Re: Re: Branded Buildings – Any Limits ?

Home Forums Ireland Branded Buildings – Any Limits ? Re: Re: Branded Buildings – Any Limits ?


@Paul cuddy wrote:

1. My Argument did not constitute snobbery that is how you chose to receive it which is incorrect. So you will never get a job as an arbitrator.

Who wants to deal with parties who can’t agree; anyone who goes to appeal because they don’t like a business model will lose.

@Paul cuddy wrote:

2. “ they have complied with the spirit of the development”, yes they have but only the development on the ground floor which is my whole point. They have not respected the building that sits directly above them and to each side. They have allowed their brand to take priority over the existing building and streetscapes natural character.

Couldn’t disagree more; they have executed a perfect Regent Street intervention.

@Paul cuddy wrote:

3. MCD is a cheap lunch for poor tourists, I am not going to even validate that statement.

Real demand being mixed in terms of price point is obviously beyond you; not all units can be filled by Brown Thomas.

@Paul cuddy wrote:

4. Of course a retail mix is necessary, but not at the expense of a significant streetscape. If they truly wanted to be sympathetic to the existing style, they would have incorporated the fenestration into the shop front, eliminated the striking contrast in colours, they didn’t do this because their brand is king and more important than architecture and street aesthetics. Same reason why they have posters in the windows and plastic bins outside, because they are out and out profiteers and have no interest in our heritage or towns and to be fair, why should they, we have Planners who are responsible for that but as you know, sometimes we would have been better off leaving Ronald himself in charge.

This is their urban branding; how anyone can attack those colours is beyond me; so to the shopfronts thread if you want a justified whinge; Ronald is now a bunch of fund managers who want sales growth, sales growth is only maximised by their playing the planning game which they and Starbucks are the only International food retailers who get planning as a formality.

@Paul cuddy wrote:

5. If you cannot omit your brand for the sake of being sympathetic to a streetscape, then like I said, go to an industrial estate, because your development is easily retractable. Have a look at most small, non global businesses that operate on major streets, most of them follow the buildings architectural style, it is only the major outlets that need to impose the brand so heavily on the building.

Go to the shopfronts thread to see shopfronts that are actually offensive; you are the first person I’ve ever seen trying to equate olive and gold as being anything other than sensitive.

@Paul cuddy wrote:

6. All businesses like mcds would have a glass building given the choice, the onus is on the Planner to restrict this to an acceptable level based on the merits of the development and not the scale of the brand
I have been living in Ireland for the past 10 years and my advice to you is, if you want to stay healthy, then dont go to mcds for your 5 a day

Nope; they would be watching their CRC liability, glass = higher energy requirement = higher energy tax. Their business model is lean and relies heavily at prime locations on a very large proportion of their sales coming from coffee and snacks. Why MCD is successful is that they have four trading periods, breakfast, Lunch, post pub and the bits in between where they are taking a lot of Startbucks trade.

You can hold a view of the 1990’s MCD model which suffered greatly and underperformed the market; do not argue that an organisation that has grown top and bottom line every year for the last 10 years in sophisticated markets like Europe and mature Asia is a one trick pony. A large part of this has been their flexibility in product mix and engaging with planning authorities even those with reputations for anal views in places like Westminster and Bath.

Latest News