Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

[gunter]

I see the Dept. of Environment have had a right good go at DCC for handing a planning permission to this little piece of urban vandalism. We need to see a lot more of this, whenever a local authority loses the plot. From day one, this scheme had nothing going for it, but it's label. Dublin was going to get a Foster to add to it's Libeskind and two Calatravas!

The Clarence building is a decent example of 20th century urban in-fill (especially the back), and Dollard house, if it was opened up a bit at street level, is a decent piece of 19th century in-fill, with some nice design echoes of it's predecessor, the Old Custom House. However I'm inclined to agree with the Edge's critique of the four protected houses on Wellington Quay. For 'Protected' structures, these are pretty low grade examples, certainly when compared to other structures that we've lost recently, or are in the process of losing.

Maybe Dublin can ill afford to lose much more of it's quay side Georgian frontage, but if the new Clarence had to have a contemporary statement, something outstanding might be justified as a replacement for these four houses, and perhaps also at the back of Dollard. Facade retention, however, is just not an option here. If the buildings don't really merit retention when compared to some outstanding contemporary alternative, then hiding the outstanding new build behind retained mediocre facades achieves nothing.

The one certainty is that any proposal that attempts to put a sinle hat on such a disparate group of buildings, not only deserves to be thrown out, but deserves a good dose of ridicule in the process, and Mr. Smith's little black dress comment is a good start.

I hadn't seen this section before (from todays Herald AM), it explains the relationship between the sky-catcher and the swimming pool, which I think it's important that we know.



A huge amount of the architectural effort has clearly gone into filtering a small amount of borrowed light into the interior of this block, where it's then squandered on a tiny oval 'swimming pool' no bigger than a millionaire's jacuzzi. When you look at it again, the whole interior of this hotel has been hollowed out and contorted to accommodate a couple of pretty dubious elements presenting themselves as iconic concepts.

The guys I feel sorry for are the future archaeologists who did this thing up in three thousand years time. There's no way they're not going to see this a some bizarre ritualistic temple to some mother goddess figure. It'll all be there, the ritual subteranean birthing pool, the uterus shaped light shaft, the high status viewing pod, they'll be wetting themselves. Even the sky platter itself is bound to be re-interpreted as a charnel platform, where eagles clense the putrified flesh off the pure bones of the city state's aristocracy class. What other purpose could it have had?

This is giving me some fresh insight. I'm going to look again at my pictures of Stonehenge. Maybe we've been too quick to see this as a ritual temple, a bronze age, equinox aligned, solar / lunar observatory. I'm starting to think stonehenge may have been an iconic, landmark,entrance foyer to some bronze age, celebrity, straw bale eco-hotel.

[ctesiphon]

I noticed the DEHLG getting stuck in, aye. I wasn't there, but it seems they didn't pull any punches, effectively saying to DCC 'No. We wrote them. Your interpretation is entirely incorrect.'

Why does my mind keep drifting back to this poster?

[GrahamH]

So I take it the Dubh Linn pool, as per the original, is going to be flooded by the Poddle?

[GrahamH]

To be discussed on Question & Answers tonight at 22.40 on RTÉ One.

[GregF]

I've thought about this and I've reached the decision that the redevelopment should be given the go-ahead. ( Even, after considering the demolishment of the fine old buildings in Temple Bar east that line the quays as well as the old medieval Church's interior.)


Regarding the Clarence......
1. If permission is granted, what we will get for the city of Dublin is a top international hotel designed by one of the world's leading architects. We will have a focal point for the city. A magnet and a beacon as such. A talking point.

2. If permission is not granted what could happen is that U2 would sell the loss making hotel. No one would be interested in buying it, so it would be left to lie idle for years and years. Some cheap developer would finally come along and finally get planning permission for the 'eyesore' that it would become and so we'd end up up a substandard hotel designed by 'Joe the builder' architects.

People don't have to look very far to see this already happening. Just across the river, the Ormond Hotel has been already lying idle for years. No one says a word about it's fate. Joe Public doesn't even notice it, passing it by each day. An Taisce are very quiet too. It may eventually get planning permission but it's new design is no where near Foster's stylish plans for the Clarence.

[notjim]

I thought the Ormond did get planning permission?

[ctesiphon]

2. If permission is not granted what could happen is that U2 would sell the loss making hotel. No one would be interested in buying it, so it would be left to lie idle for years and years. Some cheap developer would finally come along and finally get planning permission for the 'eyesore' that it would become and so we'd end up up a substandard hotel designed by 'Joe the builder' architects.

While I understand your concerns, one thing worth pointing out is that there is a duty of care on owners of Protected Structures to ensure they don't deteriorate, and they can be prosecuted under the PDA 2000 for failure to maintain their buildings.

It hasn't happened much (if at all? Not sure if this was the mechanism used on Henrietta Street), but the provision exists nevertheless.

[Devin]

Skylounge-itis has spread along Wellington Quay with this current proposal by Fitzsimons Hotel - Ref. 1803/08

So would it be an interesting and enriching addition to the hotel and the quayfront, or an innapropriate intrusion on the character of the terraced group of traditional buildings forming the hotel?

[gunter]

Devin, do you have a hot link to all the most ridiculous planning applications, as they're lodged.

This would look stupid. Every tourist in the city eventually ends up at the Guinness Storehouse anyway, how did they think they'd get away with sticking a bit of the Storehouse observation drum on the front of a hotel? Are there no plagiarism issues?

I also didn't think it was legal to build out over the property boundary! or did some gurrier of a solicitor tell them they owned out to the mid-point of the river?

If I was running the planning office, I'd be convening an urgent meeting of all the heads to stop whatever subliminal messages are going out that gives developers the impression that this kind of thing is worth applying for.

Actually they would hardly be subliminal messages would they, we're seeing stuff like this getting approval and being published in the papers nearly every day now.

[Devin]

Devin, do you have a hot link to all the most ridiculous planning applications, as they're lodged.

There’s no excuse not to discuss development on this forum since planning applications are up on the council’s site. Even just to put up elevations.

One or two schemes like Jurys Ballsbridge or the Clarence steal all the attention but a lot of major stuff goes through un-noticed – the way developers want it to go. DCC has been rubber-stamping most major city-centre development for the past couple of years and, as I’ve said before, it’s invariably significantly changed or refused if it goes to An Bord Pleanala. IF, that is. You’ve probably seen the ridiculous office block built almost on top of St. Michan’s Church, Church Street (granted, incidentally, by the same DCC planner who granted the Henrietta Street building). A local community group objected but didn’t appeal. Could list many more. Dublin is in crisis ….

As it happens a refusal has just appeared today for that Fitzsimons Hotel balcony, yet the Clarence was granted permission …

[ctesiphon]

There’s no excuse not to discuss development on this forum since planning applications are up on the council’s site.

I don't think gunter was suggesting that you're wasting your time; rather, marvelling at the consistently... eh, 'remarkable' nature of the proposals you put up here.

Anyway, right result on this one.

[Devin]

I don't think gunter was suggesting that you're wasting your time

Don't know how you read that into my post, ctesiphon

[ctesiphon]

There’s no excuse not to discuss development

This bit? Sounded a little defensive; nothing more than that.

[Devin]

We need to discuss more development was the point.

[gunter]

You’ve probably seen the ridiculous office block built almost on top of St. Michan’s Church, Church Street (granted, incidentally, by the same DCC planner who granted the Henrietta Street building). A local community group objected but didn’t appeal. Could list many more. Dublin is in crisis ….

Devin: Sorry if I caused any misunderstanding before with my comment, I've only just found this thread again. By the way, where is this thread? I only ever find it when I'm looking for something else.

I did see that block behind St. Michan's out of the corner of my eye the other day. The relationship to the tower looked like a shocker from a distance, is it any better close up?

I have to confess a soft spot for that Henrietta Street block, although I felt it looked a lot better before the frosted glass balconies got bolted on, destroying the proportions, and the roof terrace (again with frosted glass) went in. There was a moment when that tall slender lift shaft stood proud on the roof like an homage to a great central chimney stack and the whole thing looked like it was going to be a very interesting composition. I've had a couple of small schemes go badly wrong at a similar stage, so I was prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. I was aware that An Taisce had issues with the development from day one. It will be interesting to see what the competition throws up for the site behind it.

[ctesiphon]

By the way, where is this thread? I only ever find it when I'm looking for something else.

It's in the Polls section. Depending on the start page you use, it can be tricky to find. If you use this one - http://www.archiseek.com/content/index.php - you'll see it near the bottom of the list, but if you use this one - http://www.archiseek.com/ - you won't see it, even in the drop-down menu under Discussion. And this one - http://ireland.archiseek.com/ - will be similarly lacking, as it's Ireland only (whereas Polls is, in theory, not location specific).

Paul- in the redesign, could this be remedied, maybe by inclusion of Polls in the drop-down? (Or could the thread be moved back now that the poll's closed?)

Also, sorry to dredge this up (I missed the reply originally), but-

We need to discuss more development was the point.

This was my point originally- I didn't think gunter was saying we shouldn't discuss development, but your original response seemed to interpret his (his?) comments differently. That's all (folks). Apologies if I created any confusion.

[gunter]

I didn't think gunter was saying we shouldn't discuss development, but your original response seemed to interpret his (his?) comments differently.

Jesus Christ ctesiphon, how many female gunters do you know?

And I certainly was not suggesting that we shouldn't be discussing live developments. As Devin said, it's the live developments that we, emphatically, should be discussing, and as early in the process as possible.

I'm almost afraid to ask this question, but, as a matter of interest, it there any evidence that discussions forums like this have ever had any influence on actual events, or are we just fraustrated cranky people (blokes mostly, I assume!) venting off?

Thanks for the navigation tips, I should be alright now until somebody goes and up-dates the system.

[ctesiphon]

You might have been a lady with an interest in obscure sailing terminology. One doesn't like to presume.

Re our influence: who's to say. I do find it funny that the polls are often referred to as 'A survey of architects', when in fact there are far more citizens/non-professionals than architects on here as far as I can tell. One area where Archiseek certainly proved its worth (as more than a talking shop) was in the matter of JC Decaux and the 'free bikes' scheme. I could almost guarantee that the result there would have been markedly different without jimg's first, despairing post and the correspondence/collaboration that ensued.

Also, I'm trying to turn your mis-spelling into a gag (a la the Guardian magazine's Wyse Words, if you are familiar), but it's not falling into place:

'fraustrated' - frustrated women?

'frastrated' - frustrated men?

Needs work, I think.

[gunter]

Also, I'm trying to turn your mis-spelling into a gag

Fekk off

[StephenC]

The Clarence got permission this morning.

[d_d_dallas]

as in from AnBP?

Any ideas what restrictions?

[StephenC]

Yes from the Bord. Very few as far as I am aware.

[cubix]

Thats great news,I was under the impression that this would be struck down.

[ctesiphon]

I'm moving somewhere with a more restrictive planning regime. China, perhaps.

[Paul Clerkin]

Clarence Hotel green lighted - with small changes


Bono and The Edge will finally be able to press ahead with their €150m revamp of Dublin's Clarence Hotel.

An Bord Pleanala has given the go ahead to the Norman Foster-designed project, which has been going through the planning process for over a year and a half.

The decision is hugely significant as the redevelopment involves gutting a series of protected buildings, including the Clarence itself, leaving just the facades.

Revised plans will have to be submitted to Dublin City Council as the planning board directed certain changes.

The proposed penthouse level facing Essex Street at fourth floor level will have to be reduced in length by four metres on the western side and four metres on the eastern side. The board also stipulated that “prior to the demolition of the protected structures, all existing buildings and interiors shall be preserved by record” and the drawings lodged with the architectural archive.

The massive revamp was granted permission by Dublin City Council in November but that decision was appealed.

An Bord Pleanala then directed that an oral hearing take place.

Planning officials have given the green despite the Department of the Environment saying it did not believe the plan was of such architectural merit as to justify the demolition of six protected buildings.

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/clarence-hotel-green-lighted--with-small-changes-1434871.html