Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Yes
66
29%
No
163
71%
 
Total votes : 229

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby sw101 » Thu Oct 25, 2007 2:36 am

awful muck. shame on the architects.
sw101
 
Posts: 874
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 3:01 pm

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby cubix » Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:34 pm

Am i the only one that likes this??
its an improvement on whats there, thats for sure
Image
cubix
Member
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 5:31 pm

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby notjim » Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:58 pm

But cubix, wouldn't the things you like about it be so much more likable without the original façades awkwardly positioned in front? Surely this is a powerful new building badly compromised by a façade retention. In other-words, don't you agree this would be better built elsewhere: again, Dublin is not short of brown field sites that could take a substantial powerful building, it is just that this isn't one and the shoehorning of a distinctive modern building into the site leaves something that is awkward and inelegant, but which still requires considerable vandalism.
notjim
 
Posts: 1708
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 1:00 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby GrahamH » Sun Oct 28, 2007 12:47 am

For the massive impact created, allbeit with its saucer base, the skypod is remarkably small inside.
GrahamH
Old Master
 
Posts: 4592
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 11:24 am
Location: Ireland

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby Peter Fitz » Mon Oct 29, 2007 11:33 am

you're right, the glazed pod itself is tiny, its the extensive plateau around the base that does the damage - surely the saucer will obstruct views of the river & the entire quay side with only the spire, liberty hall etc. visible from the recessed 'sky catcher'.
Peter Fitz
 

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby Devin » Wed Oct 31, 2007 1:07 am

Kind of like one of those collars dogs wear when they injure themselves!! :
Attachments
conehead.jpg
conehead.jpg (15.18 KiB) Viewed 4669 times
Devin
Old Master
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 10:27 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby Peter Fitz » Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:02 am

nice one Devin :D
Peter Fitz
 

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby lostexpectation » Thu Nov 01, 2007 2:01 pm

yeah your tight about how small the pod is, that see any reason for the ellipse to go out so far it doesn't affect the heating function
lostexpectation
Senior Member
 
Posts: 566
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:38 pm

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby shamrockmetro » Sun Nov 04, 2007 1:53 pm

some better photos...
Attachments
IMxz 051.jpg
IMxz 051.jpg (112.19 KiB) Viewed 4392 times
IMxz 052.jpg
IMxz 052.jpg (91.38 KiB) Viewed 4384 times
IMxz 053.jpg
IMxz 053.jpg (101.44 KiB) Viewed 4371 times
IMxz 055.jpg
IMxz 055.jpg (90 KiB) Viewed 4359 times
IMxz 059.jpg
IMxz 059.jpg (131.72 KiB) Viewed 4367 times
shamrockmetro
Member
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby notjim » Sun Nov 18, 2007 1:40 pm

According to the Sunday Times this has got past DCC provided they pay a MEur to the metro and allow public access to the bar and tea room: sadly no online version because they don't put the Irish edition on line as far as I can see.
notjim
 
Posts: 1708
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 1:00 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby notjim » Sun Nov 18, 2007 1:52 pm

So its on dublincity.ie, it is application number 1394/07

The contribution to the Metro is actually 175,514.55 Euro in addition to 963,041.00 Euro to the council.

There is an archaeological condition too:

7. The developer shall facilitate the planning authority in the archaeological appraisal of the site and in preserving and recording or otherwise protecting archaeological materials or features, which may exist within the site. In this regard, the developer shall: a) Notify the planning authority in writing at least four weeks prior to the commencement of any site operation ( including hydrological and geotechnical investigations) relating to the proposed development b) Employ a suitably qualified archaeologist prior to the commencement of development. The archaeologist shall access the site and monitor all site development works. The assessment shall address the following issues: i) The nature and location of archaeological material on the site, and ii) The impact of the proposed development on such archaeological material. Prior to commencement of development, a report containing the results of the assessment shall be submitted to the planning authority. Arising from this assessment, the developer shall agree with the planning authority details regarding any further archaeological requirements (including, if necessary, archaeological excavation) prior to the commencement of construction works. Reason: In order to conserve the archaeological heritage of the site and to secure the preservation of any remains which may exist within the site.
notjim
 
Posts: 1708
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 1:00 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby hutton » Sun Nov 18, 2007 4:36 pm

Sunday Times arent the only ones to be reporting on it...this thread gets mentioned in the last line :)

Todays Sindo wrote:U2 finally get go-ahead for €150m hotel plan

Experts outraged at revamp nod

By Larissa Nolan
Sunday November 18 2007


U2 have finally found what they're looking for -- planning permission for a €150m revamp of the Clarence Hotel.

The rock supergroup have been given the green light by Dublin City Council to go ahead with controversial plans to turn the landmark property in Temple Bar into what Bono claims will be "the most spectacular hotel in Europe". His friend, former US President Bill Clinton, stayed at the hotel last night.

But conservationists and environmentalists have expressed outrage at the decision to allow Bono and The Edge to demolish four neighbouring listed buildings and erect a spaceship-style atrium on top.

Under planning law, council's should only give permission to demolish listed buildings "in exceptional circumstances".

Michael Smith, environmentalist and former head of An Taisce, the national heritage trust, has blasted the council's decision as "illegal" and accused U2 of "the biggest demolition of protected structures in Ireland in years".

Even the council's own City Conservation Architect, Clare Hogan, advised a refusal.

Ms Hogan said in her report, which was included in decision documents, that the planned development did not meet legal requirements. "The band were unable to provide exceptional circumstances as required under the Planning and Development Act 2000, to allow demolition of protected structures."

"The decision is reminiscent of the climate of 1960s speculative development."

Michael Smith -- who has been against the development since U2 applied for permission earlier this year -- said Clare Hogan's comments are damning.

"The planning authorities clearly ignored the good advice of the City Conservation Architect. She is blatantly saying that this should not have been given permission and recommended a refusal.

"Essentially, her comments say that permission in this case would be illegal. And it is."

However, senior executive planner Anthony Abbot-King felt the scheme was "an exemplary design solution" and that the owners have shown the existence of exceptional circumstances for economic reasons and through the proposal to reinstate facades, as well as the need to rejuvenate the west end of Temple Bar.

He also considered that the four Georgian buildings were in "poor to very poor condition".

It is expected that An Taisce, as well as the Irish Georgian Society, will soon make an appeal to An Bord Pleanala.

And Michael Smith has vowed that, should An Bord Pleanala give the go ahead, he will personally challenge the permission in the courts.

Co-owners Bono and the Edge plan to demolish the Georgian buildings and transform the 44-bedroom boutique hotel into a 141-bedroom, five-star hotel and spa complete with signature restaurant, bar and fresh food market.

The "skycatcher atrium" on top will be visible from all over the city.

The hotel was designed by the internationally-renowned architect Norman Foster. A recent online poll found that three-quarters of architects on website Archiseek believed the development should not be given permission.

- Larissa Nolan.
hutton
Senior Member
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: NAMA HQ

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby stuarthart » Mon Nov 19, 2007 4:51 pm

I would just like to post my disgust at the recent approval of the Clarence scheme. Dublin City Council are being bought by a pop band that are turning Dublin from its heritage into something from their Popmart identity. Just look at "Sir" Foster's "landmark" tower - what a joke. Let's cap it all off and stick a big lemon/mirrorball at the top of it.

U2 and Foster associates are making a mockery of Dublin City, a city trying to modernize (which is all perfectly admirable, but not this way).

Its a disgrace that listed buildings can be simply ignored and knocked.

The people of Dublin should stand up and let their voices be heard on these issues before the city loses its identity forever.

As a student of architecture, it saddens me greatly to see what is happening in my hometown and that the safety measures for protected buildings are failing.

Sorry to be so negative but I am upset.
stuarthart
Member
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 10:36 am

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby lostexpectation » Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:47 pm

retaining the facade is just a facade, tis not good enough

hard to find this thread hidden in polls
lostexpectation
Senior Member
 
Posts: 566
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:38 pm

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby lostexpectation » Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:57 pm

http://www.breakingnews.ie/entertainment/mhmhsnkfmhql/

U2 anger environmentalists

« PREVIOUS NEXT »
Rockers U2 have angered environmentalists in Ireland with plans to build an unsightly skyscraper in Dublin.

Building heritage group An Taisce has criticised the group for its plans to demolish the Clarence Hotel - which the band owns - and redevelop the site through a €136m investment programme.

The organisation has called for an investigation into the so-called 'U2 Tower', which is set to be the tallest building in Ireland.

Ian Lumley of An Taisce, says: "Our biggest concern is that the U2 Tower will stick out of the skyline from parts of Georgian Dublin. It could potentially be an incongruous blot on the skyline on the south side of the city."

Lumley also claims the band has ignored the impact of climate change on the proposed building - which could be affected by rising sea levels due to its position at the mouth of Dublin river.


still a mix up of the two sites, who's writing this stuff
lostexpectation
Senior Member
 
Posts: 566
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:38 pm

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby ctesiphon » Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:07 pm

Clarence Hotel plan backed despite architect's warning
Frank McDonald, Environment Editor

Dublin City Council's planners decided to grant permission for the redevelopment of the Clarence Hotel despite being advised that it would "dominate all views of the city quays, overwhelming the Four Courts and important views of City Hall".

City conservation architect Clare Hogan, in her report on the application to demolish all but the front façades of the hotel and adjoining listed buildings, also said it would be a "direct repudiation" of city council planning policy to permit it.

The €150 million plan, drawn up by international architects Foster + Partners, would retain the quayfront façades on Wellington Quay to provide 114 large bedrooms and 28 suites, oversailed by an elliptical flying saucer-like structure at roof level.

Describing such façadism as a "meaningless, discredited architectural device", Ms Hogan said: "Allowing this approach to Dublin where historic buildings retain their integrity and interest is reminiscent of the climate of 1960s speculative development.

"Dublin's beauty as a capital and its claim to being one of the greatest of surviving Georgian cities depends on its whole fabric of streetscapes rather than a collection of resounding buildings - the quiet ease of understatement, something rarely found in Europe.

"From the 18th century onwards, artists and engravers have left many celebrated views and vistas of the city from scenic viewing points along the Liffey, featuring landmark buildings. The proposed building would have a significant detrimental impact on these views."

Under the 2000 Planning Act, Ms Hogan noted that a planning authority "shall not grant permission for the demolition of a protected structure . . . save in exceptional circumstances" - such as if the structure was dangerous.

But the Clarence Hotel Partnership, a joint venture by developer Paddy McKillen and U2 band members Bono and the Edge, had been "unable to provide exceptional circumstances as required . . . to allow demolition of protected structures", she said.

"The applicants have neglected routine maintenance and allowed the external façades to deteriorate into a superficially scruffy condition, but otherwise the buildings are in good structural condition," Ms Hogan said, recommending against granting permission. She also noted that the protected structures on the site - the Clarence Hotel, the adjoining Dollard printing works and four Georgian buildings - had all been rated as regionally important "and the lesser ratings provided by the applicant are inaccurate and misleading".

A copy of Ms Hogan's report has been submitted by An Taisce to An Bord Pleanála as part of its appeal against the council's decision to approve the scheme. Separate appeals have been made by others, including former An Taisce chairman Michael Smith.

In its appeal, An Taisce said that neither the council planner's report on the application nor its decision "properly addresses the legal requirement to prove 'exceptional circumstances' in granting permission for demolition of protected structures".

An Taisce's Kevin Duff said project architects Foster + Partners "make much of comparison with European city hotels such as the Ritz in Paris" but the "best-known and most prestigious" hotels in Europe are older converted historic buildings.

"This proposal constitutes the largest proposal for demolition of protected structures in a single scheme in Ireland since the current architectural heritage legislation came into place with the implementation of the 1999 Planning Act," Mr Duff said.

(Monday, January 7, 2008)

© 2008 The Irish Times


I'd post a link to Clare Hogan's report, but the DCC website is playing up at the moment and won't open for me. I'll try again later.

For now, it suffices to say that it was one of the most strongly worded conservation reports I've seen in a while, as evidenced by the use of such phrases as 'direct repudiation', 'unable to provide exceptional circumstances' and 'inaccurate and misleading' (above). It baffles me how it was just blithely dismissed in the planner's report.
User avatar
ctesiphon
Old Master
 
Posts: 1949
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 3:39 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby missarchi » Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:51 pm

i dont know!!!!

The Clarence blocks the Dublin City Council bunkers from o'connell st already...
Clare Hogan has some very valid points...
However Dublin City Council need to implement a legally binding strategy to reverse the 1960's damage now.
If that means pulling down central bank and dublin city council and irish life and the department of health by all means...

Has the copper on the roof always been there?

But the worst offender is O'connell st house which dublin city council should acquire now...
If they do not I would find it hard for Dublin City Council to save face.

They need to provide the framework to legally reverse the 1960's damage rather than kept referring to it
foster and partners scheme is peanuts in the scheme of things and although it has some weaknesses it is not as bad as some of the rubbish going around...

Dublin City must acquire O'connell st house now before they refuse or oppose such a scheme and pull down there own facade on the Liffey because it stinks... more than this foster and partners proposal

And can Dublin City Council Please remove the large TV, carpark sign and cctv pole from st stephen's green
missarchi
Old Master
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:53 pm

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby stuarthart » Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:01 pm

"Clarence Hotel plan backed despite architect's warning"

Why do we bother debating this. DCC seem intent on destroying the city despite what the professionals have to say. Clare Hogan should seek employment elsewhere, where her work can be valued.

Its an absolute disgrace, just to get the 'big names' into Dublin city centre.
stuarthart
Member
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 10:36 am

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby missarchi » Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:32 am

if they acquire the house and maybe some more I'm all for refusing it,,, if not i'm blurred...

I would rather have the Clarence and take down a few other buildings if I had no choice...

If I had a choice maybe everything would go!!!!

This is Clare Hogans chance to put her stamp on the city and acquire some buildings!!!!
But I would be looking at the rest of the city more than fosters scheme even though they are in the same basket

If the board refuse it it would be interesting to see if bono and foster denounce dublin in the press!!!!
which i guess may be likely??? or is the tower a sweetener

The image foster/ bono would get in this city is that if you are DC, central bank, dept. of health, a large bank or maybe someone that makes beer, or someone that has a large group... or a train company that they have done what ever they wanted to the city...

Clare can change that and take them all!!!!!!!

Take other buildings before the Clarence!!!!
missarchi
Old Master
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:53 pm

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby ctesiphon » Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:45 am

Sadly for Ms Hogan (or perhaps fortunately) her involvement ended at DC level, though if it goes to an Oral Hearing I'm sure she'd be called on again.

The Office she occupies has no right to acquire buildings, btw, and I'm not sure if she can afford it herself.
User avatar
ctesiphon
Old Master
 
Posts: 1949
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 3:39 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby missarchi » Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:02 am

ctesiphon wrote:Sadly for Ms Hogan (or perhaps fortunately) her involvement ended at DC level, though if it goes to an Oral Hearing I'm sure she'd be called on again.

The Office she occupies has no right to acquire buildings, btw, and I'm not sure if she can afford it herself.


No vision... No sense of place...

Can I suggest she put together a proposal for reshaping Dublin and prepare to acquire/control key buildings....
There is nothing stopping her from lobbying for amendments to framework plans and acting in the dail...
Whats the worst answer she gets no... and if they say kinda or yes she may have the right that is what you kept
forgetting...

if you don't ask you don't get in architecture...
missarchi
Old Master
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:53 pm

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby ctesiphon » Fri Jan 11, 2008 9:16 am

missarchi wrote:No vision... No sense of place...

I don't know what this even means in relation to my previous post.

missarchi wrote:Can I suggest she put together a proposal for reshaping Dublin and prepare to acquire/control key buildings....

Neither of which is within her remit.

missarchi wrote:There is nothing stopping her from lobbying for amendments to framework plans and acting in the dail...

You're right.
Step 1: become a TD.
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Realise it's beyond your remit.

missarchi wrote:Whats the worst answer she gets no... and if they say kinda or yes she may have the right that is what you kept forgetting...

As I said, she does not have the right. I have forgotten nothing.

PS What's with all the ellipses? ... ... ...
User avatar
ctesiphon
Old Master
 
Posts: 1949
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 3:39 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby Devin » Tue Apr 01, 2008 12:18 am

ABP are holding an oral hearing on the Clarence, commencing 16th April .......... And the question on everyone's lips will be: will Bono make a 3D appearance?
Devin
Old Master
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 10:27 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby CC105 » Wed Apr 16, 2008 8:18 pm

being covered on RTE TV news in a few minutes -time 21:21
CC105
Member
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:41 pm

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby notjim » Wed Apr 16, 2008 8:34 pm

Yes; they are threatening us again!

from the Times breaking news:

Clarence 'big coup' for Dublin, says Edge

Olivia Kelly

The demolition of the Clarence Hotel, Dublin, a protected structure, and its rebuilding to a design by British architect Norman Foster was "an incredible coup for Dublin city" U2 guitarist and one of the owners of the hotel The Edge has said.

He was speaking outside a Bord Pleanála appeal hearing against plans to demolish all but the facades of the hotel, its expansion form 49 to 140 rooms, and the addition of a metallic elliptical roof called the "sky catcher".

One of the appellants to the project conservationist Michael Smith yesterday described the proposed building as a "cannibalistic behemoth" and said the sky catcher looked like a spaceship which has landed in the middle of Temple Bar.

The hotel had done an "immense amount of good for the city", The Edge said, however it had run into financial difficulties in recent years and if it was to be sustained into the 21st century it needed to be redeveloped.

Although the hotel and surrounding buildings, which have been purchased for the €150 million extension and redevelopment, are listed on the Record of Protected Structures, it is proposed that they will be demolished and only their front facades retained.

The fact that the building had been designed by Foster who created the Swiss Re Tower in London, also known as "the Gherkin", was an incredible coup, and "outweighed the sacrifice of parts of ordinary period buildings", The Edge said.

The 34-metre five-star hotel with its "sky room floating above the city" would be "completely commensurate with the scale of that grand street - the River Liffey" Andy Bow of Foster and Partners told the planning hearing.

It would "soften the impact" of surrounding buildings such as the Central Bank and the Civic Offices on Wood Quay and would bring a "new vitality to the west end of Temple Bar". The demolition of the buildings and the back facade facing on to Essex Street would rid Essex Street of its current "prison-like" look, Mr Bow said.

An Taisce's Kevin Duff said the applicants had not demonstrated the exceptional circumstances which are legally required to permit the demolition of protected structures.

The design was a "unsatisfactory combination of facade retention and new build" he said and was the largest proposed demolition of protected structures since legislation was introduced in 1999. The loss of the facades on Essex Street was a serious loss for Temple Bar he said.

Architect James Kelly said given the capabilities of Foster his reverting to facadism was "very sad". The design was coming "perilously close to pastiche", he said.

Mr Smith said the design was "behind the times". "Ten years ago a scheme like this might have got planning permission, surely not now. If it gets permission we can wave goodbye to proper development in Dublin City."

The proposed roof "looks like a flying saucer" it was a "rag-bag, leviathan, a silly set piece" he said. The architects had shown no awareness of their surroundings.

"This building is in the wrong place - like a little black dress on your great aunt," Mr Smith said.
© 2008 ireland.com
notjim
 
Posts: 1708
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 1:00 am
Location: Dublin

PreviousNext

Return to Ireland