version of the UN building in new york and I kind of like it.

riffmongous

I'm not much of a fan of Georgian Dublin, it's nice because the rest of Dublin looks so bad, but compared to what I see in Vienna everyday it's boring as ****, the facades are so basic

oppenheimer1

Zaph wrote: »

Busaras is one of the first buildings in Dublin I'd dynamite if I could. I think it's an absolute eyesore.

The problem with many of the buildings mentioned in this thread, busaras in particular, is that they haven't been properly maintained.

If busaras facade was washed, the faded panels replaced and the broken fittings repaired, it would look good.

Just as an aside: much of georgian dublin was built during a boom and consequently the standards of construction were low - even for the time period. As for architectural heritage being destroyed - I maintain a city needs to work for its inhabitants. Thats not to say every decision to demolish is correct, but to preserve everything from the past at the expense of people alive today isn't right either.

Dr Crayfish

riffmongous wrote: »

I'm not much of a fan of Georgian Dublin, it's nice because the rest of Dublin looks so bad, but compared to what I see in Vienna everyday it's boring as ****, the facades are so basic

Each to their own, I think Georgian Dublin is beautiful, wonderful buildings and squares. Vienna is beautiful but it's in Austria so not really relevant here.

wakka12

Zaph wrote: »

Tbh I'm not into architecture, so other than it being the first building of its type in Dublin I don't see anything particularly interesting about it and all I see is that unappealing facade. That in itself is reason enough to demolish it imo - just because it was the first modern building in Dublin doesn't mean that it deserves to be preserved.

I agree with you. Buildings should always be appealing, something architects have not been preoccupied with since well before world war 2. And its what non architects care most about. So theres a big disconnect there between those building the buildings, and those using them ,imo. But I do think busaras is an exception here, it is very historically significant and was an important step towards creation of Ireland's image of a new and free state. Regardless of how ugly it is, it needs to stay. It does need a cleaning and possibly some new material replacement though. Its looking a bit aged, I will admit.

wakka12

riffmongous wrote: »

I'm not much of a fan of Georgian Dublin, it's nice because the rest of Dublin looks so bad, but compared to what I see in Vienna everyday it's boring as ****, the facades are so basic

Sometimes there is a lot of beauty in simplicity. Personally I think the austere symmetry and uniformity of Georgian streets is actually one of its most charming and appealing features. It is a lot more beautiful to me than some of the over the top art nouveau buildings in Paris for instance. But theres a lot of subjective taste in architecture I suppose. None of us have the right opinion here

wakka12

Heineken House is another appalling building that simply needs to go, don't think its been mentioned yet. Absolutely kills any kind of unity or charm the area might have ..

Dr Crayfish

I really can't see how Busarus can be appreciated in any way. To me it looks the exact same as Apollo or Hawkins house, except it has a wavy bit at the front. Is it just that wavy thing that people like? It's so ugly.

threetrees

osarusan wrote: »

Blow this place up please.

Where is this? Looks really familiar but I can't place it. Somewhere west of Grand Canal basin?

wakka12

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

I really can't see how Busarus can be appreciated in any way. To me it looks the exact same as Apollo or Hawkins house, except it has a wavy bit at the front. Is it just that wavy thing that people like? It's so ugly.

Its more the historical significance and how innovative it was for its time , and it was on this backwater little isle where no good architecture from, no less! It was renowned across mainland Europe after the war and thousands of architects from around the world came to visit it as it embodied many of the best aspects of the popular modernist movement at the time

I don't think many people would call it pretty in the conventional sense..

Peregrine

I would knock 95% of buildings built in Dublin between 1950 and 1985 with very few exceptions such as:

Ardoyne House
Fitzwilton House
Central Bank (Dame Street) - I loathe that it was built where it was but it's a nice enough building
Former BOI building (Baggot Street)
Irish Life building
And a couple of buildings around the National Concert Hall

Everything between Hawkins Street and Tara Street has to be nuked.

andekwarhola

riffmongous wrote: »

I'm not much of a fan of Georgian Dublin, it's nice because the rest of Dublin looks so bad, but compared to what I see in Vienna everyday it's boring as ****, the facades are so basic

My cornice gargoyle would kill your cornice gargoyle.

wakka12

Peregrine wrote: »

I would knock 95% of buildings built in Dublin between 1950 and 1985 with very few exceptions such as:

Ardoyne House
Fitzwilton House
Central Bank (Dame Street) - I loathe that it was built where it was but it's a nice enough building
Former BOI building (Baggot Street)
Irish Life building
And a couple of buildings around the National Concert Hall

Everything between Hawkins Street and Tara Street has to be nuked.

Fitzwilton house is being demolished.
Thats the plan for redevelopment
http://www.irishtimes.com/polopoly_fs/1.2674616.1465234544!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/box_620_330/image.jpg

Peregrine

And 1 Grand Canal Street Lower shows that some buildings can really be transformed with a little bit of care.

Before: https://www.google.ie/maps/place/1+Grand+Canal+Street+Lower,+Grand+Canal+Dock,+Dublin/@53.340201,-6.2429683,3a,60y,201.63h,109.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5fQGf6KYPOgrqB-qtenRGA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x48670e94641831a7:0x9c60b1e481cc9aba!8m2!3d53.3399847!4d-6.2430786!6m1!1e1

After: http://tbsstudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Box-images_Public-realm-1024x762.jpg

wakka12 wrote: »

Fitzwilton house is being demolished.
Thats the plan for redevelopment
http://www.irishtimes.com/polopoly_fs/1.2674616.1465234544!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/box_620_330/image.jpg

I'm aware, yeah. I can't fault the proposed building but it was one of the few buildings of that era that I liked.

JupiterKid

Here's a few shots of 60s/70s Dublin buildings to refresh our memories.

From the vile Hawkins House (1963)


To the rather good former BOI Complex, Baggot St (1972)



Then there's the American Embassy in Ballsbridge (1964)



Apollo House, Tara Street (1969). Currently occupied by homeless activists



The rather brutalist but IMO well designed Berkeley Library, Trinity College (1967)



The Irish Life Centre (1974-78) Built in phases.



The utterly abominable Findlater House, O'Connell St (1974)

wakka12

JupiterKid wrote: »

Here's a few shots of 60s/70s Dublin buildings to refresh our memories.

From the vile Hawkins House (1963)


To the rather good former BOI Complex, Baggot St (1972)



Then there's the American Embassy in Ballsbridge (1964)



Apollo House, Tara Street (1969). Currently occupied by homeless activists



The rather brutalist but IMO well designed Berkeley Library, Trinity College (1967)



The Irish Life Centre (1974-78) Built in phases.



The utterly abominable Findlater House, O'Connell St (1974)

They're really nice imo apart from obviously Hawkins apollo and Findlater

Widdershins

Anyone who thinks they had a certain charm most likely grew up far away from them.

Maybe they did, on Only Fools and Horses.

I'd rather them than a block of skyscrapers though.

Sand

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

They are horrible. Mount St, Baggot St, Kildare St, Nassau St... the list goes on. Would have been beautiful grand streets in the past, now they're a mish mash of old buildings and ugly office blocks. How did they let it happen? I work in one, it's horrible, no air, bad architecture. We have some offices in a lovely Georgian Building on Merrion Square and it's a way more pleasant and comfortable place to work than our ugly office block.

I cant speak for your current office block but I've worked in some of those old converted offices in Georgian buildings. Nice facade, but terrible places to work compared to a purpose built modern office. Absolute saunas in the summer.