Re: Re: Heuston framework plan
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.
The Tower of Babel has been reduced somewhat following the AI. It does look a lot more plausible it must be said: