Re: Re: Heuston framework plan

Home › Forums › Ireland › Heuston framework plan › Re: Re: Heuston framework plan

July 17, 2008 at 11:20 pm #798043
Anonymous
Inactive

Since we’re already having a bad day!

The big ugly brown scheme at the RHK just went for AI.

Out of sheer desperation, I’m goin to try and read some positives into the planner’s report.

‘The (original) masterplan and parent permission set out an urban design structure, which was organised with a simple clarity and coherence.’
‘The proposed Block 6 introduces a type of building massing and envelope, which is at variance with the established parameters of the site.’
‘The overall massing and scale of the building needs to be re-evaluated taking into account the original urban design structure established as part of the masterplan and in particular the parent permission.’
‘The proposed building introduces a type of building massing and scale that could compromise the usability of the Civic Square (to the north) and the residential square to the south.’
‘From all viewpoints the building reads as a very large mass, which could overwhelm the public spaces . . ‘

In fairness to Emma Deane, the planning officer, that isn’t a bad table of observations.

Unfortunately, that’s as far as it goes, where you would expect the next line to read: ‘Accordingly we REFUSE PERMISSION’! instead the bottom line reads: ‘REQUEST FURTHER INFORMATION’.

The AI will consist of:

1. A bucket full of new photomontages from specified locations including several from which we won’t be seeing the building.
2. Another model.
3. A 3D visualisation of the movement through the pedestrian route.
4. The applicant is invited to ‘review’ the overall massing etc.
5. The applicant is requested to ‘address’ how their sceme appears to compromise the quality and usability of the civic square.
6. Shadow analysis
7. Add ‘green’ features to the proposed Block 6 in order to provide a more ‘holistic’ strategy for the building’s environmental performance.
8. Revise the depth of floor plate from 17m to 14m.
9. Provide more info on the economic impact on the area and the city.

I could be wrong, but the key paragraph in the Planner’s report seems to be the final passage in the Assessment:

‘The proposed development could have significant economic and social benefits and synergies with the other substantial private and public investments in the surrounding area boosting the attractiveness and competitiveness of the city and achieving strategic planning objectives such as as regeneration and rebalancing the city on an east-west basis.’

This is a dry, and I hope reluctant, synopsis of the effusive 6 page inter-departmental report filed by the DCC Economic Development Unit, headed by one Kieran Rose, senior planner.

As usual with a Rose report, instead of a bit of common sense and critical judgement, you get loads of buzz words ( progressive, synergy, dynamic, competitive, innovative, creative ), woven into a dense tapestry overlaid with multiple quotations from obscure sources:

Vlad Mykhnenko?
Competitive Cities in the Global Economy,
Ivan Turok,
The Creative Knowledge Economy in Dublin,
Christian Hilber
The cost of Reulatory Constraints on the British Office Market,
The Barker review of Land Use Planning,
Regional Policy and Agglomeration Economies in Ireland,

None of this probably matters anyway because the bottom line for Rose is: ‘The architects are Make and they have an international reputation for innovative architecture and this adds to Dublin’s assets as a ‘Creative City”

That sounds a lot like the thinking that gave us the Clarence, It’s a Foster, we must have a Foster.

Latest News