Fundamental questions about architectural integrity are raised by the OPW's decision to take a 'facadist' approach to the next phase of the National Museum at Collins Barracks, writes Frank McDonald, Environment Editor
If one of the fine Georgian houses on Merrion Square were to be destroyed by fire next week, nobody could argue that it should be replaced by a contemporary building. The only acceptable solution from a conservation viewpoint would be a faithful reconstruction, both inside and out.
But in the case of Collins Barracks, the issue is not quite so clear-cut.
Built in the first decade of the 18th century as the Royal Barracks, it was laid out around three squares, only one of which - Clarke Square - survives intact. The buildings that formed its central square were demolished in the 1890s.
Until it was surrendered by the Army to the National Museum, Collins Barracks had earned an entry in The Guinness Book of Records as the world's oldest purpose-built military barracks. It had been in military use for nearly 300 years and it's a pity that it didn't remain so; however, that is not the point.
Clarke Square was always seen as the first phase of the museum project.
Extensively remodelled behind the retained facades of the barracks' most intact formal space, with Gilroy McMahon as consultant architects, the only visible manifestation of this radical change of use is a pair of opaque glazed links.
Now, the Office of Public Works is seeking planning permission to reconstruct the long-lost central square in facsimile as the next phase of converting the barracks for the National Museum. But the "facadist" approach it has adopted raises fundamental questions about the issue of architectural integrity.
The OPW's initial plan was for a modern building, but this was vetoed by Síle deValera, the Minister for Arts and Heritage, who has charge of the museum. And as soon as it became clear the Minister was displeased, the OPW's chairman, Barry Murphy, instructed the architects to go back to their drawing boards.
It would appear that only a historicist approach involving the reconstruction of the original facades would be acceptable to de Valera - and that is precisely what senior architect Patrick Gannon has produced, with the apparently reluctant imprimatur of Michael O'Doherty, the OPW's principal architect. He maintains that the contemporary building first proposed, which would have stood forward of the original range, didn't do justice to the site. In his view, moving it back and reinstating the original facade "produces a much better solution in planning and architectural terms while creating a more free-flowing sequence for the public".
According to Gannon, the new building would have "authenticity in its placement as well as its detail" - at least for its principal facade. The flanking wings would have cut-off gables because the National Museum's current space requirements do not justify building them out to their original footprint, so trees would fill the voids.
Laid out on three sides of a geometrically paved square, the main building has a large, quite contemporary glazed atrium which would project two metres above its slate roof, echoing the ridge of the Natural History Museum in Merrion Square. It slopes down to meet the former Riding School of the barracks, which is being retained.
A new drum-shaped building to the rear, fronting on Arbour Hill, would house a lecture theatre, restaurant and exhibition space. "Everything interlinks at all levels and across the square," according to Gannon. The main entrance is to be relocated on its axis (on the Liffey side), marked by the elaborate Rutland monument (1795) that once stood here.
Visitors would enter the museum through this new gate on Benburb Street. A glass-and-steel canopy in front of the central block would provide cover for escalators serving the car-park. Otherwise, the only concessions to the 21st century would be a glass screen behind the restored arcade and four box-kite lighting columns.
References for the design of the facades were culled from survey plans of the three ranges before they were demolished, rather than from the inaccurate illustration in Brookings Map of 1728. But no matter how "authentic", the principal facade would be only skin-deep; its elevation bears almost no relationship to the plan of the building.
Gannon rejects any suggestion that the facade treatment amounts to mere wallpaper and insists that what the OPW is proposing is an effort to "complete the complex in its original architectural language". But others, including the Dublin City Architect, Jim Barrett, and the deputy city planning officer Dick Gleeson, are not so sure.
Though neither of them would comment on the OPW's planning application, which is currently being considered, it is understood that they both expressed the view that a historicist approach was wrong - not just as a cloak for the new range, but also because it would compromise the integrity of the original buildings.
Ian Lumley, An Taisce's heritage officer, is also mystified by the OPW's facadist approach. "Given that the central block is so long gone, the rationale for reconstructing it, or in this case merely the facade, isn't obvious," he says. "But surely the architectural profession could stick its neck out on this, rather than leaving it to An Taisce?"
Mary Bryan, conservation officer of the Irish Georgian Society, is more sympathetic. "Our reaction was certainly not 'shock horror'. We felt it could work visually, but this would be very dependent on how the pastiche or replication was done and what materials were used in the reconstruction," she says. "It is such an enormous scheme."
Cladding the new range in granite to match the older buildings and mimicking their fenestration is fine as far as it goes. But what is old and what is new should be evident, as in the case of Carlo Scarpa's work on the Castelvecchio in Verona (to make it work as a museum) or the refined neo-classical language used by Gunnar Asplund.
Instead of reversing down a historical cul-de-sac, would it not be possible to take the essence of Collins Barracks and reinterpret it in a contemporary way? A recognisably modern building that followed the footprint of its central square, without aping what stood there more than a century ago, might be much more successful.
It would be interesting to hear the views of the "three wise men" - leading architects David Mackay, Richard MacCormac and John Worthington - on the OPW's plan. After all, they were engaged by Dublin City Council to advise on the aesthetics and appropriateness of major schemes planned for sensitive areas of the city.
Barcelona-based David Mackay is the only one who has expressed himself so far. And somewhat surprisingly, he sees the proposal to recompose the formality of the central square, using the visual vocabulary of the old barracks, as a "genuine cultural option" that would be in scale with its surroundings.
To that extent, he believes the OPW's scheme is "almost right". It could be improved, he suggests, by making all of the windows blind, like those of the Bank of Ireland in College Green, especially as "they do not appear to have a very important function other than responding to the aesthetics of the existing buildings".
He also objects to the determination of the architects to create a central axis through a square "hopelessly clogged up with all the trills of axial composition", including a circular depression in the middle. There was also "that silly little arrangement of steps and ramps" that would break up the embankment facing the Liffey.
The difficult choice facing the city planners is whether they can change the scheme for Collins Barracks by seeking further information on it, by attaching conditions to a planning permission or by issuing a blunt refusal.
Perhaps it is too much of a hot potato, politically, for the planners to handle in the way they would wish.
But it does seem incredible at a time when the unapologetically modern Millennium Wing of the National Gallery is being so celebrated - with Síle deValera basking in its glory - that the State now plans to invest an estimated €43 million (£34 million) in what amounts to a piece of pastiche, by order of the same Minister.
Whether it warrants such a high level of investment is another issue, given that visitor numbers have been disappointing - 165,000 last year compared with 285,000 for its main base in Kildare Street. The OPW argues that its scheme will provide the necessary "critical mass", aided by the Tallaght Luas line, which will run past the museum.
According to Michael O'Doherty, the next phase of Collins Barracks would give Dublin something comparable to the Burrell collection in Glasgow. But the Burrell is an outstanding work of modern architecture, whereas what's being proposed for Dublin is a reactionary doffing of the cap to a distant, long-forgotten past.
A decision on the OPW's application is due on March 24th.