wearnicehats wrote:given this,
and the takeover of NIE, along with debts incurred by defaulters and the massive cost overrun of the network upgrade I fear this baby is flowing down the drain with the bathwater
tomredwest wrote:if faux georgians are going in here hopefully they won't be as ugly as the ones on the north quays near four courts.
Morlan wrote:Do the right thing, ESB.. give us back our Georgians
ESB wrote:The ESB has told the council "that it is essential that the plan include a height range of up to eight storeys for commercial use if the final adopted policies in support of major employment and economic growth in the city centre are to be realised".
The ESB has told the council "that it is essential that the plan include a height range of up to eight storeys for commercial use if the final adopted policies in support of major employment and economic growth in the city centre are to be realised".
They cannot be serious.
Mark my words - if ESB proceed with such a vanity project, which no matter what way you want to put it, effectively takes cash away from the exchequer, citizens will take to the streets and ESB CEO Padraig McManus will be as popular as Marie Antoinette in 1789.
Frank Taylor wrote:Do they want to rebuild a Georgian facade and add 8 stories? As a setback?
DOC wrote:Sweet baby jesus! I'm sure the IGS would love that one!
Obviously ESB breif for accomodation is probably/possibly more that the site can handle given it's context.
PVC King wrote:The ESB are a utility provider and electrical infrastructure contractor; what are they doing acting as a property company at a time when office vacancy rates are in excess of 20% in Dublin?
I agree that a pastiche infill would be wrong; but would also say this proposal should be refused on the following grounds
1. Design style, it is too brash for its setting and would detract from the unity of the Fitz/Merrion mile
2. The set backs would not protect views from Merrion Square
3. There is no need for office space in Dublin due to chronic over-supply
4. The proposal is contrary to government policy on raising revenue from semi state disposals - this would very much damage the appeal and add a lot of risk to a dividend led business model
wearnicehats wrote:oh dear. here we go again
Let's all rubbish the current ESB building while clamouring for some kind of carbon copy or limp pastiche of the past. We need to get over ourselves and accept that the georgians are gone. Georgian architecture is gone. Any attempt to fill the gap using sepia tinted spectacles will result in an infil - and a poor one at that. Just take a look at anything that Robert Adam has done - it's a short step to Quinlan Terry
The IGS should be reponsible for the conservation and protection of existing buildings. They should in fact be totally against any attempt to copy the past and I am surprised that they have not objected to DCC's misguided amendment to the development plan
There is a real opportunity here and this kind of lazy backward looking thinking is only going to serve the status quo. ...
jimg wrote:Here we go again indeed. The usual narrow provincial orthodoxy regarding reconstruction. I know of nowhere outside of the UK and Ireland where the idea of reconstruction is viewed by professional architects and planners with the sort of disgust and contempt normally reserved for pedophiles, bankers and The X-factor. All over the rest of the planet reconstruction is considered a perfectly valid option in situations like this. But what would continental Europeans, for example, know about maintaining vibrant cities? (Now where is that sarcastic/rolling eyes smiley I had my hand on...)
In this particular context, it's an option which deserves very serious consideration in my opinion, not sneering dismissal.