How the hell did this get planning?

handlemaster

I like it .

MrMusician18

I think the planners made a mistake here. The streetscape has a distinct form and shape, so things like window position and pitched roof should have been maintained.

To ensure it isn't pastiche, modern materials could have been used to showcase it's relative modern-ness.

Of the three houses pictured, it will be the first to be demolished.

MontgomeryClift

I don't agree with attempts to be "in keeping" with surroundings, as the surroundings are often old and ugly, and not working "keeping" with, but this attempt is just ugly. Ugly colours, ugly materials, ugly proportions.

This obsession with "pastiche" is an odd one that it seems only exists in architecture. Other forms of design have tradition, and often go through "retro" cycles of rebirth and re-invention. Architecture seems determined to get uglier and more offensive, as a result of a strange fear of looking like anything from before World War II.

The remarkable thing is that this ugly communist style has been around so long now that this house could be considered a pastiche of ugly communist buildings from the 60s.

Varta

Architects are sheep. These days, there isn't a new build or extension that doesn't have an absurd narrow rectangular window. At least in most cases they are to the side or the rear.

abcabc123123

I think it looks OK. The site is an odd shape and the buildings either side are actually different designs built at different times. It might have been better if the materials contrasted more, maybe with a plaster render or cladding of some kind.

There a bunch of modern buildings around there that tried to mimic the style of the area and they look much worse.

Example: this dreadful extension:

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.352007,-6.2850542,3a,75y,312.85h,86.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sT38H3xZrsA7c1fi-gIrZdQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

This end of terrace (note the seemless garage door and the red brick detailing that just abruptly stops halfway down for no reason):

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3512391,-6.2875759,3a,75y,233.08h,87.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s59D021TKlQJ82xfms5P_Ew!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

No comment:

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3528405,-6.2906364,3a,90y,46.51h,88.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sixFyWUDKd9MYEMUsVO9veQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

MrMusician18

Varta wrote: »

Architects are sheep. These days, there isn't a new build or extension that doesn't have an absurd narrow rectangular window. At least in most cases they are to the side or the rear.

The original proposal was for the lower letterbox window to have a series of vertical brick bars.

There are two objections on the planning file, generally echoing the points on this thread. The site was a garden previously.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

kieran. wrote: »

Whats wrong with it it stands on its on merit/strengths while harmonizing with the existing materials.

A Pastiche house to mock the architectural style neighbouring houses would be alot worse.

Absolutely.

I like it. Don’t love it, but like it.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

What’s with the modern fetish for flat roofs?

I dint particularly like that design but there’s no problem with modern housing offsetting old housing.

I do agree with this though. Flat roofs are a maintenance ‘mare.

whisky_galore wrote: »

I am on the continent pal. It's hard to beat us for ugly misplaced buildings.
At least the Soviet style apartments are functional and people still live in them unlike our own well known experiment. And they didn't turn into ghettos either.

The continent is a big place. You’ve seen it all?

mickdw

abcabc123123 wrote: »

I think it looks OK. The site is an odd shape and the buildings either side are actually different designs built at different times. It might have been better if the materials contrasted more, maybe with a plaster render or cladding of some kind.

There a bunch of modern buildings around there that tried to mimic the style of the area and they look much worse.

Example: this dreadful extension:

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.352007,-6.2850542,3a,75y,312.85h,86.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sT38H3xZrsA7c1fi-gIrZdQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

This end of terrace (note the seemless garage door and the red brick detailing that just abruptly stops halfway down for no reason):

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3512391,-6.2875759,3a,75y,233.08h,87.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s59D021TKlQJ82xfms5P_Ew!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

No comment:

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3528405,-6.2906364,3a,90y,46.51h,88.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sixFyWUDKd9MYEMUsVO9veQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

're the last one as linked there, someone misguidedly thought that was a fresher look for housing back in the 1970s when that was being built.
I have a feeling this bit of architecture might be viewed similarly in about 40 years and as someone said earlier, it will be first to be demolished.

AndrewJRenko

Cosmo Kramer wrote: »

The last thing you want to do with these kind of infill sites is mimic the traditional buildings around them.

Why?

Gentleman Off The Pitch

kieran. wrote: »

Whats wrong with it it stands on its on merit/strengths while harmonizing with the existing materials

A Pastiche house to mock the architectural style neighbouring houses would be alot worse.

Is this the approach that gave us the beautiful ESB building on Fitzwilliam street?

NIMAN

Its a nice interior and all, but €422,000 :eek::eek::eek:

Gentleman Off The Pitch

The first few paragraphs of the quoted article in the OP were more interesting than i anticipated

HeidiHeidi

NIMAN wrote: »

Its a nice interior and all, but €422,000 :eek::eek::eek:

Worse, it's €450,000!

€422,000 was the refurbished neighbouring house.

sbsquarepants

abcabc123123 wrote: »

I think it looks OK. The site is an odd shape and the buildings either side are actually different designs built at different times. It might have been better if the materials contrasted more, maybe with a plaster render or cladding of some kind.

There a bunch of modern buildings around there that tried to mimic the style of the area and they look much worse.

Example: this dreadful extension:

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.352007,-6.2850542,3a,75y,312.85h,86.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sT38H3xZrsA7c1fi-gIrZdQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

This end of terrace (note the seemless garage door and the red brick detailing that just abruptly stops halfway down for no reason):

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3512391,-6.2875759,3a,75y,233.08h,87.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s59D021TKlQJ82xfms5P_Ew!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

No comment:

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3528405,-6.2906364,3a,90y,46.51h,88.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sixFyWUDKd9MYEMUsVO9veQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Rough as they are, they are each and all considerably easier on the eye than the first pile of shíte.

They aren't the nicest houses to begin with that they are trying to match, so even a 100% perfect match is hardly going to be a thing of beauty - but to make the dog boxes either side actually look good - that took some doing.

450K - you would want to be mentally i'll to even half heartedly consider paying it. I was actually joking with the probably cost a half a million line, but the damn thing practically did!

listermint

whisky_galore wrote: »

I am on the continent pal. It's hard to beat us for ugly misplaced buildings.
At least the Soviet style apartments are functional and people still live in them unlike our own well known experiment. And they didn't turn into ghettos either.

If your on the continent 'pal' then you wouldnt make such an idiotic stupid statement.

Are you alway so self deprecating when talking about Ireland or is it just to irish people.

#clueless

MrMusician18

Gentleman Off The Pitch wrote: »

Is this the approach that gave us the beautiful ESB building on Fitzwilliam street?

In fairness, the new ESB building on Fitzwilliam St will have a red brick facade and the window positions will be in keeping with the Georgian neighbours.

While the new building won't be too everyone's taste, the architects have acknowledged the context and incorporated Georgian design cues, whilst avoiding being pastiche

Which is unlike this black box, which doesn't even nod to it's context.

Ray Palmer

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

What’s with the modern fetish for flat roofs?



I do agree with this though. Flat roofs are a maintenance ‘mare.

Modern flat roofs come with a 30 year guarantee and are cheaper to build than pitched roofs. It just makes sense to use them.

Mac-Chops

I walked by this place recently and wondered the same. It is refreshing to know it's possible all the same.

Similar alternative idea nearby won home of the year last year

aloooof

MrMusician18 wrote: »

While the new building won't be too everyone's taste, the architects have acknowledged the context and incorporated Georgian design cues, whilst avoiding being pistache.

I'll definitely be using this word in future, as an portmanteau of 'pastiche' and 'pisstake'. :pac:

Franz Von Peppercorn

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Modern flat roofs come with a 30 year guarantee and are cheaper to build than pitched roofs. It just makes sense to use them.

Ugh. What I got from that was cheaper. No roof would be even cheaper.

GreeBo

Im fine with it not fitting in and I'm fine with the "modern" look of it, the brick colour wouldnt do anything for me at all however.

mickdw

sugarman wrote: »

...also, for anyone wondering this was the site beforehand.

Looking at that, it seems completely wrong to have filled it in.

Ray Palmer

[PHP][/PHP]

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Ugh. What I got from that was cheaper. No roof would be even cheaper.

The quality of them is much improved. A pitch roof now requires more maintenance and prone to more problems. Cheaper in construction and better at the job is not the same as no roof:D

pwurple

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Modern flat roofs come with a 30 year guarantee and are cheaper to build than pitched roofs. It just makes sense to use them.

Yup. Tanked flat roofs are excellent. Built from fiberglass, better insulated, harder wearing, less maintenance, lower cost.

I have half pitched , half flat here on mine, flat section is far warmer and easier to maintain.

godtabh

Victor wrote: »

The planning file references are

4431/16Sub01
4431/16
0003/17

The documentation can be downloaded from http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/wphappcriteria.display

I concur that it is easy to go wrong with pastiche and that contemporary design should be used, provided the new building is not incongruous with its neighbours. However, I think the flat roof / parapet, brick colour, windows and lack of a boot scraper are intolerable at various levels.

No documents on line

godtabh

pwurple wrote: »

Yup. Tanked flat roofs are excellent. Built from fiberglass, better insulated, harder wearing, less maintenance, lower cost.

I have half pitched , half flat here on mine, flat section is far warmer and easier to maintain.

my new one is leaking!

MrMusician18

godtabh wrote: »

No documents on line

The whole planning file is there, including the planners report.

the_syco

I like the garden at the top.

mickdw

godtabh wrote: »

my new one is leaking!

I'd suggest you had cowboy builder as no matter what roof system you used, it shouldn't be leaking when new.

robp

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Ugh. What I got from that was cheaper. No roof would be even cheaper.

I think some cases flat rooves are harder to maintain. I don't feel Irish architects value performance much.