GrahamH wrote:Everything that was required of this scheme has been achieved. The Bord delivers yet again.
PLANS FOR a 13-storey building topped by a â€œpark in the skyâ€ at the heart of the proposed Carlton Cinema development on Oâ€™Connell Street have been rejected by An Bord PleanÃ¡la.
The board has directed developers Chartered Land to significantly scale back the overall plans for the development of the 5.5-acre site in the centre of Dublin city, and omit the 13-storey building, before it makes a final decision on permission.
The scheme pays â€œinsufficient respectâ€ to the classical form of Oâ€™Connell Street, involves too much demolition, and conflicts with several statutory plans for the area, the board has said.
Chartered Land, which is controlled by shopping centre developer Joe Oâ€™Reilly, was granted permission for the commercial and residential development, centred on the site of the former Carlton Cinema, by Dublin City Council last December.
This was subject to a large number of appeals to An Bord PleanÃ¡la, including several from groups seeking to protect the National Monument at number 16 Moore Street which was used by the leaders of the 1916 Rising. A public hearing on the development was held last April.
The board has this week written to Chartered Land seeking 16 significant modifications, which must be submitted before November 2nd. Chief among these is the omission of the â€œiconic buildingâ€ â€“ a 35-metre structure topped by a sloping public park, which was to be the focal point of the scheme. This element should be removed from the plans and the redesigned buildings should not exceed the height of the Arnottâ€™s scheme â€“ a neighbouring development for which the board has approved a seven-storey scale.
Despite having been granted permission from Dublin City Council, the board notes that the development is in conflict with several of the councilâ€™s statutory plans including the Architectural Conservation Area designation. The proposed scheme would disrupt the historic street pattern and was â€œover-scaledâ€ in relation to the historic buildings around it.
The revised development should retain the original street pattern of the area, the extent of demolition should be reduced, and the existing buildings on Henry Street and Moore Street should be substantially retained.
The board also wants a redesign of the entrance to the development from Oâ€™Connell Street. The current proposals are for a 35-metre wide entrance partially fronted by a screen of thin, paired columns topped by a flat canopy, with the entrance buildings cut on a diagonal representing a funnel shape.
This entrance should be reduced to the width of Henry Street and set at right angles to Oâ€™Connell Street following â€œa traditional formatâ€ the board said. The entrance buildings should also use more traditional materials it said. Parking for the development should be reduced from 1,100 spaces to not more than 500.
While the letter imposes huge changes, it does state that the site is â€œgeneral suitable for the type of development proposedâ€, suggesting that permission would be granted if the necessary modifications are made.
Â© The Irish Times
Yixian wrote:Seems like a great idea just thrown out the window, they could have really made that special.
rumpelstiltskin wrote:Oh well god forbid we should do anything different - a park in the sky, just imagine! In Calgary, Canada, there's a park indoors on the fourth level of the skyscraper, and it's marketed as a tourist attraction and is very popular.
ac1976 wrote:Does anyone have a link to ABP's letter?
I assume they rejected the park in the sky because it looked silly and was inaccesable being in the sky, Parks are usually at ground level.
I think there were also objections that the restaurants were at the top levles of the development aswell and hopefully ABP have rejected on these grounds.
It would be great to see this go ahead with some rivisions addressing these and the other issues brought up in the process.
OisinT wrote:wait... what's wrong with having a restaurant at the top again? I'd eat there.
rumpelstiltskin wrote:Will you do everyone a favour and shut the fuck up about tourists. Most of those cities that you want Dublin to copy didn't end up like they did by catering for tourists, they did it by catering for their own citizens.
thebig C wrote:Quel surprize. I generally hate developers and their ilk. But, this could have been a real attraction for Dublin. Of course arguements like that are wasted on the closed minds in ABP.
tommyt wrote:. . . . people on here know there is a poisonous cabal of pseuds and spoofers trading as our neo-urbanist betters & overlords in Wood Quay (with some honourable exceptions I know).
aj wrote:"Fingal will be gone in its entirety and Dublin Bus re-faced as it is a Protected Structure with a near-fully fledged townhouse surviving behind its deceptive curtain wall. Just a correction from earlier, the RDH has vanished in its entirety, with only the gable walls left standing for the benefit of No. 42 and the AIB"
graham I am intrigue about the dublin bus building I thought it was pure 60s have you any more details of what has survived of the townhouses ?
surely if they are being refaced tey should have their facades restored
Bago wrote:souless characterless glass alluminium chrome birch lavender highstreet brandnames elevators walkways cobblelock paving plastic signs ventilation shafts contempary catalogue street furniture clipped topiary metal pots and a wet yourself tower element.....christ, STW snowglobe valhalla.