46 February-March 2026
February-March 2026 PB
By Michael Smith
M
ichael McDowell’s recent
opinion piece in The Irish
Times rehearses, with
characteristic confidence,
a series of amateur claims
about Wood Quay that do not withstand
scrutiny. Central among them is the assertion
— now widely repeated — that Dublin City
Council must vacate the Civic Oces to
comply with European climate obligations. As
already established, this is simply wrong as a
matter of EU law. But the deeper problem with
McDowell’s article is that it treats the question
as though it were merely architectural or
technical, when in reality it goes to the future
of Dublin’s city centre, the credibility of its
civic governance, and the lessons of the city’s
own post-war history.
Ocials in the Council have accused a small
number of senior executives of proposing
a move of the Civic Oces to Kevin Street,
without consulting their colleagues.
Village has learned that the plan was
apparently exposed by agents acting for the
receiver over lands at Kevin Street, called
Camden Yard, who leaked the story of City
Council interest perhaps with a view to
precipitating a bidding war.
Once the spurious EU-law argument is
stripped away, the proposed move from
Wood Quay to Camden Yard looks less like
inevitability and more like a choice — and a
poor one. Camden Yard may technically be
described as “inner city” (between the canals),
but it is not part of Dublin’s historic civic core. It
lies on the edge of the centre, in a gentrifying
inner suburb with no tradition of civic authority.
Moving the Council’s principal oces there
would amount to decentralisation in all but
name, hollowing out the most symbolically
and functionally important — and most fragile
— stretch of the city. Would City Hall, currently
a stonesthrow from the Civic Oces, follow it?
This matters because Dublin can ill aord
further institutional retreat from its centre. The
inner city already bears the scars of vacancy,
stalled projects, and long-running dereliction.
To vacate the most prominent civic site in the
capital, with no clear, funded, and time-bound
plan for immediate reuse, would risk years —
probably a decade — of decline at exactly the
wrong location. It is hard to see how facilitating
prolonged uncertainty and blight on the
quays can be defended as good urban policy,
particularly when it is paired with the proposal
to spend very large sums on an expensive,
arguably unsustainable new oce building in
an area that doesn’t need it.
As regards archaeology, it is not clear what
the interntion is for the part of the Wood Quay
site that remains unexcavated. More generally,
Pat Wallace, the former Director of the Wood
Quay Excavation and the National Museum of
Ireland, said “They compromised 1,000 years
of Dublin’s heritage to get those buildings
built and now after 40 years, they’re not good
enough! That’s just not conscionable”.
There is, of course, a more nuanced
discussion to be had about how the Council
uses space. A significant proportion of
Council sta now work remotely or in hybrid
arrangements. That reality weakens the
argument for a single, large, purpose-built
headquarters and opens up more flexible
possibilities. There is also a credible case
for replacing the least successful elements
of the Wood Quay complex — the bunker-
like structures that have never worked well
urbanistically — with high-quality social
housing, integrated carefully into the fabric
of the centre. But that argument cuts against,
not in favour of, abandoning the entire civic
presence on the site.
It is also striking how readily critics dismiss
the riverfront building itself. The quayfront
oces designed by Scott Tallon Walker are
not some ancient relic. They are little more
than thirty years old, were state of the art
when completed, and remain distinguished
examples of late twentieth-century civic
architecture. They, along with the Custom
House and the Four Courts fill the role of great
public presence which contributes to the
balance of the quays which once primarily
comprised contrasting domestic-scale four-
storey buildings, lined up like soldiers. In any
other European capital, such a building would
be a candidate for retrofit and adaptation,
not casual disposal. Cities such as Paris,
Berlin, and Madrid have consistently chosen
to modernise and repurpose central civic
buildings rather than abandon the core to
market forces.
Experience elsewhere should also give
Dublin pause. London’s decision to move its
principal civic headquarters to Newham is
now widely regarded as a mistake, weakening
the symbolic presence of city government
and doing little to strengthen the centre it
left behind. It is telling that this experiment
has not been emulated by EU capitals, where
civic institutions are understood as anchors of
urban life rather than mere oce functions.
Underlying all of this is a question of trust.
Dublin has been here before. During the
original Wood Quay controversy, assurances
were given, expertise was invoked, and
irreversible decisions were made in the face
of public concern — decisions that are now
almost universally regretted. It would be naïve
to assume that the City Council’s management
or elected members are any more deserving of
blind confidence today than they were then.
When sweeping claims are made about legal
necessity, sustainability, or inevitability, they
deserve to be tested, not waved through.
What is at stake is not nostalgia for Wood
Quay, nor indierence to climate obligations,
but a basic principle of urban governance:
capital cities need civic buildings and indeed
civic fundtions at their heart. Dublin’s Inner
City — reeling from recent riots and still
fractious and declining — does not suer from
an excess of public presence in its centre; it
suers from too little. To spend heavily on
a new headquarters on the margins, while
risking long-term dereliction on the quays
and misrepresenting EU law to justify it,
would be to repeat old mistakes under a faux
green banner.
Cynic offices
ENVIRONMENT
Village_FebMarch26.indb 46Village_FebMarch26.indb 46 03/02/2026 08:2403/02/2026 08:24
