Carlton Cinema Development

[cgcsb]

RE: the Carlton, I think they have permission for it without the most interesting bit (the viewing platform). And the Grande entrence has been reduced to just a few metres wide, other than that the project seems to be a bit stalled. Although there are a few buildres and some scaffolding doing something in a giant hole in the ground where it's supposed to go, but the Carlto building itself remains.

[Yixian]

RE: the Carlton, I think they have permission for it without the most interesting bit (the viewing platform). And the Grande entrence has been reduced to just a few metres wide, other than that the project seems to be a bit stalled. Although there are a few buildres and some scaffolding doing something in a giant hole in the ground where it's supposed to go, but the Carlto building itself remains.

Just tell me something is going to replace it at some point soon..

[cgcsb]

well they're doing something in that hole in the ground next to it so I'd imagine it'll eventually be built, but not in it's orgional format, which was more impressive than Belfast's Victoria Square. The Facade of the Carlton was supposed to be a keeper from the origional plans, it's all kinda up in the air at the moment.

[Yixian]

More impressive than Viccy Square aye?

Well, this is OCS for gods sake, if there's a street in Ireland on which to pull out the stops a little, it's freaking OCS..

[cgcsb]

I agree, DCC and ABP don't

[bal73]

Yes I had heard they were pretty poor. They seem to be overly constrained by the ACA.

I have seen the latest plans and the differences are the garden in the sky is gone, the entrance onto O Connell Street is narrower and some building facades kept on Moore Street but they still have four stories of a car park under the National Monument and only rebuilding the streets, not keeping the historical streets. really disappointing!! Chartered Lands have missed their last opportunity here.

[OisinT]

I've been away for a few weeks, but I got the aircoach to OCS today and noticed some new thing going on at that stupid 4D (or whatever) ride. Please tell me they're not extending Dr. Quirkey's

[lauder]

News renders submitted to ABP, show much diminished entrance from O'Connell Street, no Park in the Sky. Pretty bland to be honest compared to the original plan.

[markpb]

They're pretty dire. Why do they need to break both the horizontal *and* vertical street lines? What on earth is that god awful structure encompassing the Carlton front? There's not much point keeping the existing front if they're going to destroy it like that.

[lauder]

Original scheme a tad more inspired.



An Bord Pleanala Scheme

[GrahamH]

Dear oh dear oh dear.

So finally, can we please put RIAI awards and AAI handouts to bed? They are not reality. This is reality. This is the coalface of architecture in Ireland in 2010. This is the standard of what gets lodged with planning authorities every day of the week. And it's bloody ignorant.

Watch the spinning on this now and how 'this is what you get with ACAs', rather than 'this is what you get with unimaginative architects'.

[gunter]

That's unbelievable.

They've made the Carlton look like it was designed by Albert Speer.

and the rest of it . . . what's the theme? . . . . . Germania meets Portlaoise?

Jesus Christ

[reddy]

Jesus. They're shockin alright. The original scheme had its problem but this looks like they've just given up.

The only justification for breaking the parapet height of the street here would be if the Carlton as housing a major civic building - ie the abbey.

[missarchi]

These aca's mean nothing... because they don't have one very simple diagram....
So many of the aca's are vague...
Words do not mean anything... simple diagrams do...
rescode you should have concode

[JoePublic]

Dr Quirkeys gets a reprieve.

I don't see why they changed the carlton facade proposal from the second incarnation, as still seen (for the time being) on http://www.dublincentral.ie. I know setbacks are none too popular on archiseek, but its gotta be better than that boxy shite

[cgcsb]

OMG the origional plan was fine, the wide entrance was worthy of our city's main boulevard. The new plan is essentially a pokey gap in the buildings, it looks almost afraid of it's own existance. The old proposal screamed confidence, this screams "bleh"

I find thaat I keep looking at and looking away, it's like watching the exorcist.

[Cathal Dunne]

This is the new and actual plan for the site? Gods above, it looks terrible. The building to be developed around the Carlton looks drab, depressing and ugly. The street covering is skimpy and derisory. The new streetscape looks as if it could be anywhere and does not inspire confidence. I wasn't fond of the previous submission and I wasn't convinced that the Park in the Sky could work but it is far superior to this effort. At least it had a bit of panache and would contribute something to Dublin's fabric. The Park in the Sky could in fact be made to work and become a new focus for the city. Unfortunately, with the new plan, this will not come to pass.

[cgcsb]

If that building on the left of the entrance was painted cream or magnolia and had a rounded corner instead of a square one, it would be far less offensive to the eye

[spoil_sport]

The first scheme wasn't perfect, but at least it had balls.

Absolutely shameful.

And despite the awfulness of that attic story on the Carlton, what is more concerning is what's peeking up behind the buildings to the right of it.

Is this for real? Where did that image come from?

[Quillber]

that gotta be a joke..

[Bago]

More like Coventry city centre meets portlaoise! if they can only think in shopping centre terms i think i'd prefer see some inoffensive pastiche please.

[johnglas]

'...was painted cream or magnolia...' ffs, this is Main St Dublin! Reminds me of the rebuilt Plymouth after the Luftwaffe had bombed the original; clearly, DCC doesn't need the bombers...

[GrahamH]

So I think it is agreed amongst pretty much everyone - and from all ends of the architecture and planning spectrum on this website - that this is categorically not what O'Connell Street and this new city quarter warrants or deserves in design terms. Therefore a systems failure has to be identified, either in our planning process or in the architectural profession, or both.

Developers and some architects have often been heard in recent years waxing on about overly-prescriptive planning laws, yet surely the outcome of the above is precisely the result of a lack of clout and clarity in planning policy? Or more pointedly, the erroneous interpretation of planning policy? Alternatively, one can argue that the relative 'freedom' offered by planners in this case was to enable architects to come up with imaginative and creative design solutions in accordance with best design practice. Architects, after all, know best when it comes to design - right? Why shouldn't they be given the rudder on this one? Logic would dictate that they should.

The reality is that we see both professions culpable in this:

In spite of some worthy Additional Information modifications made by Dubln City Council, an effectively illegal interpretation of the O'Connell Street ACA under the 2000 Planning Act led to the initial grant for the scheme by DCC: -1 for planners.

The initial proposal was over-scaled, crudely integrated with its host environment and ignorant of existing building grain and street patterns: -1 to architects, and -1 to planners for granting it.

An Bord Pleanála then gets called in to clean up the mess as usual. They enforce planning policy and civic design character by decree - hardly the best method of producing creative design solutions: both +1 and -1 to the planning system.

Architects come back with a thoroughly dismal redesign that could not express in bricks and mortar the concept of a mean-spirited, begrudging sulk any more if it tried. The O'Connell Street frontage attempts little distinguished sense of urbanity or clarity of expression, never mind anything that approaches a civic-minded outlook for the first major intervention on the capital's main throughfare in nearly a century: -1 to architects

An Bord Pleanála now reassesses, and grants permission on the basis of a raft of conditional redesign measures that attempt to address the refusal of the promoters to engage in a meaningful manner with the critical planning and design issues at stake. The result is a compromise that does nobody any favours, and where the energy that is expended in the whole arduous process would have been immeasurably better spent concentrated on a thoughtful and engaging urban design proposal - critically, had the guidance been there from the outset.

[cgcsb]

'...was painted cream or magnolia...' ffs, this is Main St Dublin! Reminds me of the rebuilt Plymouth after the Luftwaffe had bombed the original; clearly, DCC doesn't need the bombers...

I was just trying to make the best of a bad situation. Of course I agree the new entrance lacks any confidence, imagination or common sense. The orange block on the left is paticularly offensive and it's square edge will hinder pedestrian movements to the south.

[rumpelstiltskin]

So I think it is agreed amongst pretty much everyone - and from all ends of the architecture and planning spectrum on this website - that this is categorically not what O'Connell Street and this new city quarter warrants or deserves in design terms. Therefore a systems failure has to be identified, either in our planning process or in the architectural profession, or both.

Developers and some architects have often been heard in recent years waxing on about overly-prescriptive planning laws, yet surely the outcome of the above is precisely the result of a lack of clout and clarity in planning policy? Or more pointedly, the erroneous interpretation of planning policy? Alternatively, one can argue that the relative 'freedom' offered by planners in this case was to enable architects to come up with imaginative and creative design solutions in accordance with best design practice. Architects, after all, know best when it comes to design - right? Why shouldn't they be given the rudder on this one? Logic would dictate that they should.

The reality is that we see both professions culpable in this:

In spite of some worthy Additional Information modifications made by Dubln City Council, an effectively illegal interpretation of the O'Connell Street ACA under the 2000 Planning Act led to the initial grant for the scheme by DCC: -1 for planners.

The initial proposal was over-scaled, crudely integrated with its host environment and ignorant of existing building grain and street patterns: -1 to architects, and -1 to planners for granting it.

An Bord Pleanála then gets called in to clean up the mess as usual. They enforce planning policy and civic design character by decree - hardly the best method of producing creative design solutions: both +1 and -1 to the planning system.

Architects come back with a thoroughly dismal redesign that could not express in bricks and mortar the concept of a mean-spirited, begrudging sulk any more if it tried. The O'Connell Street frontage attempts little distinguished sense of urbanity or clarity of expression, never mind anything that approaches a civic-minded outlook for the first major intervention on the capital's main throughfare in nearly a century: -1 to architects

An Bord Pleanála now reassesses, and grants permission on the basis of a raft of conditional redesign measures that attempt to address the refusal of the promoters to engage in a meaningful manner with the critical planning and design issues at stake. The result is a compromise that does nobody any favours, and where the energy that is expended in the whole arduous process would have been immeasurably better spent concentrated on a thoughtful and engaging urban design proposal - critically, had the guidance been there from the outset.

Well this is hardly only being identified now. It's a common motif with big projects - something ambitious but crude is rejected, but then something less crude and infinitely more bland is accepted, thus making most stuff built in Dublin bland.

These are some of the problems:
-There is inconsistency in deciding what is appropriate for Dublin's streetscapes. An Bord Pleanala and DCC are not on the same page, and the latter do not even adhere to their own guidelines.
-Dublin City Council seem content to grant permission to crude projects if they're exciting enough.
-An Bord Pleanala gets the final say, and it's more concerned with maintaining the blandness of Dublin, than with ensuring innovative and exciting architecture.

The system doesn't work. Nobody is ensuring the architectural quality of the buildings granted permission. An Bord Pleanala operates like a damage limitation team, trying desperately to hold on to the limited heritage left in Dublin, rather than creating an innovative fusion of old and new. In my view, the guidelines about building in areas like O'Connell St. need to be less restrictive, both for ABP and DCC, and the counterbalance needs to be that the whole process is overseen by some sort of architectural quality board, which will have a coherent and forward-thinking vision for Dublin. It is, after all, the capital.