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 ctesiphon » Fri Jul 18, 2008 3:57 pm

Sean Dunne must be rubbing his hands with glee.

Would you bet against it?
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 Blisterman » Fri Jul 18, 2008 4:09 pm

I'm personally in favour of this. Foster and Partners have a proven track record, and the Clarence as it is, already projects well above the surrounding buildings, so it's not like the skyline is going to be ruined.

I don't think anyone has, so far put up any pictures of the buildings, we're going to lose. It's hard to make a fair judgement otherwise.
Blisterman
Member
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 4:21 pm
Location: London (Orignally Dublin)

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby lostexpectation » Fri Jul 18, 2008 4:57 pm

i was thinking it was unfair to call it a flying saucer shaped, building, more like a vase or funnel with a top but then you look at the montage with the viewing gallery and you say yeah it is a flying saucer

were the planners won over the greeness of the building, just says it green its okay, it like buying a new double aa rated wash machine and just dumping the old one in your local park.
lostexpectation
Senior Member
 
Posts: 566
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:38 pm

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby cubix » Fri Jul 18, 2008 5:34 pm

For me its nothing to do with F & P or their record,its the fact that these buildings are in a desparate state.It was a logical decision,not based on emotion or conservatism like people in an taisce.I'm not sure what everyone crying about cause the nimbys have already ready won the battle when it comes to development in Dublin,you just have to look at what we build during the celtic tiger to realise that.
cubix
Member
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 5:31 pm

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby lostexpectation » Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:00 pm

who left the buildings in a desperate state?
lostexpectation
Senior Member
 
Posts: 566
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:38 pm

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby Shane M » Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:03 pm

Wat the hell is it suppose to represent?????.....I have huge respect and admire the work of Norman foster but this is a little outragous
Shane M
Member
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 8:40 pm

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby JoePublic » Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:33 pm

The prospect of protected structures being demolished all over the place on the precendent of this decision is certainly concerning. However overall I will be very excited to see this go ahead. As I suspect will the silent majority of non-archiseek-anoraks. In their own apathetic way of course.

Archiectural merit as extraordinary circumstances justifying demolition of protected structures is just so subjective. For me this one gets a pass, I wouldn't be confident of the next one though.

Makes me worry for the poor redbrick terrace on Henry street :-(
JoePublic
Member
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 4:26 pm

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby paul_moloney » Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:38 pm

This is an unbelievable decision. What is the point of listing buildings if this can happen?

There's also the added point that U2 and co were incapable of making a profit with a small hotel during an economic boom, losing €500K in 2005 alone. What makes them think that they'll be any better running a large hotel during a recession, in which hotels are already closing down?

P.
paul_moloney
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 1:38 pm

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby wearnicehats » Sat Jul 19, 2008 9:13 am

ctesiphon wrote:Didn't you see the name of that poster over there? The circle is smaller than you think! ;)

publicrealm-
I'm really at a loss to understand this one. I'm sitting here - cocoa, pipe and slippers all present and correct - with the Inspector's Report and the Board's Decision, trying to get a handle on their reasoning, but it's not falling into place. I don't think the Board has been wicked, tricksy and false, I'm saying it's made the wrong decision.

*** *** ***


This is what passes for the grounds for a decision these days? It seems one aspect (use) of one category (social) is sufficient to trump the other conservation considerations. And flying saucers on the roof don't undermine the integrity of a conservation area. Glad to have that clarified.

Also, I'm having trouble finding the relevant policy re continuance of use. Any thoughts?

Would it be H6?


Looks like an awful stretch of logic. In fact, H6 seems to say the opposite- that top drawer conservation merits a few concessions in other areas.

While I have the page of the DCDP open I may as well stick a couple more up. For balance, like.

Still, it'll be a welcome shot in the arm for economy.

*high five*


do we know who the unfortunate inspector was and who sat on the panel that overruled him???
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby blaise » Sat Jul 19, 2008 9:24 am

I presume that the Clarence will now be deleted from the Record of Protected Structures? I cannot believe that An Bord Pleanala have ignored the expert advice of the Council and the DEHLG and permit a proposal which would make the building not worth listing anymore. It shoud be plainly clear that the architectural merit of a proposal is never ground for demolition of a Protected Structure. Mr Foster would certainly not have got permission for this on his home turf in the UK, thats for sure.
blaise
Member
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 11:41 am

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby PVC King » Sat Jul 19, 2008 9:36 am

There isn't a stretch of the Thames like this; I've always been of the opinion that Dublin reacts with its river more like Paris or Cork than London in this respect. In the riverside in London from Westminster to London Bridge you have either absolute icons or absolute muck there is very little middle ground on the main stretch of the Thames.

I really hope that the drawings translate to the icon the promotors claim it is and that some of the sentiments bove are misplaced; I am however unconvinced.
PVC King
 

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby ctesiphon » Sat Jul 19, 2008 10:16 am

wearnicehats wrote:do we know who the unfortunate inspector was and who sat on the panel that overruled him???


These are the members of the Board: http://www.pleanala.ie/about/members.htm I don't think they were all involved in the decision- as I understand it, panels are drawn from that list. I think the decision was 7-1 in favour. I'd love to know their reasoning. It doesn't come across in the Board's Decision.


The Inspector was Kevin Moore. His reasoning is abundantly clear.
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 lostexpectation » Sat Jul 19, 2008 11:39 am

the edge said he wanted to preserve it, preserve what one wall?

and they seem to talk of preserve type clarance hotel, who cares if its a hotel.
lostexpectation
Senior Member
 
Posts: 566
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:38 pm

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby Morlan » Sat Jul 19, 2008 1:34 pm

By Cormac Murphy

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/conservation-group-could-seek-to-halt-8364150m-clarence-hotel-revamp-1435971.html

Saturday July 19 2008

A CONSERVATION group could seek to overturn An Bord Pleanala's grant of permission for the €150m Clarence Hotel redevelopment.

The Irish Georgian Society (IGS) said today it will examine whether a High Court review of the controversial decision is a viable option.

The Clarence Consortium, which includes Bono and The Edge, was given the go ahead to demolish six protected buildings on Wellington Quay to make way for the revamp.

Conservation officer with the IGS, Emmeline Henderson, told the Herald a judicial review "is certainly something we would consider if there is recourse".

However, she pointed out the move would have to be made on the basis of a technicality in the Bord Pleanala ruling -- the decision itself cannot be reviewed.

The U2 band members, along with property developers Paddy McKillen and Derek Quinlan, were given the green light to press ahead with the transformation of the 44-bedroom boutique hotel into a 141-bedroom, five-star hotel and spa, complete with restaurant, bar and fresh food market.

But the controversial plan has alarmed conservationists as it involves a massive reconstruction of the Clarence, an art deco building dating from 1937, four Georgian buildings from the early 19th century and Dollard House, which was built in 1886.

All are listed buildings and only the facades along Wellington Quay in the south inner city will be preserved.

The plans were designed by internationally renowned architect Norman Foster and include provision for a roof-top, flying saucer-like structure which will dominate the quayside landscape.

The board made its decision by a seven-to-one majority against a recommendation by senior planning inspector Kevin Moore that permission be refused.

Mr Moore characterised the scheme as "conceptually brilliant but contextually illiterate".

But the board said the project would "provide a building of unique quality and architectural distinction".

It also ruled that "the continued historic hotel use" was sufficient to constitute the "exceptional circumstances" required in legislation to permit the demolition of protected structures.

"In deciding not to accept the inspector's recommendation to refuse permission, which involves the part-demolition of protected structures, is permissible because of the exceptional quality of the design," the board's report said.

It added that the new design would not undermine the integrity of the Liffey Quays Conservation Area.

The massive revamp was granted permission by Dublin City Council in November but that decision was appealed.
User avatar
Morlan
Senior Member
 
Posts: 831
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2003 2:47 pm
Location: Áth Cliath

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby SunnyDub » Mon Jul 21, 2008 12:12 pm

There seems to be some criticism of the role of planning in this case. Let me just say that the role of planning is to facilitate development and protect adjacent amenity/property. In rejecting proposals planning authorites indicate to developers how they might get permission. There are two substantial issues for the city in this case, namely:

1. The design and its impact on the surrounding area.
2. The demolition of protected structures.

There is no objection to a sensitive and intensified redevelopment on the site and no objection to the design per se...it is all about context.
SunnyDub
Member
 
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 4:44 pm

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby SunnyDub » Mon Jul 21, 2008 12:16 pm

The An Bord Pleanála Inspector's Report includes some devestating criticisms of the design and its impact on its surroundings:

"In my opinion, the design of the proposed development is conceptually brilliant, but contextually illiterate. The result is something architecturally exquisite on its own but completely self-gratifying in a location that demands much less. All of the great monumental buildings along the quays stand independently aside from the traditional terraces. Indeed, they stand back from the quayside and from their separate independence they offer their own statement. In truth, the proposed development, for the very reason that it is proposed to be sited within a terrace of structures of historical significance on the quays (within a terrace that it cannot and should not disassociate itself from), proves to be misplaced. It cannot be a monumental building in this context without the iconic terraced streetscape of the quays at this location imploding….

In my opinion, it is fundamental to the legibility of the quays that this terrace is not adversely distorted, that it reads as a terrace, and that new interventions maintain a degree of respect for the urban grain, height, bulk, mass, finishes and scale. Regretfully, the proposed new hotel clearly seeks to break from the form and function of the terrace. The new design offers an independent expression, an attempt to produce something separate from the remainder of the terrace. The most fundamental constraint for the proposal is its terraced context. Once this is recognized the physical representation of the design concept loses its acceptability….

If one looks at the new roof component proposed there are several important aspects that undermine the acceptability of the proposal. A single roof is intended to span the site in its entirety. The effect of the proposed development would be to raise the profile of the existing hotel itself by about 2 metres and then to extend this roofline across most of the site on its east to west axis, in effect raising the roofline of the Georgian section (Nos. 9-12) by about 13 metres, and that of Dollard House by about 9 metres. This seeks to create a uniformity and a height unknown to this quay and unknown to the terraced quays generally. With this, it presents a substantive introduction of bulk, mass and scale….

In my opinion, it must be recognized that the difficulty with the skycatcher is that it makes a significant architectural statement but does not unify the presence of the overall development to create a great structure in the manner that is achieved by the other great monumental structures on the quays. It is a victim of the constraints of its site and of its failure to adhere to a prerequisite that demands development to have a reasonable association with the quayside terrace structures in the vicinity. Its presence would assure omnipotence in its own self-representation but would condemn the coherence of the terrace as a feature of the Liffey’s iconic streetscape….

The impact on views along the Liffey would be profound. This is a new building designed to be seen. It is a building concept worthy of being seen, but not here. There is a distinctive, noticeable presence expressed by the design which I feel is ably demonstrated in the montage representations produced by the applicant. In the context of defining a structure within a terrace on the quays, this design is a big statement. It is for this reason that I find it particularly difficult to accept the applicant’s references alluded to at the beginning of this assessment. I just do not get the impression that there is a necessity to tidy up and enhance the urban silhouette on Wellington Quay in the form now pursued. Yes, the mid-1990s roof level created a visual mess but to redress that demands a little more subtlety….

The city centre’s principal unifying design element is its quays. Preserving and enhancing the remaining historic fabric of pre- 1900s structures must form part of the city’s continuing development. Sympathy with and respect for the existing built form in terms of design and scale is crucial….

The overall development cannot be seen to relate to the urban grain of this area. The character of this area is, thus, not reinforced by this proposal. As a consequence, the value of the Conservation Area is diminished. The development’s incongruity in terms of design, scale, height, roof treatment, use of materials and general failure to respect the character of the existing architecture is unpalatable. It is my opinion that the proposed development has been adapted in isolation for isolation, to be read as a self portrait not as part of a landscape composition of terraced quays corralling the city’s river
."

(Inspector’s Report, Section 13.3, pages 73-76)
SunnyDub
Member
 
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 4:44 pm

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby gunter » Mon Jul 28, 2008 12:21 am

The more I think about this decision, the more I want to kill somebody.

This stretch of the Quays is all about a series of individual 'palazzos' from the Sunlight Chambers down to the Clarence. If they had wanted to make a contemporary statement and they were confident that Foster could deliver a building of the quality that would justify the demolition of the four late Georgians beyond the existing Clarence, that would have been a better option IMO. A contemporary palazzo, designed by Foster, extending the series, I could go for that.

Total demolition of some of the site would be preferable to 95% demolition of all of the site.

Image
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1924
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby gunter » Mon Jul 28, 2008 12:53 am

and another thing:

The back of the Clarence, the assembly of the parts, the dining area and it's reflection on the elevation, is not ony a 'Protected Structure' it's an architectural gem IMO. To loose this in favour of an over-scaled (for Temple Bar) rippled curtain wall, that will have all the charm of an office block when the novelty wears off, is unforgiveble.

Image
gunter
Old Master
 
Posts: 1924
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby Smithfield Resi » Mon Jul 28, 2008 10:31 pm

Jebsus, they are knocking the back wall too!!! I hadn't realised it would be that gone too....I thought the facades at both frontages would be retained.

F**k's sake.

ABP will be heartily ashamed of this decison in 5 years I predict. This is the ESB of it's generation.

I used to want to meet Bono when I was a young one - now i REALLY want to meet him. :mad:
Smithfield Resi
Member
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:03 am

Re: A new Clarence Hotel re-development with destruction on Essex St., Temple Bar

Postby darkman » Tue Jul 29, 2008 2:48 am

ctesiphon wrote:Lies! All lies!!

You're only trying to stir up a bit of controversy by pretending that there's someone in this city who actually likes this proposal.:D

Joking aside, is there anyone out there who does like it and can give a good, reasoned argument for such an opinion?



This proposal does not go far enough, I fully support it. The more of these 'listed buildings' we lose the better.
darkman
Member
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Dublin North

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby Smithfield Resi » Tue Jul 29, 2008 6:49 am

This proposal does not go far enough, I fully support it. The more of these 'listed buildings' we lose the better.


Are you trolling?
Smithfield Resi
Member
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:03 am

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby darkman » Tue Jul 29, 2008 3:49 pm

Smithfield Resi wrote:Are you trolling?



No, all listed buildings on this site should be demolished for this scheme IMO. What we end up with now is a dogs dinner of old and new structures. Thats the real reason this scheme wont look well. Not the actual new structure itself. Hence why I say this does not go far enough.
darkman
Member
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Dublin North

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby ctesiphon » Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:34 pm

Haha! 'Listed buildings'.

Thanks for your 'good, reasoned argument'. Anyone else?
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 notjim » Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:38 pm

Smithfield Resi wrote:Are you trolling?


Dark is not a troll in the sense of "someone who consiously pretends to hold ill-thought out and annoying opinions in order to provoke a response", however, I can see how you could make this mistake.
notjim
 
Posts: 1708
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 1:00 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

Postby CC105 » Tue Jul 29, 2008 5:05 pm

How about the existing buildings just being ugly, along with a large section of the quays in the immediate area.
CC105
Member
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:41 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Ireland