Re: Re: Should the Clarence Hotel redevelopment get permission?

The very simple reason why this scheme is entirely different to your examples, and ought to be rejected, shamrockmetro is that it is a thoroughly compromised development. It is not the signature building it purports to be nor what you proclaim it to be by your listing of such examples. It is a behemoth development that lurks behind, alongside and on top of compromised, bastardised and demolished vernacular buildings, some of which are the finest examples of their kind in the city.

The only reason the ‘saucer’ is being used is to try and give coherence and form to a ridiculously cloaked and rambling hodge-podge of a concoction – a development that results both in the mutilation of one of Dublin’s best traditional quay-fronts, and the loss of a potentially spectacular contemporary building for the city. It’s as simple as that.