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

Dr Crayfish

Findlater house, lol, the szzzdate of it, never really noticed it much. And to think they put it on what used to be our main street. I like the library though and the embassy.

JupiterKid

threetrees wrote: »

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

Shannon House, Limerick, built 1972.

Dr Crayfish

Sand wrote: »

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.

The ones we have now were recently refurbished. I remember last summer I was envious of the people based there as at least they could open their huge windows. A lot of the ugly buildings we're talking about don't have windows that can be opened for some reason.

darkpagandeath

Stigura wrote: »

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

Peregrine

JupiterKid wrote: »

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

It was redeveloped to a Holiday Inn Express. Nothing special but several orders better than before. Still the same building.

JupiterKid

Indeed, quite a few of the 1960s and 70s monstrosities have been reclad/refurbished and look better. I can think of one example near the Shelbourne Hotel. And then some are being knocked down completely. No loss.

What of the more recent boom era office/apartment buildings? Do they look well? Will they date well?

Dr Crayfish

Jesus, those pics sugarman posted. How the hell did a capital city let an area get that decrepit? It looks like Dresden in 1945 ffs. Were we really that poor? It's right by Grafton St and St Stephen's green and a stonesthrow from Government buildings!

newacc2015

Most of these buildings have been flatted, are being flatted or the outside refinished. Findlater house is now a Holiday Inn.

The Passport office is being replaced by this. Ironically An Taisce who object to most tall developments are generally opposed to the redevelopment of brutalist buildings.



This



Is being replaced with this :



Apollo House, Hawkins House, Liberty Hall etc are all scheduled for replacement. I think alot of redeveloped buildings like One Molesworth look amazing, they just look bad as they are height constraint. If they were higher, they would not look at awkward. In 5 years, there will be little from the 60s/70s left

NYC has built some amazing skyscrapers in recent years. I like the Hearst Tower

wakka12

newacc2015 wrote: »

Most of these buildings have been flatted, are being flatted or the outside refinished. Findlater house is now a Holiday Inn.

The Passport office is being replaced by this. Ironically An Taisce who object to most tall developments are generally opposed to the redevelopment of brutalist buildings.



This


Is being replaced with this :



Apollo House, Hawkins House, Liberty Hall etc are all scheduled for replacement. I think alot of redeveloped buildings like One Molesworth look amazing, they just look bad as they are height constraint. If they were higher, they would not look at awkward. In 5 years, there will be little from the 60s/70s left

NYC has built some amazing skyscrapers in recent years. I like the Hearst Tower

That is not the passport office. That is another redevelopment going on across the street from it.http://www.irishtimes.com/polopoly_fs/1.2875721.1479660537!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/box_620_330/image.jpg
This is how the passport office will look when done

wakka12

A huge block of 60/70's buildings are also being demolished on Nassau Street.
Current

Future redevelopment

Good riddance

Dr Crayfish

wakka12 wrote: »

That is not the passport office. That is another redevelopment going on across the street from it.http://www.irishtimes.com/polopoly_fs/1.2875721.1479660537!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/box_620_330/image.jpg
This is how the passport office will look when done

I think you've got that wrong! Wasn't the PP office on the North side of the street? The one across the road was some EU building, and then it became a temporary PP office for a little while when they demolished the original one.
I used to do some work in the PP office, so I'm pretty sure about this :pac:
Where is the PP office now though?

wakka12

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

I think you've got that wrong! Wasn't the PP office on the North side of the street? The one across the road was some EU building, and then it became a temporary PP office for a little while when they demolished the original one.
I used to do some work in the PP office, so I'm pretty sure about this :pac:
Where is the PP office now though?

Haha oh right! I just always heard it being called ' EU passport office redevelopment' on skyscraper city and forums so I assumed..I guess you'd know better on this one though :P

appledrop

They are all horrifc I absolutely despise them including Busaras. The place is so depressing + ugly.

andekwarhola

The Berkeley in Trinity is pretty cool. Always liked it.

Ray Palmer

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Jesus, those pics sugarman posted. How the hell did a capital city let an area get that decrepit? It looks like Dresden in 1945 ffs. Were we really that poor? It's right by Grafton St and St Stephen's green and a stonesthrow from Government buildings!

Yes we were that poor. There is a huge generational gap on what poverty was like here and the standard of living. I remember being in people's houses where there bare brick walls with water flowing down them. People wore tattered clothes and shoes. I in in my early 40's and things were much worse before.
While there is the odd story of cramped housing in a bad way now that was the norm for many old large houses in the city.
The housing crisis we have now is for a much better quality of housing. People would live in very unsafe properties and just live with it.

Zaph

andekwarhola wrote: »

The Berkeley in Trinity is pretty cool. Always liked it.

That is the single most inappropriately located building in the city. You have a courtyard full of fine old buildings with this monstrosity made up of slabs of concrete where you can see (presumably intentionally, for some bizarre reason) the joins and it has those weird distorted curved windows. I still don't understand how they even got planning permission for it. It might be OK-ish in some more modern development, but Trinity most definitely isn't the place for it.

Corruptedmorals

The arts block is far worse a contrast to Trinity's old buildings than the Berkeley I think.

Yamanoto

It's actually quite depressing that mistakes like this are still being made along the main thoroughfares of Dublin city centre.

Capt'n Midnight

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

Is thart Art Deco or Art Nouveau?

Easy way to remember - *dwarves* are art deco; elves are art nouveau

dublinman1990

The RTE HQ in Donnybrook strike to me as having no aesthetic quality to them now for many years.

Busaras is a quite a grubby old building whenever I pass by it. The DSP office being there in the same building may have degraded the appearance of it overtime.

In contrast the buildings opposite Busaras namely the IFSC & the offices around Connolly Station look miles better from their own current appearance.

Dr Crayfish

dublinman1990 wrote: »

The RTE HQ in Donnybrook strike to me as having no aesthetic quality to them now for many years.

If anyone wants to form a mob and burn it to the ground, I'm in!

Yourself isit

appledrop wrote: »

They are all horrifc I absolutely despise them including Busaras. The place is so depressing + ugly.

It's one of the nicest bus stations I've been in. Which isn't saying much.

Yourself isit

Yamanoto wrote: »

It's actually quite depressing that mistakes like this are still being made along the main thoroughfares of Dublin city centre.

That's alright. Dame St isn't that aesthetic at that end anyway.

Yourself isit

It wasn't just Dublin. During the 60's and 70's the most complete Georgian city in Europe - Bath -was under threat from brutalist and "modern" redevelopment. It was a time when there was a contempt for the 19C in general and a fetishing of the car. It's hard to believe that the descendents of the people who built they city wanted its destruction. No post imperial reason there.

wakka12

Yourself isit wrote: »

That's alright. Dame St isn't that aesthetic at that end anyway.

Well that addition made sure of that didnt it

wakka12

Yourself isit wrote: »

It wasn't just Dublin. During the 60's and 70's the most complete Georgian city in Europe - Bath -was under threat from brutalist and "modern" redevelopment. It was a time when there was a contempt for the 19C in general and a fetishing of the car. It's hard to believe that the descendents of the people who built they city wanted its destruction. No post imperial reason there.

And it wasnt just the UK and it wasnt just europe it was the whole world. Theres very few extremely old buildings in the world, humans have strived for whatever was considered modern ,throughout history. People in the 17th and 18th centuries went about redevloping medieval cities and widening streets for instance. and even today the exact same pattern is repeating, we are ridding our cities of most buildings built post ww2 as we don't consider them modern, aesthetic or fit for purpose despite the preceding generations before us thinking other wise.
And I can guarantee you that the next generations after us will hate most of the buildings we built during our lifetimes and some other style will be considered the right one

Zaph

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Easy way to remember - *dwarves* are art deco; elves are art nouveau

Huh?

It's only an easy way to remember if one knows what you're on about in the first place!

Yourself isit

wakka12 wrote: »

And it wasnt just the UK and it wasnt just europe it was the whole world. Theres very few extremely old buildings in the world, humans have strived for whatever was considered modern ,throughout history. People in the 17th and 18th centuries went about redevloping medieval cities and widening streets for instance. and even today the exact same pattern is repeating, we are ridding our cities of most buildings built post ww2 as we don't consider them modern, aesthetic or fit for purpose despite the preceding generations before us thinking other wise.
And I can guarantee you that the next generations after us will hate most of the buildings we built during our lifetimes and some other style will be considered the right one

They can (and should) get rid of the worst of the new stuff. Just as we are getting rid of Hawkins house.

Sometimes though there's no reason to replace the past. Central Paris should look like it does now in 1,000 years, I hope. Catastrophe apart.

Turtyturd

Does the trinity library get a bit of slack because it's in trinity? Looks worse than the rest of them.

Old library in Maynooth was horrible as well.



It's now hidden behind the new library.

Yamanoto

Yourself isit wrote: »

That's alright. Dame St isn't that aesthetic at that end anyway.

Aside from protected structures like City Hall & Newcomen Bank a few steps away, the ornate canopy of the Olympia Theatre directly opposite & the 1877 built AIB building right beside it, you could be right.

Yourself isit

Yamanoto wrote: »

Aside from protected structures like City Hall & Newcomen Bank a few steps away, the ornate canopy of the Olympia Theatre directly opposite & the 1877 built AIB building right beside it, you could be right.

What would you have there? Pastiche? There's no architectural consistency there.

Trebor176

I am probably one of a few people that has an appreciation for 1960s and 1970s architecture. For example, I like Hawkins House. Most people loath it. And, what I like is the fact that little seems to have changed since it was built. If the interior is described as "dated," it can only mean that it has (some) original features. Great! I read an article recently that mentioned a penthouse flat that hasn't been used since the 70's, so the decor won't have changed since then! It is a building that I'd love to have a look around, but that's very unlikely.

I think Apollo House is inoffensive. Ok, it doesn't appeal to many, but I like it. Again, it's somewhere I'd like to look around, but it has been done up inside in recent years, yet retains the odd original feature. College House is probably the lesser documented of the three buildings on that site. But, it's probably worth a look inside too.

It will be a shame to see these go. Personally, I'd like to see Hawkins House completely refurbished, rather than torn down. This was in the plans before, but they have obviously been shelved in favour of completely developing that land.

I am happy to say that I was able to go to the top of Liberty Hall during one of the Open House events, something which was a dream come true for me. I've always had a love for that building, so I couldn't turn down an opportunity to go up to the balcony level. Inside is a bit dated, but I guess it's a good thing.

Other buildings like Busaras, O'Connell Bridge House or some of those older office blocks around Mount Street are fine. I know O'Connell Bridge has undergone refurbishment in recent years, which is fine. Rather than just demolish these older buildings, it could always be possible to just do them up. Then again, certain factors would prevent this. The above are just some examples.

If anyone wants monstrosities, go and have a look at the tall apartments opposite The Coombe Hospital. These are buildings that should be demolished.

Yamanoto

Yourself isit wrote: »

What would you have there? Pastiche? There's no architectural consistency there.

Pastiche, no - it's not the fact it's a contemporary design I take issue with.

Something more sympathetic with its surrounds for sure, sans the bleak plaza and bunker style windows and stainless steel door pedestrians experience at eye level. There's just no elegance or finesse to the structure at all.

wakka12

Yourself isit wrote: »

What would you have there? Pastiche? There's no architectural consistency there.

There are more options out there than pastiche or else poor design that clashes with its surroundings. Modern architecture can be completely sympathetic to historic surroundings and even improve the area.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/f9/6c/2f/f96c2ffd14b38676bf7ce8d5190df866.jpg
It just matches the street despite the fact it looks completely modern , its called good design, something we are lacking in here in Dublin

Regardless , that building on Dame street is just horrible and would be horrible no matter what its context is. Its just extra offensive because its on an otherwise nice looking street, beside our castle no less

somefeen

At least they've all aged better than most of what was built in the celtic tiger.

Marcusm

Zaph wrote: »

That is the single most inappropriately located building in the city. You have a courtyard full of fine old buildings with this monstrosity made up of slabs of concrete where you can see (presumably intentionally, for some bizarre reason) the joins and it has those weird distorted curved windows. I still don't understand how they even got planning permission for it. It might be OK-ish in some more modern development, but Trinity most definitely isn't the place for it.

I imagine that a lot of the support will have come from the attraction of juxtaposing an entirely modern, rough hewn and frill free building against the antecedent styles.

osarusan

threetrees wrote: »

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

JupiterKid wrote: »

Shannon House, Limerick, built 1972.

Sarsfield House.

Being blown up would have the added benefit of destroying the office of the Collector General.

Marcusm

Yourself isit wrote: »

They can (and should) get rid of the worst of the new stuff. Just as we are getting rid of Hawkins house.

Sometimes though there's no reason to replace the past. Central Paris should look like it does now in 1,000 years, I hope. Catastrophe apart.

This is quite amusing if you consider that, apart from certain landmark buildings, Haussman started the relaying of Parisian streets and a complete rebuilding of its buildings in the 1850s, ie it's not that old and is the product of one of the largest building clearance projects the world has ever seen. Unlike the aftermath o the Great Fire of London whereafter the original street layouts were preserved, medieval Paris was cleared and a new 19th century Paris was built.

wakka12

Marcusm wrote: »

This is quite amusing if you consider that, apart from certain landmark buildings, Haussman started the relaying of Parisian streets and a complete rebuilding of its buildings in the 1850s, ie it's not that old and is the product of one of the largest building clearance projects the world has ever seen. Unlike the aftermath o the Great Fire of London whereafter the original street layouts were preserved, medieval Paris was cleared and a new 19th century Paris was built.

Its an interesting debate all the same. Paris is undoubtedly beautiful, but if you preserve everything and don't allow renewal and redevelopment many of the buildings will become unfit for purpose. The city will stagnate and fall behind. Do you risk turning your city into a museum for the sake of beauty and culture?

Zaph

Marcusm wrote: »

I imagine that a lot of the support will have come from the attraction of juxtaposing an entirely modern, rough hewn and frill free building against the antecedent styles.

Is that just a fancy way of saying cultural vandalism?

Marcusm

wakka12 wrote: »

Its an interesting debate all the same. Paris is undoubtedly beautiful, but if you preserve everything and don't allow renewal and redevelopment many of the buildings will become unfit for purpose. The city will stagnate and fall behind. Do you risk turning your city into a museum for the sake of beauty and culture?

I fear I have been misunderstood; my point was what is seen as longstanding Parisian architecture is itself the result of wholesale clearances rather than an organic development of the city. The post to which I was responding advocated it not being changed for 1,000 years.

JupiterKid

wakka12 wrote: »

Its an interesting debate all the same. Paris is undoubtedly beautiful, but if you preserve everything and don't allow renewal and redevelopment many of the buildings will become unfit for purpose. The city will stagnate and fall behind. Do you risk turning your city into a museum for the sake of beauty and culture?

That is what has effectively happened to Venice. The city is really a tourist trap theme park that has lost most of its population in the past century.

But redevelopment can still be sympathetic and complimentary to surrounding older buildings. Throwing up dross because it is "renewal" is not the answer.

me_right_one

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Jesus, those pics sugarman posted. How the hell did a capital city let an area get that decrepit? It looks like Dresden in 1945 ffs. Were we really that poor? It's right by Grafton St and St Stephen's green and a stonesthrow from Government buildings!

Yes, we were! And not that long ago, we're only talking mid 80's at the latest!

I cant understand the hate for these buildings, especially Hawkins House. Whats exactly is wrong with it??? In most cases, its a million times better than what was there before. Safe, dry, warm, plumbed for toilets. There are workplaces around the country where you still have to go outdoors to the toilet building!

As a non-city dweller, I can understand the anger at demolishing beautiful old Georgian buildings. I feel the same when they scar the countryside with ridiculous, pointless dual-carriageways to the middle of nowhere. I agree its a scandal, but these buildings are already in place. They are serving a purpose. They are here, and anything they will be replaced with is going to have the same size and footprint, so whats the point?

And as for the library in Maynooth, and the entire Kevin St. DIT building aswell - there's something very engineering-based about these places. They were built during the space race, and to me they conjure up thoughts of the NASA's space shuttle program. You get an air of scientific cutting edge in them, as if you are privileged to be part of humankind's most advanced era.

newacc2015 wrote: »

This



Is being replaced with this :

Thats a serious step back in my opinion. Nothing wrong with the red brick, it looks warm and inviting compared to the stone-and-steel that other people on here are lamenting!

Widdershins

JupiterKid wrote: »

That is what has effectively happened to Venice. The city is really a tourist trap theme park that has lost most of its population in the past century.

But redevelopment can still be sympathetic and complimentary to surrounding older buildings. Throwing up dross because it is "renewal" is not the answer.

Yep, change for change's sake is not progress, either.

As for throwing them up, have rented a boom-era (stupid term) house which was supposed to be almost an eco house, timber frame, and it was practically thrown up. I have to wonder about the integrity of some of our buildings from that decade.

wakka12

me_right_one wrote: »

Yes, we were! And not that long ago, we're only talking mid 80's at the latest!

I cant understand the hate for these buildings, especially Hawkins House. Whats exactly is wrong with it??? In most cases, its a million times better than what was there before. Safe, dry, warm, plumbed for toilets. There are workplaces around the country where you still have to go outdoors to the toilet building!

As a non-city dweller, I can understand the anger at demolishing beautiful old Georgian buildings. I feel the same when they scar the countryside with ridiculous, pointless dual-carriageways to the middle of nowhere. I agree its a scandal, but these buildings are already in place. They are serving a purpose. They are here, and anything they will be replaced with is going to have the same size and footprint, so whats the point?

And as for the library in Maynooth, and the entire Kevin St. DIT building aswell - there's something very engineering-based about these places. They were built during the space race, and to me they conjure up thoughts of the NASA's space shuttle program. You get an air of scientific cutting edge in them, as if you are privileged to be part of humankind's most advanced era.






Thats a serious step back in my opinion. Nothing wrong with the red brick, it looks warm and inviting compared to the stone-and-steel that other people on here are lamenting!

I agree The old building did a lot more for the character of the street, also had a much larger mix of businesses, I think its just one business taking occupancy in the newer building..
Another nice looking red brick was knocked down on Molesworth St for a similar kind of steel/glass development but it better than the one above imo

Widdershins

me_right_one wrote: »

Yes, we were! And not that long ago, we're only talking mid 80's at the latest!

I cant understand the hate for these buildings, especially Hawkins House. Whats exactly is wrong with it??? In most cases, its a million times better than what was there before. Safe, dry, warm, plumbed for toilets. There are workplaces around the country where you still have to go outdoors to the toilet building!

As a non-city dweller, I can understand the anger at demolishing beautiful old Georgian buildings. I feel the same when they scar the countryside with ridiculous, pointless dual-carriageways to the middle of nowhere. I agree its a scandal, but these buildings are already in place. They are serving a purpose. They are here, and anything they will be replaced with is going to have the same size and footprint, so whats the point?

And as for the library in Maynooth, and the entire Kevin St. DIT building aswell - there's something very engineering-based about these places. They were built during the space race, and to me they conjure up thoughts of the NASA's space shuttle program. You get an air of scientific cutting edge in them, as if you are privileged to be part of humankind's most advanced era.






Thats a serious step back in my opinion. Nothing wrong with the red brick, it looks warm and inviting compared to the stone-and-steel that other people on here are lamenting!

They did something similar with Clare CoCo buildings. The original was much more dated than the brick example in your photo, but it was solid, serviceable and it was doing the job. The one in your photo isn't even ugly. If it's not broken why 'fix' it!

andekwarhola

Zaph wrote: »

That is the single most inappropriately located building in the city. You have a courtyard full of fine old buildings with this monstrosity made up of slabs of concrete where you can see (presumably intentionally, for some bizarre reason) the joins and it has those weird distorted curved windows. I still don't understand how they even got planning permission for it. It might be OK-ish in some more modern development, but Trinity most definitely isn't the place for it.

I guess it's a matter of personal taste. I'm not a architercture expert by any means but I like the Berekley and the way the bare functional shape is actually foregrounded as the design. I actually don't mind a certain element of incongurity to the surrounding architecture if it's an interesting enough design, as opposed (again, personal taste) to the Arts Block/Lecky Library. Obviously I'm completely opposed to replacing/destroying existing Georgian buildings but I don't think every new building in its proximity has to be a facsimile of it, like a 1000 year architectural Reich of neo-Georgian buildings :pac:

JupiterKid

wakka12 wrote: »

That is not the passport office. That is another redevelopment going on across the street from it.http://www.irishtimes.com/polopoly_fs/1.2875721.1479660537!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/box_620_330/image.jpg
This is how the passport office will look when done

I think red/brown brick can be warm and inviting and date better than concrete steel and glass but more often then not, the redevelopment of "2nd generation" office buildings is because of simple hard nosed economics, where the investment funds involved in the redevelopment can squeeze even more money per square metre/foot out of the newer structure. It's often not due to aesthetics at all.

And now there are plans for a major redevelopment of the Stephens Green centre. The plan is to dispense with the white steel and glass "paddle steamer" look. I quite like it!

And to add to the comments about St Stephens Green West, yes Ireland was that poor back in the 1980s. Barely a developed country. It's only been 30 odd years but many younger posters have no idea just how deprived a country Ireland used to be. As recently as 1986, over 40% of children lived in poverty.

andekwarhola

JupiterKid wrote: »

And now there are plans for a major redevelopment of the Stephens Green centre. The plan is to dispense with the white steel and glass "paddle steamer" look. I quite like it!

I do too. It's actually dated quite well so far for something built in the 80s.

JupiterKid

What do AHers make of the new/proposed buildings that will replace older 60s/70s office blocks? Are they being perhaps a bit too hasty in getting rid of the originals?

And is pastiche better than bold modernism? Steel and plate glass was all the rage during the Celtic Tiger era, but how will these buildings be looked at in 20 or 30 years' time?