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

@ctesiphon wrote:

I think it’s very telling in that picture that the flanking buildings are in darkness except for their lower floors. It makes height comparisons difficult, which is surely the point.
It seems that the attic storeys currently in place on the hotel will be removed and replaced by the UFO landing pad seen above, stretching across three properties. Pity, as this section of the quays is marked by its varied roofline rather than the uniformity found elsewhere. IMO, the current incarnation of the Clarence is a shade too tall already, though is justified (just about) by the variety of ridge and roof heights in the vicinity. This will be lost in the redevelopment, with the retained facades looking for all the world like historicist wallpaper. (Or should that be ‘historicist wallpaper*’?:rolleyes: )

A few quotes in the press release set alarm bells ringing for me:
“…the sensitive insertion of new additions…” – ‘sensitive’ how? The buildings are being gutted.
“…uniting … the existing buildings…” – And this is a good thing why exactly?
“Only the quayside facades of the existing hotel and adjoining buildings – all of which are protected structures – would be retained…” – Was this discussed in pre-planning with DCC? Are the interiors of value? The only one I know is the Clarence itself, which has some worthy features iirc. (I’m open to correction on this.)

The sustainability aspects, such as the natural light and ventilation, and the energy efficiency, are positive elements, but I don’t think they can balance or excuse the other interventions.

Lastly, the words of Norman himself- “The redevelopment of the Clarence Hotel is an ambitious project – architecturally and structurally – with a confident yet sympathetic civic presence. It presents an exciting opportunity to regenerate Temple Bar’s river frontage, while also creating a bold new addition to Dublin’s skyline.”
Ambitious? Yes. Confident? Yes. Sympathetic? I can’t see it.
And Temple Bar’s river frontage mightn’t need to be regenerated if it hadn’t been allowed to deteriorate by… Remind me who was responsible again?

More pics please, Norm. The daylight view from the Ha’penny Bridge, for example, might be instructive.

Well said – couldnt put it any better myself.