|
So can the redevelopment of Temple Bar be seen as a
success, both in purely architectural terms and in more
broadly social, urban design terms? Were any mistakes
made and if so what lessons do we learn from them? Within
the context of Europe, the project was meant to steer
the continent towards a more responsible attitude to
its historic urban fabric and lead by example, has it
succeeded in this regard?
Set against purely architectural criteria, Temple Bar
should be and is lauded as a resounding success. The
mere presence of so many groundbreaking and award-winning
buildings attests to its undeniable quality. Projects
such as the Irish Film Centre, the buildings of Meeting
House Square and the Green Building are woven into the
historical fabric of the quarter yet are unafraid to
challenge and create something wholly contemporary in
the process. Throughout Temple Bar we see examples of
new architecture that respects history without yielding
to an over-literal contextualisation and conservation
for the sake of itself. Context was a part of the design
equation but not to the expense of common sense nor
innovation.
The sheer quality of Temple Bar's residential developments
demands to be mentioned, from loft living in The Granary,
through the mixed-use marvel that is the Printworks,
to the 'West End' complex, replete with a green combined
power and heat system - each firmly places 'people'
at the heart of its concerns. The latter notably includes
30 % social housing - the residents are mainly middle-aged
tenants who agreed to surrender houses in the suburbs.
Needless to say, they are ecstatic about their new abodes.
Nearly 2,000 residents make Temple Bar their home now
as opposed to 200 before the transformation.
Many of the successes of Temple Bar can be attributed
to the character of Group 91 both as a collective and
as a collection of hugely talented, individual architects.
They had, as Thomas Forget has said, 'the vision to
understand the city as a work in perpetual flux' rather
than attempting to render it in period statis. Crucially
they had a single coherent vision that not only incorporated
but embraced diversity. This attitude was perfect for
and area such as Temple Bar, which contained a wide
range of architectural styles within its boundaries.
It was within these varying buildings and the gap sites
between them that they conducted their dazzling acts
of urban dentistry.
Their framework plan had a faith in architectural design
and intervention to complement and mould an economic
and social transformation and this faith has proved
well founded in Temple Bar. An area previously in decline
has been rescued from its fate as an Americanised transport
depot and reinstated at the heart of the city, as an
important link between the too often dichotomised "north'
and 'south' cities.
This process was undoubtedly furthered by the establishment
of a state development company, in the form of Temple
Bar Properties, to guide the process in the right direction.
Left solely to the private sector the profit motive
may have eclipsed the more admirable goal of culture.
TBP was in turn helped by the fact that much of the
land was in state hands already so it could acquire
its new property portfolio with ease. Indeed the fortunes
of Temple Bar owe much to the responsible attitude CIE
showed its tenants and its reluctance to 'railroad'
plans for the monolithic bus centre. Originally TBP
was run on behalf of the Department of the Taoiseach
(now it is the Department of the Environment) and the
special interest and patronage of the Taoiseach of the
time, Charles Haughey, added impetus to the early stages
of its growth.
The availability of public funding, both Irish and European,
for various flagship cultural projects such as the Ark
helped enormously in ensuring in the first place that
they would actually be finished and secondly that precedents
were established as to how exactly development should
progress. Temple Bar received over £41 million in state
money, half of it from the European coffers, on top
of £60 million from TBP's property portfolio and a further
£100 million in private sector investment.
From the outset TBP was staffed by highly motivated
people and was led from 1991 onwards by the charismatic
and persuasive Laura Magahy. Her unflagging commitment
to the cultural project was highly instrumental in its
overall success but she was by no means alone. Significant
others such as Paddy Teahon, her predecessor, or Michael
Gough and Dick Gleeson in Dublin Corporation's planning
department bolstered innovation and initiated creative
solutions to the problems encountered over the 10 years
of renewal.
Unfortunately, the same praise cannot be afforded to
TBP's sister company Temple Bar Renewal Ltd. Established
alongside TBP in 1991, its remit was to administer and
issue tax incentives for the area to ensure a balance
of varying uses. This it has failed to do, to the extent
that Michael Smith commented that Temple Bar was fast
turning itself into the 'Temple of Bars'. It would be
hard to argue that the quarter did not have an excess
of licensed premises. Not only the number but the size
of these mega-pubs has increased exponentially - previously
traditional bars such as the Norseman have succumbed
to the profit incentive and created vast drinking sheds
devoid of atmosphere.
When pressurised on this issue during the mid-1990s,
when this issue reared its head, TBR claimed it did
not have the authority to refuse such applications and
that it was Dublin Corporation that had granted permission
for all the new pubs. Yet this was shown to be patently
false when publican Louis Fitzgerald (of the Quays pub)
sued the company on the basis that it had exceeded its
powers when it had refused to approve tax incentives
for his pub extension. The High Court ruled that TBR
always had the statutory power to control the spread
of pubs within the area. By 1997, when TBR adopted what
amounted to a ban on further tax incentives to licensed
premises, it was too late as 'Temple Bar' had already
become a firm favourite with 'stag party' tourists.
Such low-grade tourism was estimated to cost the area
£57 million in lost higher-spending revenue streams.
Such problems point towards difficulties in practically
implementing Group 91's broader urban design and social
agenda. Other criticisms finger the quality of the urban
design itself. For example, one of the most lauded parts
of Temple Bar, Meeting House Square, has conversely
attracted much criticism as well. While there is a broad
consensus on the quality of the architecture surrounding
the square, a few commentators have suggested that the
space does not work as, what Richard Rogers would term,
an 'open-minded space' full of human spontaneity. It
must be admitted that for the first few years, at least,
it was grossly underused as an outdoor performance venue,
its supposed function. But lately, owing to a full summer
schedule of 'diversions' in the square, coupled with
the weekly organic food market, it has become a living
public space proper. Less successful it seems have been
attempts to create a market on Cow's Lane in the west
end. Indeed this area should have had a market square
of its own but this remained a sketch on Group 91s ideas
board.
The lack of people visiting MHS in the past may have
been caused by the absence of the proposed Poddle Bridge,
which was to create a linear pedestrian path over the
Liffey through MHS into the quarter. The bridge was
refused planning permission, yet this imbalance has
been somewhat tweaked by the recent addition of the
Millennium Bridge.
Other spaces, such as Temple Bar Square have been more
successful in attracting crowds but in this case it
has more to with location rather than better design.
Other spaces like Curved Street have surprised us by
maturing into 'open-minded' outdoor rooms, populated
by an alternative youth culture that harks back to Temple
Bar's days before the transformation.
Indeed some long-term residents have said that they
find themselves yearning for these days before the transformation
when they found things edgier, more creative and with
a true community spirit. And while it may be true that
the environment before the renewal was more in tune
with the bohemian and artistic temperament, Temple Bar
was then very much an area in decline. Such decline
cannot be sustained and as Hugh Pearman put it 'no city
of world-class pretensions can capitalise on a culture
of decline'. To go forward Temple Bar had to institutionalise,
to some extent at least, that which was previously ad
hoc and spontaneous. And as Colm Ó Brian, of
the Project Arts Centre has said, this is what the various
arts bodies of the area have lobbied for and it is up
to them to retain a sharper focus and continue to produce
good work.
What has happened in Temple bar, despite its flaws,
is a wholly original way of doing things to the extent
that it combines cultural development with urban renewal
and furthermore this development is totally organic,
not 'artificially inseminated' from without. It is this
that marks it from other European urban renewal schemes
and therein lies the lessons to be learnt for other
cities within Europe and other areas within the city
of Dublin. Indeed it was Temple Bar's successful development
guided by an area-based management committee that prompted
other inner-city areas to do likewise in the form of
area-action plans that are examined in the other sections.
|
