How the hell did this get planning?

eringobragh

https://www.independent.ie/life/home-garden/this-small-house-in-stoneybatter-thinks-big-and-makes-a-modern-statement-on-a-historic-road-37514441.html

Surely a brown envelope job , ridiculous build completely destroys the character of that area

Looks even worse when you look at it on google maps

kieran.

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.

Mariomaker

Which the two horrible houses or the nice house lol?

Cosmo Kramer

The last thing you want to do with these kind of infill sites is mimic the traditional buildings around them. So, the principal of doing something contrasting I have no problem with. I don't like that particular design and it's not what I'd have suggested for that site but I can see how it got planning permission - no brown envelopes needed for that one.

Assetbacked

Lookswise I wouldnt be a fan of the front of it. But I'd hardly deprive someone their dream home because of that reason.

Graham

eringobragh wrote: »

How the hell did this get planning?

From the link you posted:

It reflects a preference on the part of the planning authorities in areas such as this, where there is an existing distinctive historic architectural vernacular, that new buildings not replicate the architecture of the past but showcase a modern design sensibility instead.

engiweirdo

Think it's a gorgeous modern take on a "brown stone". Surrounding houses are corpo/workmens 2 up 2 downs not elegant Georgian townhouses, no particularly striking features imo.

eringobragh

Seriously think its hideous - must be just me so:pac:..could have tried to match the stone at the very least

Meh... Iv seen a lot worse.

utmbuilder

Think its a disgrace iconic street from the past.

That is a genuinely ugly building, though I can see what they were going for. It looks the architect got distracted by a game of tetris half way through the facade...

Victor

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.

Rubberchikken

The flat style roof is a bit at odds with.the houses either side.
Having said that.i like both styles.

tradesman

It is a total disgrace. Nothing blends in. Could be a different story if it was in an area of detached houses with plenty of space between them. Having said that, it will probably win some obscure award for architecture soon!

Gumbo

tradesman wrote: »

It is a total disgrace. Nothing blends in. Could be a different story if it was in an area of detached houses with plenty of space between them. Having said that, it will probably win some obscure award for architecture soon!

That's the point, for it not to blend in.
In 100 years or whatever, people can view this streetscape and clearly see the different periods of construction and architecture styles.

I think it looks quite well.

LirW

I think it blends in really well. It's not 1900 anymore, that style isn't done anymore and simulating it would look even worse. I think it's tastefully inoffensive.

o1s1n

It's an interesting design but just doesn't work where it's located.

The minimalist design makes it look sandwiched in.

listermint

eringobragh wrote: »

Seriously think its hideous - must be just me so:pac:..could have tried to match the stone at the very least

Not matching the stone is the point...

Do you never watch grand designs?

Faking stuff to match in is a no no

And so it should be.

Thud

eringobragh wrote: »

the inspiration for the design...

zell12

No pebbledash
tut tut

sbsquarepants

kieran. wrote: »

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

Jaysus, Stevie is that you? Any chance of an autograph, maybe a few bars of I just called:D

eringobragh wrote: »

Seriously think its hideous - must be just me so:pac:..could have tried to match the stone at the very least

No, not just you. It's one of the ugliest houses I've ever seen...and probably cost a half a million! The ones either side aren't exactly architectural gems either mind, but they are what they are and that hideous piece of crap just stands out like a sore thumb.

whisky_galore

It's things like this that convince me that the Irish are aesthetically challenged. How come the Italians can put a modern building next to older ones without looking awful?

This looks like sh*t stuck to an army blanket.

Why is there such a shortage of rentals?

Well...... we build 2 storey houses in the city centre.

strandroad

I can see the need for modern infills but this one is horrible. Proportions should be in harmony even if they are different; here they are completely random and the house looks broken. Looks like a botched project with good intentions.

zell12

strandroad wrote: »

I can see the need for modern infills but this one is horrible. Proportions should be in harmony even if they are different; here they are completely random and the house looks broken. Looks like a botched project with good intentions.

I agree.
Should be four stories high, otherwise that whole streetscape will be forever unchanged and forever low density

swarlb

Thud wrote: »

the inspiration for the design...

Kind of ironic that you'd pick a character from a cartoon based on a 'person' from the past, trying to blend in, in a world from the future.
I once lived in Stoneybatter, in a house similar to these. They were cold, damp, small... little boxes of rooms cluttered together. I'd imagine the interior of this house is much more user friendly then the originals.

Franz Von Peppercorn

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.

listermint

whisky_galore wrote: »

It's things like this that convince me that the Irish are aesthetically challenged. How come the Italians can put a modern building next to older ones without looking awful?

This looks like sh*t stuck to an army blanket.

Self deprecating nonsense.

Go to the continent you'll see similar designs in city's across the place.

Ray Palmer

The comment on brown envelopes just illustrates the assumption everything is corrupt. Regular planning allows for this and there was no corruption. Of course people making the claim will affect other's perceptions to believe in corruption

whisky_galore

listermint wrote: »

Self deprecating nonsense.

Go to the continent you'll see similar designs in city's across the place.

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.

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.