Temple Bar in the centre of Dublin was an area of the city that had suffered from depopulation and neglect. Situated next to the river Liffey and not too far from the main shopping streets, the place was the subject of a competition to revive and rejuvenate it. The concept of the winning entry was to regenerate through the introduction of public space and key cultural buildings. These would generate interest and activity and encourage other smaller supporting activities to follow. Group 91, the collective of architects involved in the whole area, advocated this patient, sensitive approach of reuse rather than brutal slaughter and new build. Although not actually part of the proposed Temple Bar regeneration, the Film Centre, which was the first building in the area to be completed, had a strong affinity with the ethos of this approach, and indeed coincidentally the architects were involved in both projects.

The Quaker Meeting House Headquarters was a remarkable assemblage of buildings gradually collected together since 1692. It was situated in the heart of Temple Bar, at the centre of a city block with no significant street frontage, but with narrow routes of access from three streets. The extraordinary position was as a result of the law that forbade non-established churches from having a frontage on the street.

The recording of the existing building was meticulous: the architects completed an extensive and detailed survey and discovered that the site contained nine separate buildings. These were in varying degrees of age, condition, relevance to the project and appropriate or inappropriate positions. It was also important to discover whether there were spaces within the complex of sufficient size to accommodate the two cinemas.

The architects see an analogy between archaeology and architecture. They regarded the process of discovering, understanding and recording the site as one that provides the basis for the architectural intervention. Buildings are always changing and the architects' contribution is but another layer in the evolution.

INTERVENTION


The architects' reading of the site quickly established that the main meeting room and the smaller ladies' meeting room were the only possible positions for the cinemas themselves. For the project to be economically viable they had to share a projection room and thus its position and the orientation of the two screening rooms was quickly established; the firm positioning of these elements dictated the arrangement of the other activities in the centre.

They then employed a process of selective demolition. They stripped the existing complex to its essential fundamental elements, which created the tabula rasa for the subsequent remodelling interventions. Thus an essential order was created. The architects did not intend to obliterate the history of the place, but to create a sense of equilibrium between the old and the new.

A series of new elements was introduced into the complex. These are obviously of the late 20th century and yet they provide a balance because their language is appropriate to the existing building and their newness does not seem out of place. This process is virtually self-directing. The courtyard in front of the meeting room has become the public foyer space and the supporting activities occupy the opened up spaces around it.

The block has been turned inside out; the primary public space instead of being by the street is situated right at the centre, accessed through long pedestrian paths. Three alleys were created, each of a different character and each with a small neon sign at the junction with the street.

Full text is available here.