Historic Building Double-think

MadsL

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0508/1224315744498.html

MORE THAN 100 of Dublin’s most historic buildings are falling into dereliction because of cuts in Government funding which have left Dublin City Council unable to protect them.

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little at the hypocrisy at work here. Whilst I applaud that DCC are highlighting this national issue, DCC have had an appalling record at protecting historic buildings, in many cases granting planning permissions to demolish them. Now, the economy is the problem? What happened to all those development levys then? Astonishing double-think.

n97 mini

When I think of the damage that was done prior to requiring Planning Permission (1965) I think of O'Connell Bridge House and Liberty Hall.

Then Planning Permission became a legal requirement, good sense prevailed, and we got those eyesores like the eircom building and the DCC offices both on the widest Georgian street in the world, O'Connell St., along with that other monumental act of state vandalism where the ESB wrecked the Georgian Mile.

Cookie_Monster

Solution, sell 90% and use the funding to preserve the rest. We don't really needs hundreds of crappy old buildings just for the sake of it, a few key ones is fine.

MadsL

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Solution, sell 90% and use the funding to preserve the rest. We don't really needs hundreds of crappy old buildings just for the sake of it, a few key ones is fine.

What a ridiculous proposal...

A. The State doesn't own most of the buildings.
B. What criteria are you going to apply to decide what stays - X-factor show? public vote? Lottery?
C. Tourists don't exactly come to Dublin to see office blocks.
D. "Crappy old buildings" :rolleyes:

kyle123

Cookie is right in a way, but I do think it's sad to see some buildings go but there are many buildings around that should be demolished simply because it's not economically viable to fix them. We can't hold onto all buildings eventually space becomes a priority and with urban areas spreading its only a matter of time like swords used to be classed as a far part of dublin niw dublins suburbs are balbriggan lol.
But I do think some should be saved such as certain areas or some of importance.

Cookie_Monster

MadsL wrote: »

What a ridiculous proposal...

A. The State doesn't own most of the buildings.
B. What criteria are you going to apply to decide what stays - X-factor show? public vote? Lottery?
C. Tourists don't exactly come to Dublin to see office blocks.
D. "Crappy old buildings" :rolleyes:

A. Then why should it be putting any money into them at all?
B. Plenty of criteria; historical importance, state of repair, general usefulness, location, fitness for purpose etc Turning a Georgian terrace house into an office may appeal to some but why not simply pull it down and put a proper office in its place, that's actually used for what it's designed for and not butchered to suit?
C. I doubt many come to see some old buildings either, sure some do but not many
D. They are for the most part, what makes them any better than stuff built in the 60s or 70s or 90s or today? You think for a second that it 50 or a hundred years people will look back at the blocks of flats from the 70s or today's glass boxes and think them important?

Apart from some major civic structures I see no reason to be emotional about any old buildings, they serve a purpose, be it housing or industry or commerce or whatever and as soon as they no longer do this effectively then it's time to get rid of them, aesthetics is not a good enough reason to keep an old building IMO especially when they are not suitable in so many other ways.

MadsL

A. Enforcement. Do I have to explain this to you?
B. So which ones are you "deciding to keep" and how does this fit with the existing planning process? And who gets to decide?
C. About 15% come for cultural reasons some 9% describe Ireland as a favoured destination because it is "unspoilt".
D. The Bank of Ireland HQ on Baggot St is now on the list of protected structures. Architecture is not really your thing is it?

Cuddlesworth

It will get to the point where the cost of maintaining protected buildings will be greater then the cost of leaving them derelict. It already has for a lot of them.

MadsL

Define cost?

Cookie_Monster

MadsL wrote: »

Define cost?

€

MadsL wrote: »

Architecture is not really your thing is it?

Nope, function over form. Buildings should be designed by engineers, not architects.

MadsL

The 'cost' I referred to can be quantified in many ways, monetary is just one factor. The loss of an historic building carries a social cost, a cultural cost and an opportunity cost in the form of lost tourism. Pure monetary value ignores all of these factors.

As to your ludicrous statement that buildings should be designed by engineers under your mantra "function over form" - you should actually do some reading on modernist architecture. Firstly, the philosophy and phrase is actually "form ever follows function" and was coined by an architect, Louis Sullivan and doesn't mean what you think it does. It is a philosophy of design reducing ornamentation in building design, not getting rid of architects. Sullivan believed ornament, where it was used, must be derived from Nature, instead of from classical architecture of the past. But since by your own admission that you are a Philistine I don't expect you to grasp this.

MadsL

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

It will get to the point where the cost of maintaining protected buildings will be greater then the cost of leaving them derelict. It already has for a lot of them.

If a building is in use then it has an economic value that covers the cost of maintenance. Failing to get protected structures actually protected and back in use is the crux of the problem - it is hard to rent a place with no roof.

Much of this has to do with land-banking during the boom and an active dereliction strategy on the part of developers to free up brownfield sites for Tiger era 'iconic' 51 story towers and the like. We now need to get these buildings out from under NAMA control and into active use.