Additional Accommodation Church of St George and St Thomas

A vibrant inner city parish needed space for meetings, language classes, children’s play and other support accommodation as well as a clearer link between the interior of the listed church and the space outside.

The project builds itself about the entrance to the church. The form is manipulated such that the intervention recedes from those entering the church, drawing them into the plan before becoming readable as an addition. The resultant poché between this entrance sequence and the fabric of the church is hollowed out to provide the required accommodation. These rooms are insulated and lined in cork to allow for their use separate to the main body of the church. With budget at a premium the construction methodology was developed from an analysis of traditional Irish boat building techniques, which allowed the use of the solid timber to act as the primary structure with no additional material support.

Constructed in solid walnut the intervention reads with the existing brick interior and yet is clearly identifiable as a contemporary addition.

Aims / Objectives Questions

1 To accommodate new space inside an existing protected structure.
2 To form a new threshold between interior and exterior.
3 To develop an affordable means of construction that would be durable and rapid to erect.
4 To make a contemporary addition in sympathy with the qualities of the existing protect structure, in line with best conservation practice and research.
5 Traditional forms of construction as a model for contemporary technologies.


Principal Investigator: Clancy Moore Architects –Colm Moore

Co-investigator(s): Andrew Clancy, Mathew O’Malley

Funding partner/ Client: Select Vestry of St George and St Thomas

Finance. €35’000

Date (start – finished) Start June 2008 – Completed December 2008

A Damascene Conversion:Additional Accommodation Church of St George and St Thomas

Additional Accommodation Church of St George and St Thomas - Critical Appraisal ‘A Damascene Conversion’ by Shane O’Toole in The Sunday Times December 2008.

To Hell with Herbert Read

Freee write manifestos by taking a pencil (or a laptop) to an historical text, usually belonging to the entwined traditions of the avant-garde and political activism. Sometimes, as Tristan Tzara advised, we choose the text according to its length, while other times, such as in this instance, we selected the text according to the conditions of the invitation that triggered the writing of the manifesto. Our manifesto ‘To Hell with Herbert Read’ was written originally as a contribution to a conference held in Manchester that took its title from Herbert Read’s book ‘To Hell with Culture’. ‘To Hell with Culture’ is a book that cuts itself off from the world whereas ‘To Hell with Herbert Read’ relocates Read’s book in a world of cultural, social, economic and political actualities that are part of common experience. Read rejects culture because he thinks it is a useless, wasteful, elitist, puffed-up, decorative supplement to the functional, factual, palpable, purposeful world of things. He is a positivist kind of modernist who presents himself as the opposite, an enemy of the status quo. He is an anarchist of a particularly bourgeois hue: he wants us all to have decent pots and pans, not the inferior ones that are supplied by market forces cheaply. Rather than taking his aim precisely to target the dominant forces of his day - the industrial capitalists and their financiers - he rejects the world and all its inhabitants. He not only despises elitist culture but popular culture too.

To Hell with Herbert Read

Freee write manifestos by taking a pencil (or a laptop) to an historical text, usually belonging to the entwined traditions of the avant-garde and political activism. Sometimes, as Tristan Tzara advised, we choose the text according to its length, while other times, such as in this instance, we selected the text according to the conditions of the invitation that triggered the writing of the manifesto. Our manifesto ‘To Hell with Herbert Read’ was written originally as a contribution to a conference held in Manchester that took its title from Herbert Read’s book ‘To Hell with Culture’. ‘To Hell with Culture’ is a book that cuts itself off from the world whereas ‘To Hell with Herbert Read’ relocates Read’s book in a world of cultural, social, economic and political actualities that are part of common experience. Read rejects culture because he thinks it is a useless, wasteful, elitist, puffed-up, decorative supplement to the functional, factual, palpable, purposeful world of things. He is a positivist kind of modernist who presents himself as the opposite, an enemy of the status quo. He is an anarchist of a particularly bourgeois hue: he wants us all to have decent pots and pans, not the inferior ones that are supplied by market forces cheaply. Rather than taking his aim precisely to target the dominant forces of his day - the industrial capitalists and their financiers - he rejects the world and all its inhabitants. He not only despises elitist culture but popular culture too.

Letter, Greensboro, NC, to George Washington Spencer, Chesterfield, SC, 1890 January 11

This letter is from G. W. Winstead and A. M. Scales to G. W. Spencer regarding Reverend Dr. J. W. Blosser.

Letter, Redwine Jackson Parish, LA, to George Washington Spencer, Chesterfield, SC, 1887 February 21

This letter is from J. J. Spencer to G. W. Spencer.

Letter, Society Hill, SC, to George Washington Spencer, Chesterfield, SC, 1892 February 22

This letter is from the King Iron Bridge Manufacturing Company to G. W. Spencer.