Re: Re: Smithfield Market – what’s the verdict?

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

well that’s not the developer’s fault. that’s McGarry NiEanaigh’s who positioned the masts very far over to that edge of the square.

I don’t think they anticipated how big the west side scheme was going to be. It’s interesting to remember that when lamp brazier scheme was first proposed, the images of it circulated were of a b&w 1950s picture of the square with the new scheme superimposed over it, showing mostly 3 storey buildings in the background on the west side. But the HKR scheme is now about 3 times bigger than those buildings.

@phil wrote:

Devin, would you be of the same view if the houses were Georgian and of a similar scale to these?

If they were as out of place as these Council houses are, then yes. But it depends on a number of things. The thing about Smithfield is that the first big redevelopment on the east side (Chief O’Neill’s) still respected the existing scale of the square – any 3 storey buildings did not seem dwarfed. But then the west side (Smithfield Market) went so much bigger that it made everything else look ridiculous. But it has to be said that the architectural quality of those houses is fairly poor by today’s standards anyway, regardless of their scale. I’m not scoffing at them; I’m just saying that they badly don’t fit.