Carlton Cinema Development

Re: Carlton Cinema Development

Postby marmajam » Fri Aug 14, 2009 9:24 am

and that's just the prose
marmajam
Member
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 7:18 am

Re: Carlton Cinema Development

Postby OisinT » Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:55 pm

So I wonder what would be likely to replace Dublin Bus HQ then if there is no historic townhouse?
I actually quite like the modern meets old look in general and I think it's done well on OCS... they just need to raise the standard of care of the buildings and do something about the signage ... and in my opinion give Dr. Quirkey's the boot.
OisinT
Member
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 8:20 pm

Re: Carlton Cinema Development

Postby Yixian » Fri Aug 14, 2009 1:14 pm

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0814/1224252551593.html

AN TAISCE has called on Minister for the Environment John Gormley to reprimand Dublin City Council for granting permission for the high-rise Carlton development in contravention of statutory plans.

This follows a decision by An Bord Pleanála earlier this week to reject a large number of elements of Chartered Land’s scheme for the 5.5-acre site centred on the old Carlton cinema on O’Connell Street.

The development was approved by the council last December but was appealed to An Bord Pleanála. The board has yet to make its final decision on the project but wrote to Chartered Land last Monday advising that a number of elements were unacceptable.

Chief among these was a 13-storey building topped by a “park in the sky” which the board has told the developers to “omit”. It has also advised them to reduce demolition, reduce heights and use more traditional materials.


It was mentioned on the previous page that these plans would have done a lot of damage to the historic architecture on street level, and that's obviously unacceptable, but it's sad to see the "park in the sky" idea get so much flak and be basically written off.

Image

The glass and boarding of the two buildings on OCS look pretty meh, but the park looks fun, the view would be great and it's a novel idea at least.
Yixian
Member
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 7:11 pm

Re: Carlton Cinema Development

Postby OisinT » Fri Aug 14, 2009 1:16 pm

I disagree, I think the class building at least around the carlton is a vast improvement on what is there presently and would love to see that go ahead at least and worry about some of the other stuff later. e.g. the slope part can be designed and built at a later time
OisinT
Member
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 8:20 pm

Re: Carlton Cinema Development

Postby ac1976 » Fri Aug 14, 2009 2:38 pm

OisinT wrote:I disagree, I think the class building at least around the carlton is a vast improvement on what is there presently and would love to see that go ahead at least and worry about some of the other stuff later. e.g. the slope part can be designed and built at a later time


ACA designation would usually mean that there is no need to improve what is there at the moment and makes preservation obligitory.

Is it time to remove the ACA from O'Connell Street?
ac1976
Member
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:59 am

Re: Carlton Cinema Development

Postby cgcsb » Fri Aug 14, 2009 2:50 pm

The origional plan was really good. I know that it goes against the DCC developement plan but at the same time, maybe they need to get a better plan. Afterall the western side of Upper O'Connell street is awful. The sooner Dublin bus HQ is gone the better. The sooner Dr. Quirkey's is gone, the better, the sooner the old North Dublin county council offices are gone, the better, the royal Dublin hotel is gone(thank the lord). The Dublin central schem done all these things and added a new public amenity "the sky park". the whole developement reminded me of Victoria Square in Belfast which is amazing by the way. Now I fear this scheme will retire to the unbuilt Ireland section. So sad that we're so backwards :(
cgcsb
Senior Member
 
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 9:24 pm

Re: Carlton Cinema Development

Postby rumpelstiltskin » Fri Aug 14, 2009 3:00 pm

I'd say something if we were talking about a place with real architectural distinction, but the whole of O'Connell St. is architecturally mediocre, full of the most generic Victorian trash imaginable. It's grey, it's drab, it's soulless, it's dirty, it's bland. The best you could hope to do is actually to get more people on the upper half and add a bit of colour.
rumpelstiltskin
Member
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:51 pm

Re: Carlton Cinema Development

Postby OisinT » Sat Aug 15, 2009 11:53 am

ac1976 wrote:ACA designation would usually mean that there is no need to improve what is there at the moment and makes preservation obligitory.

Is it time to remove the ACA from O'Connell Street?

I wasn't aware that ACA designation was placed on Fingal Co.Co., an empty space and Dr. Quirkey's... off the top of my head I'm not sure what else they were planning on demolishing there.
Plus, if what they're demolishing is a totally derelict building with ACA protection - we need to get real. Is it worth protecting if it is just going to be derelict garbage?
OisinT
Member
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 8:20 pm

Re: Carlton Cinema Development

Postby ac1976 » Sat Aug 15, 2009 12:55 pm

OisinT wrote:I wasn't aware that ACA designation was placed on Fingal Co.Co., an empty space and Dr. Quirkey's... off the top of my head I'm not sure what else they were planning on demolishing there.
Plus, if what they're demolishing is a totally derelict building with ACA protection - we need to get real. Is it worth protecting if it is just going to be derelict garbage?


ACA applies to the whole street and surrounding area.
I totally agree Oisin, and basically it seems that the ACA order itself should be changed to allow this, and its a specific order applying to O'connell street so changing it would not affect any other ACA areas.
Otherwise the architects will have to blend the new site into the existing streets and hide all of the shiny stuff from view, oh and leave out the park and other unique features.
That would be a pity and would be DCC's silliness at fault.

http://www.dublincity.ie/Planning/HeritageConservation/Conservation/Documents/O'Connell%20Street%20ACA.pdf
ac1976
Member
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:59 am

Re: Carlton Cinema Development

Postby alonso » Sat Aug 15, 2009 12:55 pm

An ACA is not a designation for a building. It stands for Architectural Conservation Area. Protected Structure status applies to single buildings. ACA does not mean things can't get changed, they just have to do so in a responsible manner (in theory anyway)

3.10.2 Where it is proposed to demolish a structure that
contributes to the character of an ACA or to
demolish behind a retained façade, the onus should
be on the applicant to make the case for
demolition. The planning authority should consider
the effect both on the character of the area and on
any adjacent protected structures. When it is
proposed to demolish an undistinguished building
in an ACA, the proposed replacement should not be
of lesser quality or interest than the existing one
and should not adversely affect the character of the
area.

The applicant and the planning authority should
consider the material effect that that proposed
demolition may have on the character of the ACA:

a) Does the structure (or part of the structure) to
be demolished contribute to the character of
the area?


b) What effect would removal of the structure have
on the setting of other structures in the area, the
balance of an architectural composition or the
setting of any adjacent protected structures?



http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/Heritage/ArchitecturalHeritage/FileDownLoad,2204,en.pdf

so in the case of OC st, do Quirkeys and FCC contribute anything to the ACA status of the street? If not then demolish away. You have to ask yourself WHY does OCS have ACA status? What are it's attrubutes? and how would demolition affect that? I would offer that the relation between width of the street and the building heights is a key attribute, the early 20th century rebuilds, the GPO itself, the statues and monuments, the Gate/Ambassador, the Bridge etc etc - none of which will be adversely affected by demolishing these buildings
alonso
Senior Member
 
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:33 pm

Re: Carlton Cinema Development

Postby GrahamH » Sat Aug 15, 2009 11:46 pm

The status of ACAs in Dublin city has thus far proven to be greatly diminished by the manner of their implementation and their selective application. So far we have seen ACA designation being avoided entirely in areas where it is deemed to 'interfere' with proposed development, or the provisions of an active designation simply not being enforced, as seen right across the O'Connell Street ACA - in effect the ‘City Centre ACA’ given the extensive area that it covers, both north and south of the Liffey. Both of these practices run completely counter to the legal intention, proper planning objective, and civic spirit of the instrument, and make a mockery of the planning process.

The lack of precedent of a firm hand by the planning authority with the Carlton case resulted in such incredible proposals by the applicant as the demolition the elegant Garda station building at the upper end of the street - one of the most handsome post-destruction buildings on the thoroughfare and comprising the very essence of what austere 1920s O'Connell Street is all about. For a developer to think that a proposal which so patently runs counter to stated policy has a chance of getting passed, there must be something seriously wrong with the authority’s standards of policy implementation. Likewise, the precedent for whacking a whole section of 1910s terrace on Henry Street was neatly set by Dunnes’ new mega-store further down the road. In any sane city, where a planning authority sets the standards, not developers, these proposals would never be made, let alone get a look-in, never mind be granted with flying colours as in the case of Henry Street.

There are two other ABP precedents for refusal in this area. The previously mentioned Dunnes scheme, which isn’t even in the ACA, was rejected by the Board's inspector on the basis of its destructive and invasive character. The only reason it got through is that the single objector to the scheme mysteriously withdrew their objection to ABP. The whole case collapsed, and thus so too did the gracious character of one of the city’s best commercial terraces. Secondly, in a recent move that received no publicity whatsoever, the Board resoundingly rejected the proposed re-facading of Penneys next door to the GPO, submitted as part of the Arnotts redevelopment. Sailing through the DCC process with its vulgar projecting canopies, hanging ‘veils’, vast television screen glazing, myriad top-up storeys and brazen vertical signage, all directly next door to the GPO, the Board described it as not only inappropriate, but contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. Even on this, one of the most sensitive sites in the city, in an ACA, sitting beside one of the most significant buildings in the State, where design excellence is demanded, there was a willingness by the city authority to whore out O’Connell Street’s stated ‘civic design character’ for a tawdry trinket of commercial trash, so incongruous as to make the current building appear the model of elegant restraint. The applicants even had the audacity to cite the wedding cake of the former Metropole Hotel as precedent for an arrogant architectural expression on the site.

Meanwhile, the view of the Wide Streets Commission terrace on D’Olier Street from across the river is, as we speak, being grossly undermined by a nasty overly-tall development looming over its roofscape, its two missing original shopfronts are not reinstated even though it was recommended in a DCC document on shopfront design for the area, and all surrounding streets in the ACA drown in a sea of unauthorised development. The recent over-scaled Gresham Hotel redevelopment also had nearly four metres, or over a storey, lopped of its height by ABP to protect the rooflines of the ACA.

Over in the new Capel Street ACA, a similar sea of unauthorised development and dubious changes of use are taking place on a weekly basis, with the entire upper end already commandeered by Chinese restaurants, parlours and goodness knows what else. The uses within an ACA are just as important as the buildings, yet if the current pace of change on Capel Street is to be sustained, within a matter of three to four years this traditional shopping street will be unrecognisable. Even Grafton Street is worse now in terms of illegal signage, displays, postering and windows that it was when its ACA was introduced two years ago.

Aside from the fact that most of the provisions of an ACA merely promote good planning practice which should be standard across the board in an historic city centre, there remains a swath of streets still requiring designation. This includes Parliament Street, Dame Street, Lord Edward Street, College Green, Nassau Street, Dawson Street, Molesworth Street, Kildare Street, arguably St. Stephen’s Green, South William Street, the ‘red quarter’ of South Great George’s Street, Aungier Street and others. There is an extreme reluctance on the part of DCC to adopt ACAs because of the perceived drain on resources they effect. But if good planning standards existed in the first place, and swift procedures were implemented to streamline the system, this issue would not arise.

ACA as an instrument is by and large sound. It is the implementation of it by authorities that is the issue, and it is up to them to take the matter in hand, show commitment to understanding the legislation, making known stakeholders' obligations, and deal with it. It has been around for close to a decade now – there are no excuses anymore.

And alas, whatever about the problems in Dublin, ACAs outside the big smoke are truly in a different league...
GrahamH
Old Master
 
Posts: 4590
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 11:24 am
Location: Ireland

Re: Carlton Cinema Development

Postby ac1976 » Mon Aug 17, 2009 12:29 pm

ABP's order has been published on the planning app with DCC

http://www.dublincity.ie/AnitePublicDocs/00277436.pdf
ac1976
Member
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:59 am

Re: Carlton Cinema Development

Postby bal73 » Mon Aug 24, 2009 9:13 pm

I am amazed that so many people comment on a project and yet so few consider the historical significance of parts of this site, thankfully ABP did!! Has this nation forgotten the people that fought and died on these very streets for our country. 16 Moore Street is critical to the whole project and for those of you that didn't know it is a National Monument.
bal73
Member
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 9:30 pm

Re: Carlton Cinema Development

Postby jdivision » Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:53 am

But there's still a lot of suspicion that wasn't the building of interest
jdivision
Senior Member
 
Posts: 802
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:34 pm

Re: Carlton Cinema Development

Postby rashers » Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:28 am

jdivision wrote:But there's still a lot of suspicion that wasn't the building of interest


If you mean the building in Moore Street, Nurse O'Farrell picked it out as the one she walked out of to the British barricade.

It's also accepted as authentic by the National Graves Association.

More HERE.
rashers
Member
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:44 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Carlton Cinema Development

Postby jdivision » Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:39 am

Yes they say that, but there is still a suspicion it's not. The original plan by Clinton for it wasn't bad but O'Reilly's document was a bit ridiculous and then Clinton changed his mind.
jdivision
Senior Member
 
Posts: 802
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:34 pm

Re: Carlton Cinema Development

Postby fergalr » Tue Aug 25, 2009 5:29 pm

Can we run through the buildings whose architectural merit is so considerable that ABP needs to take them into account when considering other sites and proposals?

The GPO?
The last remaining Georgian building o the street up by the Royal Dublin?
Clerys?

That's it, to my mind. Then there are in diminishing order of importance:

The bank buildings dating from the reconstruction of the street in the 20s
The great slab between the Gresham, the Savoy and Burger King.
And what else?

Architectural set-piece OCS is not.
fergalr
Senior Member
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 3:33 pm
Location: Howth, Co. Dublin

Re: Carlton Cinema Development

Postby Maud » Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:06 pm

Gosh, I'm amazed at the amount of bad feeling that people have towards O'Connell St. I know it has long been a kip and there are a lot of dodgy types around there (I've had my wallet stolen 3 times on that street) but I LOVE those 20th century buildings - ones that were built by the Free State government. I never used to give a crap about Irish history but now that I know a bit about it I love walking up and down O'Connell Street. It evokes Free State, 1920s and 1930s Ireland for me. I love the Gresham, The Carlton, The Savoy, Clerys, Ulster Bank etc. Dr .Quirkeys is absolutely sickeningly disgusting, however, and the present use for the Carlton - especially in terms of the signage! - is an absolute disgrace. Buildings like that are of such social historical (if that makes sense) significance and should be considered as such. Also, I think the Dublin Bus HQ is okay, it's design represents what was happening architecturally (I presume) in it's era, it has stained glass designed by Evie Hone on it's frontage and I really like that!
Maud
Member
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:24 pm

Re: Carlton Cinema Development

Postby alonso » Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:08 pm

while not willing to wade into this debate, O Connell Street looked and felt fantastic today lunchtime. Feck all traffic, the median uncongested and the sun shining. It has changed greatly in the last 10 yerars but the north end needs urgent and widespread interventions - not demolitions - but changes
alonso
Senior Member
 
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:33 pm

Re: Carlton Cinema Development

Postby GrahamH » Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:42 pm

Yep it’s a street that now looks fabulous in the sun. It makes all the difference when there’s no traffic, or to be more precise, no buses. A real joy post-morning rush hour.

Ah fergal's off on his 1920s-bashing again ;). What did they ever do to you? They brought us such useful innovations as the morning suit, outrageously dodgy electrics, facisim, and er, depression. What's not to like?

The mishmash of O'Connell Street's building stock is what makes it interesting. An Irish solution to an Irish problem one might say - an unabashed physical manifestation of the complete inability of the Irish to come to any sort of collective decision. Bearing in mind that Regent Street, as the most obvious equivalent across the water, was being gradually rebuilt to a unified plan over the course of 1895-1925 or so - not to mention large tracts of Whitehall - it makes sense that O'Connell Street would aspire to a similar design concept in its dual bouts of reconstruction.

Image



Image

The failure of city authorities, property owners and arguably central government to realise the above vision has resulted in the charming, if underwhelming, collective of varied terraces that comprises modern-day O'Connell Street, ranging from pompous neoclassicism, swaggering (if watery) Art Deco, stripped classicism, neo-Georgian and everything in between.

The simple fact is that even if those 'incomplete' parts as survived destruction were torn down today to attempt some level of unification, the 1910s and 1920s buildings themselves are still so varied in style as to make such a scheme near-impossible. Likewise, the latter’s grandeur and general aura of old-fashioned civic dutifulness, even if dubious in parts, collectively often makes for a surprisingly monumental streetscape. Many of these buildings are of merit, with a refreshing clarity of design; they simply require closer inspection.

The problem with the Upper O'Connell Street west and part of Lower O'Connell Street west is not so much their modest architectural style, as their buildings' standard of presentation. Were efforts made to ensure quality maintenance of upper floors, the removal of myriad inappropriate accretions, and some attempts undertaken to return coherence to the last surviving Wide Streets Commission buildings at the lower end of the street, real progress could be made. And yes, that even includes Burger King in all its arch-windowed glory. Far better to retain what remains of the original Sackville Mall townhouse and WSC commercial buildings' footprints, keeping that connection with the origins and later development of the street, while making real commitment to improving its appearance.

(I knew this Carlton/O'Connell Street thread divide would get messy eventually!)
GrahamH
Old Master
 
Posts: 4590
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 11:24 am
Location: Ireland

Re: Carlton Cinema Development

Postby StephenC » Mon Nov 23, 2009 5:05 pm

The revised Dublin Central proposals were recently submitted to the Board. Anyone see them yet?
User avatar
StephenC
Old Master
 
Posts: 2497
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Carlton Cinema Development

Postby Yixian » Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:53 pm

StephenC wrote:The revised Dublin Central proposals were recently submitted to the Board. Anyone see them yet?


Would love to see them...
Yixian
Member
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 7:11 pm

Re: Carlton Cinema Development

Postby lauder » Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:18 am

StephenC wrote:The revised Dublin Central proposals were recently submitted to the Board. Anyone see them yet?


Saw the whole lot at a presentation by Chartered Land a few weeks ago. Not too impressive, the entrance is around half the width and faced in redbrick. Bland. Chartered Land lads not too happy about it but said its the best they could get.

Il see if I can find a few images to post.
lauder
Member
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 1:49 pm

Re: Carlton Cinema Development

Postby StephenC » Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:15 am

Yes I had heard they were pretty poor. They seem to be overly constrained by the ACA.
User avatar
StephenC
Old Master
 
Posts: 2497
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Carlton Cinema Development

Postby PVC King » Wed Nov 25, 2009 10:07 pm

GrahamH wrote:Yep it’s a street that now looks fabulous in the sun. It makes all the difference when there’s no traffic, or to be more precise, no buses. A real joy post-morning rush hour.

Ah fergal's off on his 1920s-bashing again ;). What did they ever do to you? They brought us such useful innovations as the morning suit, outrageously dodgy electrics, facisim, and er, depression. What's not to like?

The mishmash of O'Connell Street's building stock is what makes it interesting. An Irish solution to an Irish problem one might say - an unabashed physical manifestation of the complete inability of the Irish to come to any sort of collective decision. Bearing in mind that Regent Street, as the most obvious equivalent across the water, was being gradually rebuilt to a unified plan over the course of 1895-1925 or so - not to mention large tracts of Whitehall - it makes sense that O'Connell Street would aspire to a similar design concept in its dual bouts of reconstruction.

Image



Image

The failure of city authorities, property owners and arguably central government to realise the above vision has resulted in the charming, if underwhelming, collective of varied terraces that comprises modern-day O'Connell Street, ranging from pompous neoclassicism, swaggering (if watery) Art Deco, stripped classicism, neo-Georgian and everything in between.

The simple fact is that even if those 'incomplete' parts as survived destruction were torn down today to attempt some level of unification, the 1910s and 1920s buildings themselves are still so varied in style as to make such a scheme near-impossible. Likewise, the latter’s grandeur and general aura of old-fashioned civic dutifulness, even if dubious in parts, collectively often makes for a surprisingly monumental streetscape. Many of these buildings are of merit, with a refreshing clarity of design; they simply require closer inspection.

The problem with the Upper O'Connell Street west and part of Lower O'Connell Street west is not so much their modest architectural style, as their buildings' standard of presentation. Were efforts made to ensure quality maintenance of upper floors, the removal of myriad inappropriate accretions, and some attempts undertaken to return coherence to the last surviving Wide Streets Commission buildings at the lower end of the street, real progress could be made. And yes, that even includes Burger King in all its arch-windowed glory. Far better to retain what remains of the original Sackville Mall townhouse and WSC commercial buildings' footprints, keeping that connection with the origins and later development of the street, while making real commitment to improving its appearance.

(I knew this Carlton/O'Connell Street thread divide would get messy eventually!)


What needs to be considered when discussing the renaisance of Regent Street are that one Land Owner (CE) owns most of the street and many adjoining ownerships. Whilst from a visual perspective all one sees is perfectly restored upper floors and stone shopfronts there has been a huge amount of remodling work to make it stack up in financial terms.

What CE have done is amalgamate many ground and first floors of buildings previously sub-divided; their aim is entirely commercial i.e. to create MSU's or multiple space units for International retailers many of whom are doing a first UK store. The in house fund manager behind most of these initiatives is a very switched on individual who has turned down a number of very lucrative deals to get the retail mix right.

Getting the right type of footfall into O'Connell Street is 90% of the battle; the current retail mix excluding Cleary's, Easons and Pennys are largely made up of two groups i.e. convenience stores/ take aways and shit goods stores such as Carrolls; these uses do not generate footfall and mainly serve two groups firstly; people in transit from other employment / retail clusters to public transport or Multi-story carparks or the second group who are tourists spilling out from Temple Bar which in recent years appears to have colonised Bachelors Walk.

To bring gems like the Hammam buildings back into serious use; you need to generate the footfall in O'C St beyond the needle; there is one option on the table to do that which is credible, costed and deliverable. There is much talking to be done by those that have the street's best interest at heart.
PVC King
 

PreviousNext

Return to Ireland