johnglas wrote:gunter: can you live with the revisions, or is it the best of a bad (if slightly more sensitive) lot? Just how obtrusive would the 'extension' be from street level?
It's pretty much everything we asked for johnglas, total retention of all the buildings, not just some facade graft, so it would probably be a bit unfair to go looking for more, however . . .
rumpelstiltskin wrote:If they're consistent with their own record and call for the top storey to be lopped off, and if they make the accurate and detailed refurbishment of facades a condition for the permission, then it could be the best possible outcome.
I'm not even sure it needs the top storey knocked off, the office block is set back about 5m behind the rear elevation of the existing structures, I don't think it will appear in the streetscape at all, unless in the distance from the Cornmarket direction, which'd be fine.
I do agree with rumpel that they could go the extra seven yards and refurbish the street facades. It was the non-descript facades with their plate glass, proportion-killing, two pane windows that got us into this situation in the first place. Restoring the facades of 32, 33 & 36 back to the original 18th century brickwork and reinstating what would have been the original design of multi-paned windows (with or without Graham's shimmering crown glass) would do wonders for this stretch of Thomas Street and lift the setting of St. Catherine's no end.
Incidentally, one grainy photograph has emerged (through the good offices of Peter Walsh)of the Frawley's streetscape with what looks like a simple large hipped roof on no. 36, I think I'd like to see a bit more research done on that and pending the results, have the pitched roof reinstated on this significant merchant townhouse.
One other reservation I have with the scheme, an element which is unchanged from the first proposal, is the over-bearing office-block treatment of the west elevation to St. Catherine's Lane West. This is a very narrow cobblestoned laneway that I use every couple of days going to Lidl, it's rough for sure, but it has potential charm. The proposed elevation is very HKR and surely a small bit of modulation wouldn't go amiss. In fact the east elevation, which no one will ever see, looks far more subtle!
Elevation to St. Catherine's Lane West, with the de Blacam+Meagher block on the right.
The revised east elevation which largely addresses the back of adjoining buildings.
All in all, this revised scheme would be a massive step forward, it's only a pity that they're putting it forward so grudgingly.
The applicant's planning consultants make abundantly clear that they want their original scheme and this is just a fall-back in case Bord PleanÃ¡la take a wobble, and again they state boldly that ''. . . the individual buildings are of no historical or architectural merit in their own right.''
If they are not authoritively dissuaded from this view by Bord PleanÃ¡la and the revised scheme permitted with stringent conditions, there is every danger that they'll say ''OK we'll do this, but it will be half-ass'd''.
. . . that silence Devin, was the sound of gunter biding his time