Carlton Cinema Development

Seems to have received the OK by An Bord Pleananla [bless their little hearts and may wisdom come down upon them] but whats this comment from The Irish Independent mean?

“It will retain the existing Carlton Cinema facade though the Art Deco facades flanking the cinema are to be redesigned”

I can’t think of any Art facades flanking it.

This sounds a bit scary to me.

John

maybe they’re actually talking about the ends of the Carlton building itself

Yes, exactly – that’s what scares me.

John

That “attic storey” is a new addition.

Don’t you think it’s a stylistic disaster?

Did you ever see the proposed design for the Rialto Bridge in Venice – by Palladio I think?

Cannaletto did the conceptual painting.
It was horrendous. It was rejected thank God. This reminds me of it.

John

Aghh… I think I’d prefer Palladio!

It’s just occured to me that the attic section looks like that Bloated Ulster Bank
Sloth.

You know? The weak looking peaked aluminium section.

John

Sad to see that nothing materialized here on the Carlton Cinema site years after the wrangling between the vying developers and finally the granting of planning permission. It sounded great what was proposed….but alas no more…………stupid bloody lying developers…..the Council was right to compularily purchase it back.

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=769475&issue_id=7558

I had thought that the erection of scaffolding and the covering of window ast the site this past fortnight meant that things would finally start to move but it seems not. They really REALLY need to do something soon with this site and I think the decision to compulsory purcahse it is correct. But where to next…

Also the link to the Indo doesnt work…its all pay as you go now and I believe the Times will follow suit. So much for freedom of information!

Isnt O’Connell St such a depressing site at the moment…

The link does work, the Times is a pay site, but the Independent is not, as yet…

The Carlton makes me want to cry everytime I pass it or come out of the Savoy opposite.

The Savoy is another building thats in need of a facelift as well. I imagine they havent done anything to it since the 80s (same goes for the Screen). These should have a much higher profile than they do at the moment.

Personally I like the Carlton site the way it it.

It still has hope and whenever I pass I can imagine the possiblilites for such a great site.

The Carlton site reminds me of Gardiners St the way it was 10 yrs ago. Gardiner st had potential to be a magnificant st. but alas it will have to wait until the next generation of buildings replace whats gone up. Maybe the Summerhill corner will elevate the street above bland nothingness.

Has anyone seen the Caralton recently?

I passed it on friday and the building has been cladded in some sort of boarding, the windows have been covered with that printed mesh to look like new ones and the neon signs have been restored.

The enpty site next door had a scaffolding erected which was then covered in more printed mesh, this time printed with a copy of the facade of Dr.Quirkeys.

It looked not at all bad really. the boarding is coloured the same as the facade and as its so clean and smooth, it gave an impression of how it might appear if restored. it all looks a bit like the art deco you find in california.

for a film perhaps?

Hmmm, not sure really Paul. it wasn’t really realistic to convince on celluloid. It looked sorta fake, more as though it was to give an impression. i was wondering if it was something to do with the court action by the carlton group, as part of their action against Dublin City Council’s CPO on the site.

It must be to do with the film because they put up a new neon sign on the Ambassador as well and were filming there on Tuesday night. The film name on the Ambassador was Spicey World if that means anything to anyone. I can’t remember what the neon sign was calling the Ambassador. I can only assume that the Carlton is also being used for the same purpose

The sign (Bulb not neon) is
EMPIRE

Sorry, you’re right – it’s bulb. I passed it at speed in my car. My point was that it was a film, however, which I think is correct.

Well done to the Gresham the latest establishment on O’Connell St to do their part for its renovation. As Bertie would say…’A Lot done, a lot more to do’

What have they done?

They’ve been doing some renovations. I read it in the paper the other day. The whole ground floor was revamped. Im not if they have done anything to the outside but at least it means they are staying put and not selling their premises off to become an internet cafe or a souvenir shop. I must drop by and have a look….its supposed to be quite nice

I passed the Carlton on Sunday, very strange looking indeed, stonework around entrance covered so it looks clean, false windows inserted. Strangely enough it looks better, excellent to know the that neon Carlton letters still work too.

I think could be a nail in the coffin of this development, with the downturn adding the rest.

City council moves to protect Rising site
The Irish Independent

Dublin City councillors yesterday passed a motion to protect a safe house used by the leaders of the 1916 Rising even though planning permission for the site has been granted. The motion to designate No 16 Moore Street in the capital’s city centre a protected structure was unanimously passed by councillors after it emerged that the historic value of the site had not been brought to the attention of councillors when they were considering the developer’s planning application.

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=840352&issue_id=8140

It is good to see this house saved and the plaque that was once there should be re installed to commemerate our history. The Shopping mall proposal could still go ahead…….surely the wonderful achitects/developers with a bit of thinking with the old grey matter can incorporate this into the whole proposed plan…….which has been on hold too since they got planning permission.

Should the house be saved? Does it have any architectural merit?
Aren’t there enough monuments to the Rising already…the Garden of Remberance (in need of a spruce up), the tacky murals in the GPO, a whole section in the National Museum, Arbour Hill, Kilmainham Gaol….the list goes on!
Is there any value in holding onto this building because of its slim historical attachements. After all, you could argue that most buildings in Dublin have some dubious claim to fame

i agree with gregf, incorporating the 1916 building can only make the mall more interesting, pictures of the moore street facade make it look very bland.

From what I have seen…the whole thing is bland – front and back.
But what is this 1916 building… its starting to take on the form of a Gandon masterpiece. Is it rather just an ordinary late 19 century 4 storey building

Exactly, just because some guys took refuge in it, probably because it was the only front door they could force…..

And so we end up with the Irish solution to an Irish problem – we incorporate the old building into the new one and both look out of context -see National Gallery extn with ballroom for example.

I have no qualms with saving heritage that’s worth saving but if it is just an ordinary house then it is probably not woth saving. In years to come if I become famous for something, I wouldn’t like my 3 bed semi preserved for the nation!

It’s reminiscent of the dispute about one of the houses that James Joyce lived in from a few years ago – Joyce lived in about 30 different houses around Dublin over the space of a few years – are they all equally important?

yes, but isn’t that one of the nice things about the ngi extension, i love the way it has the old ball room in the cafe. nor is it such a uniquely irish thing to mix old and new buildings, though it is something that is done well in the temple bar.

Ah yes, the Carlton cinema. Remember this…?Bord Pleananla has just agreed that Carlton Group must sell the property on to Dublin City Council. This compulsory purchase (which had been stalled by the appeal) should kick start the redevelopment of this part of O’connell st.

Excellent news.

about bloddy time.

…..but what about the grandiose plans for this …with shopping malls, hotels etc …linking the one time cinema to the now ugly but redeveloped to be ILAC centre…..and with a glass canopy over Moore Street to keep all the ‘salt of the earth’ traders and hawkers dry.

The whole thing seems to have run out of steam. I havent heard anything about the ILAC centre for some time.

I agree with the question: What happens now? Will the CC hand the whole site over to a new developer for a similar type development? Or will it break the site into parcels again? Or will they revive the Abbey Theatre move idea?

There are an increasing number of vacant sites emerging in this area contrary to the purpose fo the IAP.. this is the most obvious but also the Independent offices, the old AIB branch on O’Connell Street. The IAP needs a bit of a heavey handed push from DCC to get things moving again.

Also what about the idea of making developers like Carlton Group pay for unacceptable delays in developing prime or flagship sites in IAP areas? Immsure they will get a more than fair price for the land under a CPO….what about compensating the city for the time they have wasted.

The announcement of the new hotel on Parnell street must be seen as a vote of confidence from Jurys at least.

An appeal against todays decision has been lodged with the high court.

About one of the first comments regarding the art deco facades, I belive it is referring to the original proposal to build symmetrical flanking facades on either side in an art deco manner, in sympathy with the original central building. This would involve building from scratch on the derilict site to the right, and re-facing Dr Quirkey’s on the left, creating a balanced composition. I have a picture of it and it looks spectacular and highly inventive.

Of course, as this is Ireland, it means it cannot possibly go ahead, it might make sense you’ll understand, or perhaps actually look well. Instead we are lumped with a nasty piece of mock Victorian red brick, uPVC windowed Dr Quirkeys, the exquiste Carlton Cinema, and undoubtedly some crude pastiche on the other side, creating a lopsided, poorly finished and unbalanced composition.

I only found out recently that the Fingal Office bldg is to be ripped apart, it’s concrete shell to be converted to a hotel, and a new facade to be built. At last! Also DCC are expecting an application shortly for a remodelling of the Royal Dublin Hotel, and to do away with those nasty champagne coloured aluminium oriel windows, which have blighted the Street since 1968.

Dr Quirkeys is included in the CPO, Fingal Office bldg is not.
Don’t suppose you can post that picture here Graham?

At least the Fingal Bldg is in public ownership, and so hopfully things will happen more swiftly.
That picture is actually in Pat Liddy’s ‘Dublin a Celebration’ book, my camera is under repair at the minute, I’ll try scanning it once I get the book.

The Fingal building isn’t in public ownership – its owned by the McGettigan family of hotelliers and publicans (they who owned the Baggot Inn etc)

Of course, sorry, they only leased it to Fingal. I forgot it was a speculative development. Presumably the hotel connection is linked to the proposed hotel.

Shopping Centre’s are notoriously transient in their style and appeal – when the ILAC was built it was seen as a beautiful addition to the city….well, er, and So was Stephen’s Green…em…and Jervis is starting to become out of date…

The Abbey idea is the most appropriate and better for the long-term viability of this end of O’Connell Street. Cultural institutions don’t close down, usually are well designed, bring money to an area and contribute to the cultural life of the area. O’Connell Street needs something like the Abbey – and if it was moved to the Carlton, the result would benefit both the Street and the Theatre. O’Connell Street needs a good mix, not another shopping centre with more rubbish “high street” stores………..

What that end of O’Connell Street needs are some night time draws, such as good quality restaurants/bars etc that will draw people to the area after dark, as well as something like the Abbey Theatre, I like the idea though that the upper floors of the Carlton development could be residential!

Don’t forget O’Connell Street used to be the entertainment centre of Dublin.

The main trouble with shops/Malls etc is that come 6pm they’re closed – give us something with at least 18 hours of life please or introduce Barcelona style opening hours (open until 10pm – fantastic)

I agree the shops could/should remain open longer….more revenue for the shops …..more employment for people…. and forget about that stupid Sunday religious anti-shopping lark.
The more choices for everyone the better = a cosmopolitan city full of life.

Somewhere to grab a decent cup of coffee would not go amiss either.

Caught the end of an interview on RTE with someone from DCC -either city architect or manager – saying his preferred option for the Carlton site is to move the Abbey there. Surely this is the way to go for O’Connell Street – having a new home for our national theatre there would transform our perceptions of the street at least as much as the Spire. Maybe then we could replace the fast food joints with cafes and restaurants and make O’Connell Street a place to be in itself rather than a route through to the southside…

Sounds a great idea to me. But what would we do with the current Abbey Theatre and abbey st. They are part of the IAP too i think.

Thats odd because the DCC have always previously maintained (at least officially) that they are opposed to moving the Abbey from its current site. Apparently it was this opinion that swayed Sile De Valera when she opted to redevelop the current site.

Personally, it is so blindingly obvious to move the Abbey to O’Connell St and such a rare opportunity to avail of an important site that I think the DCC would be mad not to take it.

As for what to do with the current site…. how about develop it as a ‘National Society for the Arts’ if you will. Perhaps hold on to the Peacock and redevelop the building over it as a theatre school or academy. That way you still hold on to the tradition of the Abbey (which after all was set up to promote Irish theatre) while giving the site a more suitable purpose.

Or else just demolish it and build a car park…

I think that the shopping mall connecting O’Connell to Moore Street was’nt a bad concept….On refection too the idea of the Abbey moving to O’Connell Street is good as well but I think that may be it should stay put and rebuild a newer and better theatre on the original site where it is now. It could stretch down to the Liffey as was suggested too …it could contain the old original facade within a new innovative design…(ie glass atrium containing the old facade or whatever). It could be a landmark and an another addition to the wanting River Liffey.
Anyone ever see the area around here and Marlborough Street at night with all the piss, vomit, winos and unfortunates of today’s Irish society. It badly needs a clean up.

…and that’s not just at night…

That true enough Greg but I think the main problem there is the amount of landowners the National Theatre would have to negotiate with to purchase the river facing block. I think its about 15-20. I am sure most of them will drive hard bargins.

I still think that was the DCCs preferred option. Weren’t they planning a pedestrian river crossing between Malborough and Hawkins bus garage…I mean streets and the pedestrianisation of the area in front of the Abbey as is.

Still prefer a move to O’Connell St.

Have to disagree with Greg. I think it’s totally up in the air whether a new shopping mall, however glitzy looking, would do anything for the street other than drawing more people into it during the day.
The Ilac is a stone’s throw away and look at that…
And DCCs complete powerlessness over what kind of shops are opened once retail use is established has to put a question mark over the quality of any shops in the new mall.
Not convinced? A bookies is now due to open on Grafton Street. Grafton Street!!!
The Abbey is currently tucked away in drab building in a lousy location, and I’m not sure of the benefits of bringing it back onto the river. Have you ever tried showing our world renowned national theatre building to an overseas friend? It’s an embarrassment.
We’ve already got theatre/ cinemas/ music venues on and around O’Connell Street. Why not create a critical mass with The Abbey?
A rejuvenated O’Connell street could be grand enough for people to want to stick around after their show, providing enough bodies for a decent restaurant scene (lacking on the north side).

Personally I want to see the Abbey and a some restaurants for O’Connell Street. After spending several days on and off hanging around there, somewhere to get a decent coffee would be a plus too.

I’m sure given it’s redevelopment that Hoteliers may take more of an interest in the street now.

The main reason for developing a shopping centre/mall on the Carlton site, indeed the reason it was originally proposed, is to draw people to the northern end of the Street. O’ Connell Street is being used simply as a route to get to Henry Street, people do not go any further, to the detriment of businesses on the other side/northern end of the Street, as stated in the Area Plan, and is an obvious fact.

Wheras developing the Abbey on the Carlton site is a charming and obvious idea, it simply would not act as a draw to this hugely neglected area, least of all during the day. Even an accociated cultural centre would only draw a couple of tourists during the summer, certainly not Dubliners at any time of the year, again to the detriment of the rejuvination of this area. Aside from the Spire and the repaving, the major issue in the Area Plan is to show there is life beyond Henry Street, and nothing but a retail, restaurant and service providing development is going to do this.

Here’s the ill-fated, well designed proposed facade, mentioned before, and contrasted with the current site.

ewwwww its all a bit po-mo isnt it

Good point – I like the way the artist’s impression does away with all of those messy people;)

A mall would draw people in, all right – during the day. O’Connell Street would become just another ‘high street’ (hate the term, but with all these UK multiples, what else do you call them?). And like Talbot/Mary Street would be deserted at night, apart from the odd tourist coming up to admire the Spike and probably getting knifed in the process.
O’Connell Street needs mixed uses that would give it life right into the night.

Mature trees seem to have ‘appeared’ in the artists impression also!!

Does anyone know when the row over the Carlton will be resolved? I just read that piece about the Abbey possibly moving there. I would be in favour of that move.

“A mall would draw people in, all right” Malls by themselves do not draw people anywhere. It is what they contain or rather it is what is at the end of the mall. The greater regional impact of a redeveloped ILAC and its resulting linkage to Henry Street, pushing activity towards a higher density Parnell Street is what potentially this area is about. O’Connell Street is merely the facade to this, and other things such as the Abbey. If the Abbey moves to the Carlton Site the street could echo to the resounding noise of a modern cultural hub with the Gate and Savoy providing the other anchors. Therefore O’Connell Street would in truth be the Mall.

February 12 is when that Carlton cinema CPO comes into court. If DCC lose, I imagine they’ll head to the Supreme COurt. If they win, I can’t imagine Carlton taking the same trip. They’ll just pocket the market value of the property, surely.

Dublin City Councillors are tonight considering whether to debate a section 183 motion regarding the Carlton cinema site.
From yesterday’s Sunday Business Post:

By Neil Callanan

The Save No 16 Moore Street campaigners have asked the members of Dublin City Council to suspend standing orders at tomorrow night’s council meeting in order to debate the agreement drawn up between council management and developer Joe O’Reilly regarding the Millennium Mall site on O’Connell Street.

Dublin City Council has a legal agreement with O’Reilly that it will not implement the compulsory purchase order (CPO) on the Millennium Mall site if he purchases all of it and develops it in line with the O’Connell Street integrated area plan. If the proposal is allowed to be debated, councillors will use Section 183 of the Local Government Act 2001, which deals with any proposed disposal of land by a local authority, to debate the agreement.

The campaigners have already sent notices to councillors to comply with the legislative requirement that at the first meeting held “10 days after the day on which such notices are sent or delivered, the local authority may resolve that the disposal shall not be carried out or that it shall be carried out in accordance with terms specified in the resolution”.

The legislation states that if the council decides that land should not be sold then “the disposal shall not be carried out”.

The campaigners want the local authority to comply with its original plan to advertise the site for sale on the basis of an open tender. They also want 16 Moore Street to be turned into a museum. Architect Paul Clinton, who owns much of the site and is currently challenging the CPO, has drawn up plans that would see the existing building converted and the houses on either side providing exhibition and cafe facilities.

The campaigners are upset that O’Reilly’s submission on the future of the building said that commemorating the retreat and surrender of republican leaders could be thought “excessively morbid or ‘martyrological’.”

The campaigners’ move is hugely significant as at a briefing to councillors in May, management told them that the legal agreement with O’Reilly would not have any effect until adopted by the councillors under a 183 motion.

The Save No 16 Moore Street campaigners point out that in the county development plan it is an objective of the council to preserve the property as a commemorative centre marking the events of Easter 1916. They also point out that it is the policy of the council to seek the conversion of the building “into a museum which will be owned, run and administered by Dublin City Council”. The key point in that statement, the campaigners say, is that the building remain in the ownership of the city council rather than be sold on to O’Reilly.

Dublin City Council wants a substantial retail, commercial and residential development built on the Carlton cinema site in accordance with the city’s development plan.

There was talk a few years ago of turning the closed Carlton Cinema on O Connell’s Street into a big shopping centre. Nothing seems to have been done. Is this still going ahead?
Are there any plans for renovating the building? It has the potential to be a really nice building. All it needs is the right renovation, and it could be an architectural highlight of Dublin, in my opinion.

What I’d like to see done is, for them to make a new entrance, get rid, of the box, where the marquee was, and put some windows in the upper stories, rather than the boards with terrible looking blue dissolve on it. The big CARLTON letters should be kept.

@Blisterman wrote:

There was talk a few years ago of turning the closed Carlton Cinema on O Connell’s Street into a big shopping centre. Nothing seems to have been done. Is this still going ahead?

Search the site and you’ll find extensive discussion on this including all details

no 16 Moore street has just been declared a national monument. The saga goes on and on

Welcome to Ireland!!

I completely agree. Preserving this building as a NM is a nonsense. How many other more worthy sites have been sacrificed through the years without such a high profile protest. I think its make future development of this area (sorely needed as it is becoming a total kip) very difficult.

@StephenC wrote:

I think its make future development of this area (sorely needed as it is becoming a total kip) very difficult.

If you see Clinton’s plans for a memorial using the building you’ll see it’s very easy for it to be integrated into the development.

They can move it and put it inside the Bertie Bowl, or under the waterfall in the National Acquatic Centre. Better still on the tarmacadam at Leinster Lawn. Will Leas Cross get status too?

Why hasn’t any body posted hear in so long? Ther are conflicting stories floating around. Some say that the site as well as the vacant site next door will be a new public plaza. Others say that the carlton, the old North Dublin county council, the carlton and the vacant site in between will be a multi story shopping center with exits on moore street. What will happen? Surely it’s not acceptable to have such a large section of the city’s main street be unused

The plaza is part of the shopping centre plan

Are there any drawings of what’s proposed? I find it kinda hard to visualise.. Thanks

The images and drawings I’ve seen – which aren’t reproducable – show a plaza on O’Connell Street itself and then a short street leading into what I assume is currently the Royal Dublin Hotel, another street back to Moore Street and a larger, wider street down to Henry St with a minor square there. The building images I’ve seen are about six storeys, very boring. But they were prepared at least two years ago so I’m sure it’s been improved.

There was some details a couple of days ago in The Sunday Business Post:
Developer Joe O’Reilly wrote to the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) criticising the decision to reduce the number of Metro North stops in Dublin city centre. O’Reilly said that the decision to reduce the number of stations from three to two “is a weak compromise”. In a letter written in October 2006, and released to The Sunday Business Post under the Freedom of Information Act, he said that the southern part of the city centre will “yet again be strengthened by the current proposal which dedicates one station (St Stephen’s Green) to the south, while the second station is shared; the northside has no station. Furthermore the positioning of a station on O’Connell Bridge will serve to create greater division between north and south Dublin.”

The RPA has said it will consider a third city centre stop at Parnell Square East, after a request from Dublin City Council. That station would be close to a number of properties owned by O’Reilly, including the former Carlton cinema site and adjoining land on O’Connell Street and a 50 per cent stake in the Ilac Centre to the rear of that site.

“It is true that a metro exit at Abbey Street would be within 300 metres of our development but we are not looking to just create a successful shopping district quarter,” O’Reilly continued. “We see our development as an engine for regeneration – simply put, we want a successful development in a vibrant, prosperous part of the town. Together with the metro we can rejuvenate Parnell Square/Dominick Street and the surrounding areas, making them as attractive as St Stephen’s Green on the south side.”

O’Reilly said that if the decision is made to stick to two stations they should be equitably positioned with one on the southside and one on the northside. He said the proposed station under O’Connell Bridge was in an area already congested with pedestrians and would be a disaster. “It just does not make sense to put all the commuters and tourists through streets crowded with shoppers to get to the metro,” he wrote. “By positioning the second station at north O’Connell Street/Parnell Square east we will put passengers away from the areas of congestion.”

O’Reilly continued that the new public square planned for part of the Carlton cinema site would be able to accommodate a metro exit and contrasted that situation with Oxford Circus tube station in London which has to close regularly at peak time because of passenger congestion. “There is only one chance to get this right and the decisions made now will impact on generations to come,” he concluded.

An earlier submission, drawn up by TJ O’Connor & Associates on behalf of O’Reilly’s Chartered Land, said that if one “enters the Ilac from Henry Street and exits on Parnell Street is is like going into a time-maching, regressing about 15 years to pre-Celtic Tiger days”. Other documents show Chartered’s redevelopment of the Carlton site will involve constructing a 92,900 square metre development.

RPA chairman Padraic White responded that following talks with stakeholders in the O’Connell Street area it became clear that a stop there would have had significant drawbacks in terms of the likely impact on businesses and traffic. The station under the Liffey was then chosen because there would be less construction impact and because it offered better connections to the Luas red line.

He said he did not agree with O’Reilly’s view that the stop under the Liffey would create additional congestion problems because the station’s location would reduce the number of people using O’Connell Bridge. Up to six entrances in total will be used to allow passengers disperse from the station and the footways on O’Connell Bridge will be widened.

Thanks for that jdivision. I’ll be interested to see the details as more become available.

Would a plaza on Upper O’Connell St not ruin the roofline? I mean, I know it’s been a vacant lot for years, but now that will actually be by design!

Well planning being sought this month so not long to wait

I think there is a good arguement for breaking the monotony of the streetscape along here (formally as you say fergair) by creating a new street in towards Moore Street. This block is very large and impermiable and is probably one of the reasons why people dont walk further up O’Connell Street

Well thru walkers, to use a hiking reference 😀 walk past anyway. If there’s a destination midway up the street, like another shopping centre, then people will go there plaza or no. Is the Fingal building for the knock as well?

Yep. Just to be clear, the proposed Carlton redevelopment is a world away from the dinky shopping mall first proposed ten years ago, and different again to that of two years ago. It is now approaching Arnotts proportions. By no means a bad thing, but what is of concern is that the city is increasingly being viewed by developers in terms of blocks. Extraordinarily, in quiet 1970’s style, this consortium now own virtually all of Upper O’Connell Street west – ‘Carlton’ is a misnomer now.

What is equally of concern is that DCC have recently published a Development Brief specific to the regeneration of the Carlton site that conveniently endorses baffling height at precisely the locations proposed by the developers. You couldn’t make it up.

Agreed a new street with well-designed corners is welcome mid-way on Upper west.

There really needs to be some excellent architecture here though, not simply a suburban style shopping mall or even the large scale boxes proposed for parts of the Arnotts site. I would expect to see a lot of high quality stonework and some key feature corners and facades to integrate the whole complex into the street. I am VERY excited to see what is proposed. Its curious that very few details of the scheme have leaked into the public domain.

Incidentially I thought Joe O’Reilly made some pertinent observations in his submssion to the RPA on Metro North. Just as the St Stephen’s Green Centre would be the ideal spot to develop the interchange station between DART Underground, Metro, Luas and bus (knocking the existing and redeveloping), the “Carlton” site should also be seen as a valuable working area for metro in this part of town. Could they even start the boring tunnel here (each way) and use the whole site as a works area for the city. There would be a lot less impact.

Would I be correct in saying that the new devlopement will take up the carlton the vacant site and the old countyu council offices? if one looks at that, It is a very larfge scale developement. Possibly the largest in the city centre these days. If it has exits onto henry street and moore street, that means some historic buildings must be knocked

None worth keeping that I can see. Just some tat along Moore Street, except for the three “national monuments”.

@cgcsb wrote:

Would I be correct in saying that the new devlopement will take up the carlton the vacant site and the old countyu council offices?

Plus the Royal Dublin Hotel, plus the buildings on Moore St to rear as far north as Conways pub. At the other end it’ll include Permanent tsb on henry st amongst others it’s a million square foot development don’t forget – just under 25 per cent larger than Dundrum Town Centre phase one afaik. There’ll probably be good links to the Ilac too – O’Reilly owns 50 per cent of it. The plan originally was for a glazed street there between them. DCC has said it’ll move stallholders in its agreement with O’Reilly but is officially denying that’s policy

@jdivision wrote:

Plus the Royal Dublin Hotel, plus the buildings on Moore St to rear as far north as Conways pub. At the other end it’ll include Permanent tsb on henry st amongst others it’s a million square foot development don’t forget – just under 25 per cent larger than Dundrum Town Centre phase one afaik. There’ll probably be good links to the Ilac too – O’Reilly owns 50 per cent of it. The plan originally was for a glazed street there between them. DCC has said it’ll move stallholders in its agreement with O’Reilly but is officially denying that’s policy

Indeed its massive alright. Regarding StephenC’s points on the standard of architecture, what is proposed is very dramatic, but I am already already criticisms as to the quality of certain elements. Also that a large part of the apartments are to be contained in what is likely to be a contentious aspect, namely what Michael Smith refered to as a “ski slope”, is problematic. Certain aspects of it would seem to be well considered such as pedestrian flows, imo.

The matter of the stallholders is one to watch. The level of squalor on the street now is remarkable, but then one wonders in whose interests would it not be in if it was any other way.

Would these works affect the Dublin Bus building on the street?

Have there been any newer pictures than the ones in the Pat Liddy book years ago of the Carlton building all pimped up?

@TLM wrote:

Would these works affect the Dublin Bus building on the street?

O’reilly’s been trying to buy it, not sure if he has or not.

Thanks, don’t think it would be any loss to see it getting re-developed too

Such a huge and important site….its amazing that DCC havent drawn up some guidelines for its development, or made an Action Area Plan or prepared an urban design framework and asked for some public feedback on wwhat should go here. Disgraceful!

@StephenC wrote:

Such a huge and important site….its amazing that DCC havent drawn up some guidelines for its development, or made an Action Area Plan or prepared an urban design framework and asked for some public feedback on wwhat should go here. Disgraceful!

I think you need to read some of the background to what’s happened on the site. DCC management’s entire actions here have been disgraceful.

how’s this getting on? I visited Victoria Square in Belfast recently. It’s amazing. Hope this will do something similar for Dublin

Oral hearing announced for the Carlton. No date set.

There should be one thread for the Carlton really. There’s 10 pages solid of Carlton discussion on the O’Connell Street thread from pages 120 to 129, then a few more bits after that. Should be all cut in here really. Administrator, if you have a chance ……

If the oral hearing is still ahead of us, what’s going on behind the hoarding at Parnell Mooneys or the RDH?

they’ve taken the windows out of the royal Dublin. and there is some kind of crane like aparatus at the back of the site. There’s scafolding up all over the site. Perhaps it’s being demolished in advance of planning permission for the new building. There would be no point in refurbishing the hotel at this stage in the day

I got the impression it’s the exact opposite. It looks like the brickwork is being cleaned and the windows being replaced in a Burlington-like temporary makeover. Hard to tell. The fact that all the furnishings were auctioned off a few weeks ago would perhaps suggest otherwise…

The townhouse at No. 42 is undergoing remedial stabilisation works to the interior. As part of the project, a proposal to clean the front and rear facades was declared non-exempt by DCC, i.e. requiring planning permission. Presumably an application is about to be submitted, ensuring the scaffold is used to best advantage.

well all the furniature is gone as well as some of the internal walls. I thought maybe they were renovating too but what would be the point of that if it was to be domolished within the next year or two.

What’s the current status of the Dublin Central plan anyway? When can we expect a planning decision? I assume An Taisce have objected considering it’s a developement that can be seen from somewhere and will generate employment and revitalize a derelict area. They generally don’t approve of such ungodly things.

wasn’t there a separate application for the hotel and no.42?

@cgcsb wrote:

I assume An Taisce have objected considering it’s a developement that can be seen from somewhere and will generate employment and revitalize a derelict area. They generally don’t approve of such ungodly things.

I imagine they took the time to read the application, examine the several crates of drawings and supporting material submitted and, having done so, submitted criticism of any parts that they believed to be in conflict with stated heritage objectives, or were in conflict with the goal of protecting and enhancing the character of the city centre.

That’s just a wild guess.

I think there was a seperate application for that site…must check it out.

Agreed about the An Taisce bashing…. you shouldnt knock civic engagement – especially given the times we’re in.

@notjim wrote:

wasn’t there a separate application for the hotel and no.42?

There was and it was granted permission
http://www.tribune.ie/archive/article/2008/jul/06/green-light-for-joe-oreillys-oconnell-street-proje/

When I walked down OCS last night there was feverish work on the Carlton, almost like it was intended to reopen it as an amusements or some such. Anyone know about this?

Re: Carlton Cinema Development
When I walked down OCS last night there was feverish work on the Carlton, almost like it was intended to reopen it as an amusements or some such. Anyone know about this?

Crikey notjim,I`m not surprised it was feverish…I would imagine the philistines needed to finish their work and get back across the State Line before certain contributors to this forum could get them.

There are NO words in the English language which can adequately describe what has become of the Carlton….. 😮

Is there a mechanism in the Constitution whereby City Managers can be repeatedly dunked in the River Liffey in order to decide for once and for all if they are actually Witches or Warlocks ?

It looks like it’s going to reopen as a 4d cinema.

It seems to have opened. I await with bated breath the photos someone has no doubt taken of their hideous signage 🙂

It’s not worthy of a photograph. Such a breathtaking breaching of planning codes as to leave one, if hardly surprised, then nonetheless dumbfounded. Has this unofficial approval as it’s part of the Carlton development?

This really is Las Vegas style stuff… :confused:

I must assume that some form of punishment,either in this life or the next will befall those responsible….It makes Dr Quirkeys look like an example of restrained decency……

It must have taken a Brown Envelope the size of Mayo to slip this travesty through the extensive and exhaustive Planning Processes which DCC preside over…

IAP my ass ! 🙂

@Alek Smart wrote:

I must assume that some form of punishment,either in this life or the next will befall those responsible….It makes Dr Quirkeys look like an example of restrained decency……

Sums it up perfectly. I tried to take a photo but something terrible happened the lens on my camera 😉

I couldn’t believe when I saw this today – and Dick Quirke has erected a massive banner hoarding advertising his Dr Quirkey’s, which of itself contains tolerating a non-compliant gambling outfit to advertise on an unauthorised structure on the capital’s finest street – you just couln’t make this stuff up 😡

Tried to photograph this from a bus earlier but another bus obscured my view. It’s truly hideous. At least the fake Dr Quirkey’s façade looked like it might belong there…

But has anyone been inside? I know, I know, its a terrible thing and no one should support it, I absolutely agree, but, if you do go in to this 4d cinema, what does that mean, can you see any of the original Carlton decor.

What have they actually done to the Carlton!? All this outrage! I can’t imagine what they could have done that’s worse than what was there..!

Can someone post a pic? All this suspense is bad for my health. I remember two(?) years ago Burger King slapped to a huge banner on their O Connell St branch (GPO side). It covered the entire facade. Looked shite, I presume the planners made them remove it asap.

Risk cracking your own lens, archipig!

Thus far anyway, the boxy canopy (similar to the Savoy’s) has been pasted over in expansive poster-like signage, akin to a billboard for a video game, the entire length of the facade. There’s other works going on to the ground floor frontage which can only but reinforce the disastrous nature of it all.

I didn’t think the Carlton had a usable interior left…?

@GrahamH wrote:

I didn’t think the Carlton had a usable interior left…?

This was also my recollection, having been in Dr Quirkey’s large ground floor pool area a number of years back, which my sense of direction told me was a few metres behind the façade of the Carlton. I think it was recenty enough kitted out as a casino or something, and now it’s this ‘4D’ theatre.

@igy wrote:

This was also my recollection, having been in Dr Quirkey’s large ground floor pool area a number of years back, which my sense of direction told me was a few metres behind the façade of the Carlton. I think it was recenty enough kitted out as a casino or something, and now it’s this ‘4D’ theatre.

I was in there a number of years ago when it was an internet cafe and I have vaguely remember the internet part being in one of the old screens. It was reasonably intact back then.

Isn’t the Carlton supposed be demolished and have it’s facade cut off and moved down the street? How come we never heard anything about the planning of a 4d theatre. P.S. what exactly is a 4d theatre? I’m very confused.

its quite a small setup actually
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_cD7wewQAk

the 4d is the moving seats :/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GDmR9lCZgw

it has water and wind aswell 🙂

so it’s baisically the same as the simulator machine at DR. Quirkeys except you get wet and cold?

@cgcsb wrote:

so it’s baisically the same as the simulator machine at DR. Quirkeys except you get wet and cold?

yeah the first ride is sponsored by Dublin Bus – it simulates waiting on the quays on a november evening for a late night bus home

Surely someone from the city council will stroll up O’ Connell St and have a conniption when they see this. For gods sake. This is the country’s main street, not funderland.

Does this mean that the planned development is no longer going ahead? I think while there are some flaws in the overall development plan for OCS, anything is better than what is there now. Plus a project of that size, if ground broke today, would have serious positive impact on the economy and jobs… putting us in the right direction to get out of this recession.

I am going to burn it. Nobody say anything.

Apparently Mr Quirkey himself is behind the signage

Any update on what’s going on with the Royal Dublin?

I dunno about OCS being the main street of the country any more. Seems like that honour might go to the M7 these days. But it’s certainly not the main street of Dublin. The capital’s civic axis is Lord Edward Street – Dame St – College Green – Grafton Street.

Just an update. The demolition has started on the Royal Dublin Hotel. Most of the back is gone now up to the facade

@fergalr wrote:

I dunno about OCS being the main street of the country any more. Seems like that honour might go to the M7 these days. But it’s certainly not the main street of Dublin. The capital’s civic axis is Lord Edward Street – Dame St – College Green – Grafton Street.

id be inclined to agree, the only thing keeping o connell st busy on the gpo side is the people walking up to henry st and on the other side is all the bus stops.if the buses didnt use o connell st footfall would plummet.you just have to watch all the people getting off the buses and walking away from o connell st down henry,talbot and over the bridge.id consider college green to be the centre of dublin these days.

So… demolition is almost over, we know what exactly is going in here yet or will it be just another empty lot for huge ugly ads for dr. quirkeys or that awful 104dimensional theatre?

according to the herald last week, a decision on this scheme by An Bord Pleanala is “imminent”

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/city-news/decision-imminent-for-euro125bn-oconnell-st-plan-1804339.html

“imminent” meaning we will have a decision by Christmas no doubt…

August is the expected time for a decision.

Meanwhile, as mentioned, the Royal Dublin Hotel has been demolished (with the exception of its southernmost bay to help support No. 42) in anticipation of the construction of a new office block to rehouse Dublin Bus’s head office. This part of the project, which slipped neatly under the radar, looks set to go ahead as it was part of a site swap with Dublin Bus. I’ve yet to see plans for this building, though I think it already has approval (?).

There are doubts that the Bord will approve the Carlton remounting, while the new opening into O’Connell Street may morph into an actual street rather than the proposed ‘public space’.

I totally agree that Dublin Central must happen for the economy and OCS’s future. I think it should be something looking towards the future and very grand and cool… but I just do not agree with the ski-slope design I’ve seen around. Oh well, I guess it would be better than what is there now.

Also, as regards to the dublin bus swap, does this mean that we might finally get rid of Dublin bus current building and maybe (fingers crossed) the Fingal Co.Co. building!?

Fingal will be gone in its entirety and Dublin Bus re-faced as it is a Protected Structure with a near-fully fledged townhouse surviving behind its deceptive curtain wall. Just a correction from earlier, the RDH has vanished in its entirety, with only the gable walls left standing for the benefit of No. 42 and the AIB.

Looking at the replacement building online, permission was granted exactly a year ago. It’s a standard, uncontroversial, anodyne affair, divided into two blocks to give the appearance of two buildings, one wider and taller than the other. Minimally dressed upper floors with expansive double-height retail at street level, the reinterpreted Georgian language works well with the compact No. 41 (left) but is repetitive, bland and wholly uninspired on such a large scale at No. 40 (right).

© Dublin Central Architects

No. 40 was originally to be faced entirely in red brick, but this was changed by condition upon the intervention of the case planner. The use of brick on such a scale facing a visually independent major commercial building would be unprecedented on the thoroughfare. Brick dressed with stone in a contemporary manner could have been successful, but the lack of faith in modern architects to pull this off without descending into pastiche tends to draw one over to the planner’s favoured comfort zone of stone only.

Both buildings are now going to be faced in granite, detailed in a manner similar to the Ussher Library in Trinity, which is quite elegant. The window opes feature an opaque light box to one side which illuminates after dark.

A bit over-simple, but as long as it’s elegant then I’m ok with it. Granite buildings are usually very nicely finished. Will dublin bus building be redone with it’s original townhouse front? What will be replacing Fingal Co.Co.? This is where Dublin Central was supposed to be moving the Carlton facade right? But with the (permanent?) delay on this are there any other options?

@OisinT wrote:

I totally agree that Dublin Central must happen for the economy and OCS’s future. I think it should be something looking towards the future and very grand and cool… but I just do not agree with the ski-slope design I’ve seen around. Oh well, I guess it would be better than what is there now.

Agreed, it seems to have shifted a few times though:

and now

I preferred the former in shape but the latter is facing the right direction (towards the Liffey). I’d like to see a tilted circular design though, would be nicer for a park.

Either way, so long as it’s big enough, it’ll be spectacular and a draw.

Any news on progress? Any ETA? I happen to like O’Connell Street a lot now, but with these developments in place there’s no doubt that it’s going to be pretty damn excellent in a few years.

Everything that was required of this scheme has been achieved. The Bord delivers yet again.

PLANS FOR a 13-storey building topped by a “park in the sky” at the heart of the proposed Carlton Cinema development on O’Connell Street have been rejected by An Bord Pleanála.

OLIVIA KELLY

The board has directed developers Chartered Land to significantly scale back the overall plans for the development of the 5.5-acre site in the centre of Dublin city, and omit the 13-storey building, before it makes a final decision on permission.

The scheme pays “insufficient respect” to the classical form of O’Connell Street, involves too much demolition, and conflicts with several statutory plans for the area, the board has said.

Chartered Land, which is controlled by shopping centre developer Joe O’Reilly, was granted permission for the commercial and residential development, centred on the site of the former Carlton Cinema, by Dublin City Council last December.

This was subject to a large number of appeals to An Bord Pleanála, including several from groups seeking to protect the National Monument at number 16 Moore Street which was used by the leaders of the 1916 Rising. A public hearing on the development was held last April.

The board has this week written to Chartered Land seeking 16 significant modifications, which must be submitted before November 2nd. Chief among these is the omission of the “iconic building” – a 35-metre structure topped by a sloping public park, which was to be the focal point of the scheme. This element should be removed from the plans and the redesigned buildings should not exceed the height of the Arnott’s scheme – a neighbouring development for which the board has approved a seven-storey scale.

Despite having been granted permission from Dublin City Council, the board notes that the development is in conflict with several of the council’s statutory plans including the Architectural Conservation Area designation. The proposed scheme would disrupt the historic street pattern and was “over-scaled” in relation to the historic buildings around it.

The revised development should retain the original street pattern of the area, the extent of demolition should be reduced, and the existing buildings on Henry Street and Moore Street should be substantially retained.

The board also wants a redesign of the entrance to the development from O’Connell Street. The current proposals are for a 35-metre wide entrance partially fronted by a screen of thin, paired columns topped by a flat canopy, with the entrance buildings cut on a diagonal representing a funnel shape.

This entrance should be reduced to the width of Henry Street and set at right angles to O’Connell Street following “a traditional format” the board said. The entrance buildings should also use more traditional materials it said. Parking for the development should be reduced from 1,100 spaces to not more than 500.

While the letter imposes huge changes, it does state that the site is “general suitable for the type of development proposed”, suggesting that permission would be granted if the necessary modifications are made.

© The Irish Times

I don’t really know of anything they planned on demolishing that isn’t already total rubbish… at least not from what the plans described?!

Does anyone have a link to ABP’s letter?
I assume they rejected the park in the sky because it looked silly and was inaccesable being in the sky, Parks are usually at ground level.
I think there were also objections that the restaurants were at the top levles of the development aswell and hopefully ABP have rejected on these grounds.

It would be great to see this go ahead with some rivisions addressing these and the other issues brought up in the process.

@ac1976 wrote:

Does anyone have a link to ABP’s letter?
I assume they rejected the park in the sky because it looked silly and was inaccesable being in the sky, Parks are usually at ground level.
I think there were also objections that the restaurants were at the top levles of the development aswell and hopefully ABP have rejected on these grounds.

It would be great to see this go ahead with some rivisions addressing these and the other issues brought up in the process.

Oh well god forbid we should do anything different – a park in the sky, just imagine! In Calgary, Canada, there’s a park indoors on the fourth level of the skyscraper, and it’s marketed as a tourist attraction and is very popular. A city park combined with a magnificent view over the whole city – how is this not a good idea?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0813/1224252500702.html
“Despite having been granted permission from Dublin City Council, the board notes that the development is in conflict with several of the council’s statutory plans including the Architectural Conservation Area designation. The proposed scheme would disrupt the historic street pattern and was “over-scaled” in relation to the historic buildings around it.”

It does bring up the question of how the council can grant permission despite it conflicting with the statutary area plans that it is also responsable for.
Perhaps these area plans need to be amended to allow for better innovation of design as long as it is beneficial to the identity and culture of the city!

Anyway the Architectural Conservation Area designation of O’connell street hasn’t rescued it from crappy shops and shitty shop fronts. Only innovative design can do this now.
Even the delapadated grandeur the street had up until 2000 is gone and the original buildings now even look out of place there.

@GrahamH wrote:

Everything that was required of this scheme has been achieved. The Bord delivers yet again.

PLANS FOR a 13-storey building topped by a “park in the sky” at the heart of the proposed Carlton Cinema development on O’Connell Street have been rejected by An Bord Pleanála.

OLIVIA KELLY

The board has directed developers Chartered Land to significantly scale back the overall plans for the development of the 5.5-acre site in the centre of Dublin city, and omit the 13-storey building, before it makes a final decision on permission.

The scheme pays “insufficient respect” to the classical form of O’Connell Street, involves too much demolition, and conflicts with several statutory plans for the area, the board has said.

Chartered Land, which is controlled by shopping centre developer Joe O’Reilly, was granted permission for the commercial and residential development, centred on the site of the former Carlton Cinema, by Dublin City Council last December.

This was subject to a large number of appeals to An Bord Pleanála, including several from groups seeking to protect the National Monument at number 16 Moore Street which was used by the leaders of the 1916 Rising. A public hearing on the development was held last April.

The board has this week written to Chartered Land seeking 16 significant modifications, which must be submitted before November 2nd. Chief among these is the omission of the “iconic building” – a 35-metre structure topped by a sloping public park, which was to be the focal point of the scheme. This element should be removed from the plans and the redesigned buildings should not exceed the height of the Arnott’s scheme – a neighbouring development for which the board has approved a seven-storey scale.

Despite having been granted permission from Dublin City Council, the board notes that the development is in conflict with several of the council’s statutory plans including the Architectural Conservation Area designation. The proposed scheme would disrupt the historic street pattern and was “over-scaled” in relation to the historic buildings around it.

The revised development should retain the original street pattern of the area, the extent of demolition should be reduced, and the existing buildings on Henry Street and Moore Street should be substantially retained.

The board also wants a redesign of the entrance to the development from O’Connell Street. The current proposals are for a 35-metre wide entrance partially fronted by a screen of thin, paired columns topped by a flat canopy, with the entrance buildings cut on a diagonal representing a funnel shape.

This entrance should be reduced to the width of Henry Street and set at right angles to O’Connell Street following “a traditional format” the board said. The entrance buildings should also use more traditional materials it said. Parking for the development should be reduced from 1,100 spaces to not more than 500.

While the letter imposes huge changes, it does state that the site is “general suitable for the type of development proposed”, suggesting that permission would be granted if the necessary modifications are made.

© The Irish Times

I don’t think it was ever envisaged that ABP would take on this role of re-designing, or directing the re-design of, major urban schemes, such as here or the ‘Opera Centre’ in Limerick, but fair play to them for not just flipping a coin and cashing their pay-cheques.

I really don’t see how a “park in the sky” behind OCS would detract from anything on the street proper.

Seems like a great idea just thrown out the window, they could have really made that special.

@Yixian wrote:

Seems like a great idea just thrown out the window, they could have really made that special.

Agreed. What would have been a free amenity to the tax payer. Could they not just have reduced it in height rather than instructing it be ommitted?

Planning process is a bit nuts. Applicant submits plans to Dublin City Council. Dublin City Council gives opinion, applicant redesigns plans, knowing full well that ABP will just demand another complete redesign later. What a waste of time and money. Could there not be some consultation between DCC and ABP at the beginning of the process, or just cut out the middle man.

Listen, this is symptomatic of planning the length and breadth of the state, where planning authorities contort and wriggle around their own polices and development plans to suit the majority of applications, especially major ones, that come up for assessment.

Aside from the myriad of other matters which may be deemed subjective with this case, on the simple matter of the Architectural Conservation Area alone, what was allowed through by DCC just defies reason. An ACA is a legally-binding statutory instrument, akin to Protected Structure or National Monument designations. Unlike policies of a development plan to which a planning authority need only have regard, an ACA is enforceable in the courts in terms of what is deemed to materially alter the character of the designated area. It is outrageous in this case that a whole chunk of a handsome terrace in the ACA be swept away (on Henry Street), that an historic, near grid-like street pattern be gouged out, and the readability of that area should be altered in order to cater for a short-term commercial gimmick of a monolith sloping structure with roof garden which displays absolutely no connection with that area. This is not to say that the area must be preserved in amber; it simply means that the existing context must be accounted for in the design, layout and architecture of the new quarter. The ‘feature’ garden building was simply rammed in as a token glitter ball with no relevance to its environs. The new entrance to O’Connell Street was similarly lacking in an appropriate interpretation of the urban street pattern. I fully agree with what has been ordered in respect of this junction, not just because a Henry Street-scaled opening it is a more sensitive solution in this historic environment, but moreover because it affords the opportunity to build something that we have been unable to do over the past two decades – namely a new street. To follow the established street pattern not only better integrates the new scheme, it also helps to avoid Ilac Round II, whereby a new city quarter is created which will end up isolated and detached in terms of character and fashionability in years to come. The proposed wide columnar screen was a complete affront to that concept, never mind its existing environment.

I’d like to see the Bord’s order too, if anyone has it…

is it an actual order or just a letter to the applicant – in other words will it be made available on their site. It’s not there now and they only publish “decisions” not what is in essence an AI request

@rumpelstiltskin wrote:

Oh well god forbid we should do anything different – a park in the sky, just imagine! In Calgary, Canada, there’s a park indoors on the fourth level of the skyscraper, and it’s marketed as a tourist attraction and is very popular.

There is indeed, and very nice it is but one key word is indoors.
Now while Calgary has very pronounced climatic variation compared to Dublin, an outdoor high rooftop venue is one that has yet to catch the imagination of Dubliners.

The saga continues.

@ac1976 wrote:

Does anyone have a link to ABP’s letter?
I assume they rejected the park in the sky because it looked silly and was inaccesable being in the sky, Parks are usually at ground level.
I think there were also objections that the restaurants were at the top levles of the development aswell and hopefully ABP have rejected on these grounds.

It would be great to see this go ahead with some rivisions addressing these and the other issues brought up in the process.

wait… what’s wrong with having a restaurant at the top again? I’d eat there.

@OisinT wrote:

wait… what’s wrong with having a restaurant at the top again? I’d eat there.

Well there’s nothing wrong with having a restaurant at the top, but it would be good to have some at ground level so they can interact with the street, as opposed to just having display windows at ground level and forcing you to go all the way through the shopping center to get to the restaurant.

They have dona a good job of this at Dundrum by the lake where there are numerous restaurants and terraces.

OUCH!!!

Dublin City Council criticised over decisions
Thursday, 13 August 2009 12:40
An Taisce has said there should be resignations in Dublin City Council after An Bord Pleanála again criticised council permission for high-rise development.

The board have indicated to Chartered Land that it will reject its plan for the Cartlon site on O’Connell Street involving a 13-storey building topped by a sloping park.

In a Section 132 notice sent to the developers, they note that the plan was given permission by Dublin City Council even though it is in conflict with the council’s own Architectural Conservation Area designation.

Ian Lumley of An Taisce said this follows the board’s overturning of Sean Dunne’s Ballsbridge development scheme, which was given permission by the council even though it too was in conflict with its own development plan.

Welcoming the board’s observations in respect of the Carlton site, Mr Lumley said it was ‘a total slap in the face for Dublin City Council, it should be resigning time for senior management and planning’.

A spokesman for Dublin City Council said they will not be commenting in any way.

A spokesman for Chartered Land said the company will be considering the board’s request for a redesign.

It is understood it will be at least two months before revised plans will be ready for a decision by An Bord Pleanála.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0813/planning.html

An Taisce has now said there should be resignations in Dublin City Council after An Bord Pleanála criticised the council permission for the Carlton development.

Doubtless that will happen at enforcement speed, or similar.

Quel surprize. I generally hate developers and their ilk. But, this could have been a real attraction for Dublin. Of course arguements like that are wasted on the closed minds in ABP.

C

At least it had some form of public space attached to it, rather than just retail and office space. All this development in recent years and where are the big draws for tourists? Nobody will visit Dublin just to go shopping, people would visit Dublin to check out a park in the sky amongst other things.

Tourism seems to be being forgotten at a time when it’s apparently going to be becoming more and more important to Dublin.

Will you do everyone a favour and shut the fuck up about tourists. Most of those cities that you want Dublin to copy didn’t end up like they did by catering for tourists, they did it by catering for their own citizens.

@rumpelstiltskin wrote:

Will you do everyone a favour and shut the fuck up about tourists. Most of those cities that you want Dublin to copy didn’t end up like they did by catering for tourists, they did it by catering for their own citizens.

Profanity definitely helps get your point across. I don’t claim to be a genius, I am trying to learn about city planning whilst at the same time expressing my opinion, i’m sure you know more about this sort of thing than I do and I welcome your corrections but you don’t have to be horrible about it – what’s the point? It just comes across as rude and arrogant.

@thebig C wrote:

Quel surprize. I generally hate developers and their ilk. But, this could have been a real attraction for Dublin. Of course arguements like that are wasted on the closed minds in ABP.

C

a north facing greenhouse with a harry Ramsdens and a few yukkas in pots on the 13th floor of a mall:rolleyes: they’d be flocking in from all corners of the globe to see that one, sure feck the Development Plan and all that statutory ‘document of the people’ shite as well.

Lumley’s right- enough people on here know there is a poisonous cabal of pseuds and spoofers trading as our neo-urbanist betters &overlords in Wood Quay (with some honourable exceptions I know) .

wheres the evidence this would have worked?

If you build it they will come…

Forget about attracting tourists, just build properly for a functional city and the people that live there and tourism will follow. One thing about Ireland is that with the amount of so called “Irish” around the world, tourism is inevitable.
What we need to do is FIX OCS. If this is supposed to be a public transport hub for the city and a shopping area etc. it needs to function for the citizens of Dublin. If it does that properly then it will do that properly for tourists too.

I don’t like the idea of buildings specific for tourists either, I just meant public spaces, activities, attractions – things to do that isn’t shopping or working. Things to entertain the public and the tourists.

That was my only point.

@tommyt wrote:

. . . . people on here know there is a poisonous cabal of pseuds and spoofers trading as our neo-urbanist betters & overlords in Wood Quay (with some honourable exceptions I know).

🙂

“Fingal will be gone in its entirety and Dublin Bus re-faced as it is a Protected Structure with a near-fully fledged townhouse surviving behind its deceptive curtain wall. Just a correction from earlier, the RDH has vanished in its entirety, with only the gable walls left standing for the benefit of No. 42 and the AIB”

graham I am intrigue about the dublin bus building I thought it was pure 60s have you any more details of what has survived of the townhouses ?

surely if they are being refaced tey should have their facades restored

@aj wrote:

“Fingal will be gone in its entirety and Dublin Bus re-faced as it is a Protected Structure with a near-fully fledged townhouse surviving behind its deceptive curtain wall. Just a correction from earlier, the RDH has vanished in its entirety, with only the gable walls left standing for the benefit of No. 42 and the AIB”

graham I am intrigue about the dublin bus building I thought it was pure 60s have you any more details of what has survived of the townhouses ?

surely if they are being refaced tey should have their facades restored

That’s the impression I was under… they will be restored back to their original townhouse style. Anything would be better than what is there now!

Okay, so a little back-tracking is in order here. Information I received from a well-informed source turns out to be not so much incorrect, as incorrectly placed. I hadn’t a chance to follow it up in the meantime. Slap on the hand for taking architects at face value…

This person’s surprise upon happening ‘original interiors’ behind the Dublin Bus facade on reflection must relate to the neighbouring house with Victorian facade at No. 60, which interconnects, and makes a heck of a lot more sense. Certainly the ground floor has an historic interior. What made the initial story credible is that the gable walls of the original townhouse on the site of the modern Dublin Bus building do appear to survive behind the giant proscenium arch of stone cladding. What made me so surprised to think that interiors still existed is that a) this would surely be common knowledge, and b) this plot was occupied by one of the largest mansions on Sackville Mall, the interiors of which, had they survived, would surely be of some significance.

So no mystery townhouse alas – unless someone can tell us otherwise?

souless characterless glass alluminium chrome birch lavender highstreet brandnames elevators walkways cobblelock paving plastic signs ventilation shafts contempary catalogue street furniture clipped topiary metal pots and a wet yourself tower element…..christ, STW snowglobe valhalla.

@Bago wrote:

souless characterless glass alluminium chrome birch lavender highstreet brandnames elevators walkways cobblelock paving plastic signs ventilation shafts contempary catalogue street furniture clipped topiary metal pots and a wet yourself tower element…..christ, STW snowglobe valhalla.

…now that you mention it!

and that’s just the prose

So I wonder what would be likely to replace Dublin Bus HQ then if there is no historic townhouse?
I actually quite like the modern meets old look in general and I think it’s done well on OCS… they just need to raise the standard of care of the buildings and do something about the signage … and in my opinion give Dr. Quirkey’s the boot.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0814/1224252551593.html

AN TAISCE has called on Minister for the Environment John Gormley to reprimand Dublin City Council for granting permission for the high-rise Carlton development in contravention of statutory plans.

This follows a decision by An Bord Pleanála earlier this week to reject a large number of elements of Chartered Land’s scheme for the 5.5-acre site centred on the old Carlton cinema on O’Connell Street.

The development was approved by the council last December but was appealed to An Bord Pleanála. The board has yet to make its final decision on the project but wrote to Chartered Land last Monday advising that a number of elements were unacceptable.

Chief among these was a 13-storey building topped by a “park in the sky” which the board has told the developers to “omit”. It has also advised them to reduce demolition, reduce heights and use more traditional materials.

It was mentioned on the previous page that these plans would have done a lot of damage to the historic architecture on street level, and that’s obviously unacceptable, but it’s sad to see the “park in the sky” idea get so much flak and be basically written off.

The glass and boarding of the two buildings on OCS look pretty meh, but the park looks fun, the view would be great and it’s a novel idea at least.

I disagree, I think the class building at least around the carlton is a vast improvement on what is there presently and would love to see that go ahead at least and worry about some of the other stuff later. e.g. the slope part can be designed and built at a later time

@OisinT wrote:

I disagree, I think the class building at least around the carlton is a vast improvement on what is there presently and would love to see that go ahead at least and worry about some of the other stuff later. e.g. the slope part can be designed and built at a later time

ACA designation would usually mean that there is no need to improve what is there at the moment and makes preservation obligitory.

Is it time to remove the ACA from O’Connell Street?

The origional plan was really good. I know that it goes against the DCC developement plan but at the same time, maybe they need to get a better plan. Afterall the western side of Upper O’Connell street is awful. The sooner Dublin bus HQ is gone the better. The sooner Dr. Quirkey’s is gone, the better, the sooner the old North Dublin county council offices are gone, the better, the royal Dublin hotel is gone(thank the lord). The Dublin central schem done all these things and added a new public amenity “the sky park”. the whole developement reminded me of Victoria Square in Belfast which is amazing by the way. Now I fear this scheme will retire to the unbuilt Ireland section. So sad that we’re so backwards 🙁

I’d say something if we were talking about a place with real architectural distinction, but the whole of O’Connell St. is architecturally mediocre, full of the most generic Victorian trash imaginable. It’s grey, it’s drab, it’s soulless, it’s dirty, it’s bland. The best you could hope to do is actually to get more people on the upper half and add a bit of colour.

@ac1976 wrote:

ACA designation would usually mean that there is no need to improve what is there at the moment and makes preservation obligitory.

Is it time to remove the ACA from O’Connell Street?

I wasn’t aware that ACA designation was placed on Fingal Co.Co., an empty space and Dr. Quirkey’s… off the top of my head I’m not sure what else they were planning on demolishing there.
Plus, if what they’re demolishing is a totally derelict building with ACA protection – we need to get real. Is it worth protecting if it is just going to be derelict garbage?

@OisinT wrote:

I wasn’t aware that ACA designation was placed on Fingal Co.Co., an empty space and Dr. Quirkey’s… off the top of my head I’m not sure what else they were planning on demolishing there.
Plus, if what they’re demolishing is a totally derelict building with ACA protection – we need to get real. Is it worth protecting if it is just going to be derelict garbage?

ACA applies to the whole street and surrounding area.
I totally agree Oisin, and basically it seems that the ACA order itself should be changed to allow this, and its a specific order applying to O’connell street so changing it would not affect any other ACA areas.
Otherwise the architects will have to blend the new site into the existing streets and hide all of the shiny stuff from view, oh and leave out the park and other unique features.
That would be a pity and would be DCC’s silliness at fault.

http://www.dublincity.ie/Planning/HeritageConservation/Conservation/Documents/O’Connell%20Street%20ACA.pdf

An ACA is not a designation for a building. It stands for Architectural Conservation Area. Protected Structure status applies to single buildings. ACA does not mean things can’t get changed, they just have to do so in a responsible manner (in theory anyway)

3.10.2 Where it is proposed to demolish a structure that
contributes to the character of an ACA or to
demolish behind a retained façade, the onus should
be on the applicant to make the case for
demolition. The planning authority should consider
the effect both on the character of the area and on
any adjacent protected structures. When it is
proposed to demolish an undistinguished building
in an ACA, the proposed replacement should not be
of lesser quality or interest than the existing one
and should not adversely affect the character of the
area.

The applicant and the planning authority should
consider the material effect that that proposed
demolition may have on the character of the ACA:

a) Does the structure (or part of the structure) to
be demolished contribute to the character of
the area?

b) What effect would removal of the structure have
on the setting of other structures in the area, the
balance of an architectural composition or the
setting of any adjacent protected structures?

http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/Heritage/ArchitecturalHeritage/FileDownLoad,2204,en.pdf

so in the case of OC st, do Quirkeys and FCC contribute anything to the ACA status of the street? If not then demolish away. You have to ask yourself WHY does OCS have ACA status? What are it’s attrubutes? and how would demolition affect that? I would offer that the relation between width of the street and the building heights is a key attribute, the early 20th century rebuilds, the GPO itself, the statues and monuments, the Gate/Ambassador, the Bridge etc etc – none of which will be adversely affected by demolishing these buildings

The status of ACAs in Dublin city has thus far proven to be greatly diminished by the manner of their implementation and their selective application. So far we have seen ACA designation being avoided entirely in areas where it is deemed to ‘interfere’ with proposed development, or the provisions of an active designation simply not being enforced, as seen right across the O’Connell Street ACA – in effect the ‘City Centre ACA’ given the extensive area that it covers, both north and south of the Liffey. Both of these practices run completely counter to the legal intention, proper planning objective, and civic spirit of the instrument, and make a mockery of the planning process.

The lack of precedent of a firm hand by the planning authority with the Carlton case resulted in such incredible proposals by the applicant as the demolition the elegant Garda station building at the upper end of the street – one of the most handsome post-destruction buildings on the thoroughfare and comprising the very essence of what austere 1920s O’Connell Street is all about. For a developer to think that a proposal which so patently runs counter to stated policy has a chance of getting passed, there must be something seriously wrong with the authority’s standards of policy implementation. Likewise, the precedent for whacking a whole section of 1910s terrace on Henry Street was neatly set by Dunnes’ new mega-store further down the road. In any sane city, where a planning authority sets the standards, not developers, these proposals would never be made, let alone get a look-in, never mind be granted with flying colours as in the case of Henry Street.

There are two other ABP precedents for refusal in this area. The previously mentioned Dunnes scheme, which isn’t even in the ACA, was rejected by the Board’s inspector on the basis of its destructive and invasive character. The only reason it got through is that the single objector to the scheme mysteriously withdrew their objection to ABP. The whole case collapsed, and thus so too did the gracious character of one of the city’s best commercial terraces. Secondly, in a recent move that received no publicity whatsoever, the Board resoundingly rejected the proposed re-facading of Penneys next door to the GPO, submitted as part of the Arnotts redevelopment. Sailing through the DCC process with its vulgar projecting canopies, hanging ‘veils’, vast television screen glazing, myriad top-up storeys and brazen vertical signage, all directly next door to the GPO, the Board described it as not only inappropriate, but contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. Even on this, one of the most sensitive sites in the city, in an ACA, sitting beside one of the most significant buildings in the State, where design excellence is demanded, there was a willingness by the city authority to whore out O’Connell Street’s stated ‘civic design character’ for a tawdry trinket of commercial trash, so incongruous as to make the current building appear the model of elegant restraint. The applicants even had the audacity to cite the wedding cake of the former Metropole Hotel as precedent for an arrogant architectural expression on the site.

Meanwhile, the view of the Wide Streets Commission terrace on D’Olier Street from across the river is, as we speak, being grossly undermined by a nasty overly-tall development looming over its roofscape, its two missing original shopfronts are not reinstated even though it was recommended in a DCC document on shopfront design for the area, and all surrounding streets in the ACA drown in a sea of unauthorised development. The recent over-scaled Gresham Hotel redevelopment also had nearly four metres, or over a storey, lopped of its height by ABP to protect the rooflines of the ACA.

Over in the new Capel Street ACA, a similar sea of unauthorised development and dubious changes of use are taking place on a weekly basis, with the entire upper end already commandeered by Chinese restaurants, parlours and goodness knows what else. The uses within an ACA are just as important as the buildings, yet if the current pace of change on Capel Street is to be sustained, within a matter of three to four years this traditional shopping street will be unrecognisable. Even Grafton Street is worse now in terms of illegal signage, displays, postering and windows that it was when its ACA was introduced two years ago.

Aside from the fact that most of the provisions of an ACA merely promote good planning practice which should be standard across the board in an historic city centre, there remains a swath of streets still requiring designation. This includes Parliament Street, Dame Street, Lord Edward Street, College Green, Nassau Street, Dawson Street, Molesworth Street, Kildare Street, arguably St. Stephen’s Green, South William Street, the ‘red quarter’ of South Great George’s Street, Aungier Street and others. There is an extreme reluctance on the part of DCC to adopt ACAs because of the perceived drain on resources they effect. But if good planning standards existed in the first place, and swift procedures were implemented to streamline the system, this issue would not arise.

ACA as an instrument is by and large sound. It is the implementation of it by authorities that is the issue, and it is up to them to take the matter in hand, show commitment to understanding the legislation, making known stakeholders’ obligations, and deal with it. It has been around for close to a decade now – there are no excuses anymore.

And alas, whatever about the problems in Dublin, ACAs outside the big smoke are truly in a different league…

ABP’s order has been published on the planning app with DCC

http://www.dublincity.ie/AnitePublicDocs/00277436.pdf

I am amazed that so many people comment on a project and yet so few consider the historical significance of parts of this site, thankfully ABP did!! Has this nation forgotten the people that fought and died on these very streets for our country. 16 Moore Street is critical to the whole project and for those of you that didn’t know it is a National Monument.

But there’s still a lot of suspicion that wasn’t the building of interest

@jdivision wrote:

But there’s still a lot of suspicion that wasn’t the building of interest

If you mean the building in Moore Street, Nurse O’Farrell picked it out as the one she walked out of to the British barricade.

It’s also accepted as authentic by the National Graves Association.

More HERE.

Yes they say that, but there is still a suspicion it’s not. The original plan by Clinton for it wasn’t bad but O’Reilly’s document was a bit ridiculous and then Clinton changed his mind.

Can we run through the buildings whose architectural merit is so considerable that ABP needs to take them into account when considering other sites and proposals?

The GPO?
The last remaining Georgian building o the street up by the Royal Dublin?
Clerys?

That’s it, to my mind. Then there are in diminishing order of importance:

The bank buildings dating from the reconstruction of the street in the 20s
The great slab between the Gresham, the Savoy and Burger King.
And what else?

Architectural set-piece OCS is not.

Gosh, I’m amazed at the amount of bad feeling that people have towards O’Connell St. I know it has long been a kip and there are a lot of dodgy types around there (I’ve had my wallet stolen 3 times on that street) but I LOVE those 20th century buildings – ones that were built by the Free State government. I never used to give a crap about Irish history but now that I know a bit about it I love walking up and down O’Connell Street. It evokes Free State, 1920s and 1930s Ireland for me. I love the Gresham, The Carlton, The Savoy, Clerys, Ulster Bank etc. Dr .Quirkeys is absolutely sickeningly disgusting, however, and the present use for the Carlton – especially in terms of the signage! – is an absolute disgrace. Buildings like that are of such social historical (if that makes sense) significance and should be considered as such. Also, I think the Dublin Bus HQ is okay, it’s design represents what was happening architecturally (I presume) in it’s era, it has stained glass designed by Evie Hone on it’s frontage and I really like that!

while not willing to wade into this debate, O Connell Street looked and felt fantastic today lunchtime. Feck all traffic, the median uncongested and the sun shining. It has changed greatly in the last 10 yerars but the north end needs urgent and widespread interventions – not demolitions – but changes

Yep it’s a street that now looks fabulous in the sun. It makes all the difference when there’s no traffic, or to be more precise, no buses. A real joy post-morning rush hour.

Ah fergal’s off on his 1920s-bashing again ;). What did they ever do to you? They brought us such useful innovations as the morning suit, outrageously dodgy electrics, facisim, and er, depression. What’s not to like?

The mishmash of O’Connell Street’s building stock is what makes it interesting. An Irish solution to an Irish problem one might say – an unabashed physical manifestation of the complete inability of the Irish to come to any sort of collective decision. Bearing in mind that Regent Street, as the most obvious equivalent across the water, was being gradually rebuilt to a unified plan over the course of 1895-1925 or so – not to mention large tracts of Whitehall – it makes sense that O’Connell Street would aspire to a similar design concept in its dual bouts of reconstruction.

The failure of city authorities, property owners and arguably central government to realise the above vision has resulted in the charming, if underwhelming, collective of varied terraces that comprises modern-day O’Connell Street, ranging from pompous neoclassicism, swaggering (if watery) Art Deco, stripped classicism, neo-Georgian and everything in between.

The simple fact is that even if those ‘incomplete’ parts as survived destruction were torn down today to attempt some level of unification, the 1910s and 1920s buildings themselves are still so varied in style as to make such a scheme near-impossible. Likewise, the latter’s grandeur and general aura of old-fashioned civic dutifulness, even if dubious in parts, collectively often makes for a surprisingly monumental streetscape. Many of these buildings are of merit, with a refreshing clarity of design; they simply require closer inspection.

The problem with the Upper O’Connell Street west and part of Lower O’Connell Street west is not so much their modest architectural style, as their buildings’ standard of presentation. Were efforts made to ensure quality maintenance of upper floors, the removal of myriad inappropriate accretions, and some attempts undertaken to return coherence to the last surviving Wide Streets Commission buildings at the lower end of the street, real progress could be made. And yes, that even includes Burger King in all its arch-windowed glory. Far better to retain what remains of the original Sackville Mall townhouse and WSC commercial buildings’ footprints, keeping that connection with the origins and later development of the street, while making real commitment to improving its appearance.

(I knew this Carlton/O’Connell Street thread divide would get messy eventually!)

The revised Dublin Central proposals were recently submitted to the Board. Anyone see them yet?

@StephenC wrote:

The revised Dublin Central proposals were recently submitted to the Board. Anyone see them yet?

Would love to see them…

@StephenC wrote:

The revised Dublin Central proposals were recently submitted to the Board. Anyone see them yet?

Saw the whole lot at a presentation by Chartered Land a few weeks ago. Not too impressive, the entrance is around half the width and faced in redbrick. Bland. Chartered Land lads not too happy about it but said its the best they could get.

Il see if I can find a few images to post.

Yes I had heard they were pretty poor. They seem to be overly constrained by the ACA.

RE: the Carlton, I think they have permission for it without the most interesting bit (the viewing platform). And the Grande entrence has been reduced to just a few metres wide, other than that the project seems to be a bit stalled. Although there are a few buildres and some scaffolding doing something in a giant hole in the ground where it’s supposed to go, but the Carlto building itself remains.

@cgcsb wrote:

RE: the Carlton, I think they have permission for it without the most interesting bit (the viewing platform). And the Grande entrence has been reduced to just a few metres wide, other than that the project seems to be a bit stalled. Although there are a few buildres and some scaffolding doing something in a giant hole in the ground where it’s supposed to go, but the Carlto building itself remains.

Just tell me something is going to replace it at some point soon..

well they’re doing something in that hole in the ground next to it so I’d imagine it’ll eventually be built, but not in it’s orgional format, which was more impressive than Belfast’s Victoria Square. The Facade of the Carlton was supposed to be a keeper from the origional plans, it’s all kinda up in the air at the moment.

More impressive than Viccy Square aye?

Well, this is OCS for gods sake, if there’s a street in Ireland on which to pull out the stops a little, it’s freaking OCS..

I agree, DCC and ABP don’t

@StephenC wrote:

Yes I had heard they were pretty poor. They seem to be overly constrained by the ACA.

I have seen the latest plans and the differences are the garden in the sky is gone, the entrance onto O Connell Street is narrower and some building facades kept on Moore Street but they still have four stories of a car park under the National Monument and only rebuilding the streets, not keeping the historical streets. really disappointing!! Chartered Lands have missed their last opportunity here.

I’ve been away for a few weeks, but I got the aircoach to OCS today and noticed some new thing going on at that stupid 4D (or whatever) ride. Please tell me they’re not extending Dr. Quirkey’s

News renders submitted to ABP, show much diminished entrance from O’Connell Street, no Park in the Sky. Pretty bland to be honest compared to the original plan.

They’re pretty dire. Why do they need to break both the horizontal *and* vertical street lines? What on earth is that god awful structure encompassing the Carlton front? There’s not much point keeping the existing front if they’re going to destroy it like that.

Original scheme a tad more inspired.

An Bord Pleanala Scheme

Dear oh dear oh dear.

So finally, can we please put RIAI awards and AAI handouts to bed? They are not reality. This is reality. This is the coalface of architecture in Ireland in 2010. This is the standard of what gets lodged with planning authorities every day of the week. And it’s bloody ignorant.

Watch the spinning on this now and how ‘this is what you get with ACAs’, rather than ‘this is what you get with unimaginative architects’.

That’s unbelievable.

They’ve made the Carlton look like it was designed by Albert Speer.

and the rest of it . . . what’s the theme? . . . . . Germania meets Portlaoise?

Jesus Christ

Jesus. They’re shockin alright. The original scheme had its problem but this looks like they’ve just given up.

The only justification for breaking the parapet height of the street here would be if the Carlton as housing a major civic building – ie the abbey.

These aca’s mean nothing… because they don’t have one very simple diagram….
So many of the aca’s are vague…
Words do not mean anything… simple diagrams do…
rescode you should have concode :p

Dr Quirkeys gets a reprieve.

I don’t see why they changed the carlton facade proposal from the second incarnation, as still seen (for the time being) on http://www.dublincentral.ie. I know setbacks are none too popular on archiseek, but its gotta be better than that boxy shite

OMG the origional plan was fine, the wide entrance was worthy of our city’s main boulevard. The new plan is essentially a pokey gap in the buildings, it looks almost afraid of it’s own existance. The old proposal screamed confidence, this screams “bleh”

I find thaat I keep looking at and looking away, it’s like watching the exorcist.

This is the new and actual plan for the site? Gods above, it looks terrible. The building to be developed around the Carlton looks drab, depressing and ugly. The street covering is skimpy and derisory. The new streetscape looks as if it could be anywhere and does not inspire confidence. I wasn’t fond of the previous submission and I wasn’t convinced that the Park in the Sky could work but it is far superior to this effort. At least it had a bit of panache and would contribute something to Dublin’s fabric. The Park in the Sky could in fact be made to work and become a new focus for the city. Unfortunately, with the new plan, this will not come to pass.

If that building on the left of the entrance was painted cream or magnolia and had a rounded corner instead of a square one, it would be far less offensive to the eye

The first scheme wasn’t perfect, but at least it had balls.

Absolutely shameful.

And despite the awfulness of that attic story on the Carlton, what is more concerning is what’s peeking up behind the buildings to the right of it.

Is this for real? Where did that image come from?

that gotta be a joke..

More like Coventry city centre meets portlaoise! if they can only think in shopping centre terms i think i’d prefer see some inoffensive pastiche please.

‘…was painted cream or magnolia…’ ffs, this is Main St Dublin! Reminds me of the rebuilt Plymouth after the Luftwaffe had bombed the original; clearly, DCC doesn’t need the bombers…

So I think it is agreed amongst pretty much everyone – and from all ends of the architecture and planning spectrum on this website – that this is categorically not what O’Connell Street and this new city quarter warrants or deserves in design terms. Therefore a systems failure has to be identified, either in our planning process or in the architectural profession, or both.

Developers and some architects have often been heard in recent years waxing on about overly-prescriptive planning laws, yet surely the outcome of the above is precisely the result of a lack of clout and clarity in planning policy? Or more pointedly, the erroneous interpretation of planning policy? Alternatively, one can argue that the relative ‘freedom’ offered by planners in this case was to enable architects to come up with imaginative and creative design solutions in accordance with best design practice. Architects, after all, know best when it comes to design – right? Why shouldn’t they be given the rudder on this one? Logic would dictate that they should.

The reality is that we see both professions culpable in this:

In spite of some worthy Additional Information modifications made by Dubln City Council, an effectively illegal interpretation of the O’Connell Street ACA under the 2000 Planning Act led to the initial grant for the scheme by DCC: -1 for planners.

The initial proposal was over-scaled, crudely integrated with its host environment and ignorant of existing building grain and street patterns: -1 to architects, and -1 to planners for granting it.

An Bord Pleanála then gets called in to clean up the mess as usual. They enforce planning policy and civic design character by decree – hardly the best method of producing creative design solutions: both +1 and -1 to the planning system.

Architects come back with a thoroughly dismal redesign that could not express in bricks and mortar the concept of a mean-spirited, begrudging sulk any more if it tried. The O’Connell Street frontage attempts little distinguished sense of urbanity or clarity of expression, never mind anything that approaches a civic-minded outlook for the first major intervention on the capital’s main throughfare in nearly a century: -1 to architects

An Bord Pleanála now reassesses, and grants permission on the basis of a raft of conditional redesign measures that attempt to address the refusal of the promoters to engage in a meaningful manner with the critical planning and design issues at stake. The result is a compromise that does nobody any favours, and where the energy that is expended in the whole arduous process would have been immeasurably better spent concentrated on a thoughtful and engaging urban design proposal – critically, had the guidance been there from the outset.

@johnglas wrote:

‘…was painted cream or magnolia…’ ffs, this is Main St Dublin! Reminds me of the rebuilt Plymouth after the Luftwaffe had bombed the original; clearly, DCC doesn’t need the bombers…

I was just trying to make the best of a bad situation. Of course I agree the new entrance lacks any confidence, imagination or common sense. The orange block on the left is paticularly offensive and it’s square edge will hinder pedestrian movements to the south.

@GrahamH wrote:

So I think it is agreed amongst pretty much everyone – and from all ends of the architecture and planning spectrum on this website – that this is categorically not what O’Connell Street and this new city quarter warrants or deserves in design terms. Therefore a systems failure has to be identified, either in our planning process or in the architectural profession, or both.

Developers and some architects have often been heard in recent years waxing on about overly-prescriptive planning laws, yet surely the outcome of the above is precisely the result of a lack of clout and clarity in planning policy? Or more pointedly, the erroneous interpretation of planning policy? Alternatively, one can argue that the relative ‘freedom’ offered by planners in this case was to enable architects to come up with imaginative and creative design solutions in accordance with best design practice. Architects, after all, know best when it comes to design – right? Why shouldn’t they be given the rudder on this one? Logic would dictate that they should.

The reality is that we see both professions culpable in this:

In spite of some worthy Additional Information modifications made by Dubln City Council, an effectively illegal interpretation of the O’Connell Street ACA under the 2000 Planning Act led to the initial grant for the scheme by DCC: -1 for planners.

The initial proposal was over-scaled, crudely integrated with its host environment and ignorant of existing building grain and street patterns: -1 to architects, and -1 to planners for granting it.

An Bord Pleanála then gets called in to clean up the mess as usual. They enforce planning policy and civic design character by decree – hardly the best method of producing creative design solutions: both +1 and -1 to the planning system.

Architects come back with a thoroughly dismal redesign that could not express in bricks and mortar the concept of a mean-spirited, begrudging sulk any more if it tried. The O’Connell Street frontage attempts little distinguished sense of urbanity or clarity of expression, never mind anything that approaches a civic-minded outlook for the first major intervention on the capital’s main throughfare in nearly a century: -1 to architects

An Bord Pleanála now reassesses, and grants permission on the basis of a raft of conditional redesign measures that attempt to address the refusal of the promoters to engage in a meaningful manner with the critical planning and design issues at stake. The result is a compromise that does nobody any favours, and where the energy that is expended in the whole arduous process would have been immeasurably better spent concentrated on a thoughtful and engaging urban design proposal – critically, had the guidance been there from the outset.

Well this is hardly only being identified now. It’s a common motif with big projects – something ambitious but crude is rejected, but then something less crude and infinitely more bland is accepted, thus making most stuff built in Dublin bland.

These are some of the problems:
-There is inconsistency in deciding what is appropriate for Dublin’s streetscapes. An Bord Pleanala and DCC are not on the same page, and the latter do not even adhere to their own guidelines.
-Dublin City Council seem content to grant permission to crude projects if they’re exciting enough.
-An Bord Pleanala gets the final say, and it’s more concerned with maintaining the blandness of Dublin, than with ensuring innovative and exciting architecture.

The system doesn’t work. Nobody is ensuring the architectural quality of the buildings granted permission. An Bord Pleanala operates like a damage limitation team, trying desperately to hold on to the limited heritage left in Dublin, rather than creating an innovative fusion of old and new. In my view, the guidelines about building in areas like O’Connell St. need to be less restrictive, both for ABP and DCC, and the counterbalance needs to be that the whole process is overseen by some sort of architectural quality board, which will have a coherent and forward-thinking vision for Dublin. It is, after all, the capital.

@rumpelstiltskin wrote:

It’s a common motif with big projects

agreed…
In a way I admire differences but at the same time the compromises can be hurtful and helpful and incomplete…

@GrahamH wrote:

. . . .Architects come back with a thoroughly dismal redesign that could not express in bricks and mortar the concept of a mean-spirited, begrudging sulk any more if it tried.

It does certainly look like that.

Sometimes you do get so fed up and frustrated with Planners that you do mentally say: ok if you don’t want architecture and you want crap, I’ll give you crap. Architecture is a creative process after all and when you can’t get people to share your vision, hissy-fits are almost inevitable.

As I’ve said many times before ‘in-fill’ is a very difficult architectural challenge and one that, in my experience, the schools often avoid confronting in the training programmes.

It has to be said that the guys who designed this scheme did come up with a considerable amount of originality . . . . on two occassions. That’s enormously to their credit. It’s easy to chuckle at the bad bits and scoff at aspects of the design that we don’t agree with [of which there were many], but there was a lot of architecture in those first two versions, which we probably didn’t acknowledge as much as we should have.

Agreed that Bord Pleanala will need to be at the top of their game to conjure up anything like a satisfactory outcome out of this.

@rumpelstiltskin wrote:

These are some of the problems:
-There is inconsistency in deciding what is appropriate for Dublin’s streetscapes. An Bord Pleanala and DCC are not on the same page, and the latter do not even adhere to their own guidelines.
-Dublin City Council seem content to grant permission to crude projects if they’re exciting enough.
-An Bord Pleanala gets the final say, and it’s more concerned with maintaining the blandness of Dublin, than with ensuring innovative and exciting architecture.

The system doesn’t work. Nobody is ensuring the architectural quality of the buildings granted permission. An Bord Pleanala operates like a damage limitation team, trying desperately to hold on to the limited heritage left in Dublin, rather than creating an innovative fusion of old and new. In my view, the guidelines about building in areas like O’Connell St. need to be less restrictive, both for ABP and DCC, and the counterbalance needs to be that the whole process is overseen by some sort of architectural quality board, which will have a coherent and forward-thinking vision for Dublin. It is, after all, the capital.

rumpel has some good points there which might be lost with the page break.

If there was so much disagreement about the park in the sky, why didn’t they just get rid or scale back the park in the sky and keep the rest of the scheme the way it was. The original design of the carlton façade was much better and effectively mixed modern architecture and construction with the traditional Carlton.

This new thing is awful.

@JoePublic wrote:

I don’t see why they changed the carlton facade proposal from the second incarnation, as still seen (for the time being) on http://www.dublincentral.ie. I know setbacks are none too popular on archiseek, but its gotta be better than that boxy shite

To answer my own question, it’s because of this condition from ABP:

12. Redesign the buildings to each side of the entrance from O’Connell Street to the new street to provide a more composed treatment, generally using a limited and traditional palette of materials, paying appropriate respect to the relocated Carlton facade. The height of the Carlton/new department store may be of a scale to reflect its increased significance

They were asked for shite so they gave shite. What a dumb condition.

They’re giving us this:

@JoePublic wrote:

. . . . because of this condition from ABP:

The height of the Carlton/new department store may be of a scale to reflect its increased significance.

So that extra storey on top of the relocated Carlton facade is someone’s interpretation of a Bord Pleanála suggestion . . . . with all the depth of architectural conviction that that implies :rolleyes:

To have started out with such high ambitions and to have ended up here, is pretty depressing. How would you even begin to write planning conditions that would put architecture back into this scheme?

It would probably be better, at this stage, if ABP just refused the whole thing on the simple grounds that the scheme is below the standard demanded by the civic significance of the location.

Really really dreadful! I could go into more detail regarding its awfulness but I just can’t be bothered.

This whole process whereby developers prevaricate and Planning Authorities impose spurious “visual” conditions remind me of two previous blights on Dublins built fabric.

Firstly, The ILAC centre. The developers swept away a charming warren of streets only to get cold feet with the economy wobbling in the late 1970s. Their original urban scaled plans were dropped and we ended up with a single storey outer suburban strip mall plonked beside our capitals main street.

Secondly, after permitting and indeed participating in the wanton destruction of Georgian Dublin, the council insisted that all new buildings be in “Georgian style” pastiche crap! Short of a complete reconstruction a la what happened in Europe post WWII, they could have made the best of a bad situation and encouraged architects to experiment with modern architecture. But instead, architects were straight-jacketed to build only in redbrick, with uniform windows.

Both of these examples seem apt with the Carlton site. Nice to see we have learned from history!!

C

You’re the Big Cahuna!

@thebig C wrote:

Really really dreadful! I could go into more detail regarding its awfulness but I just can’t be bothered.

This whole process whereby developers prevaricate and Planning Authorities impose spurious “visual” conditions remind me of two previous blights on Dublins built fabric.

Firstly, The ILAC centre. The developers swept away a charming warren of streets only to get cold feet with the economy wobbling in the late 1970s. Their original urban scaled plans were dropped and we ended up with a single storey outer suburban strip mall plonked beside our capitals main street.

Secondly, after permitting and indeed participating in the wanton destruction of Georgian Dublin, the council insisted that all new buildings be in “Georgian style” pastiche crap! Short of a complete reconstruction a la what happened in Europe post WWII, they could have made the best of a bad situation and encouraged architects to experiment with modern architecture. But instead, architects were straight-jacketed to build only in redbrick, with uniform windows.

Both of these examples seem apt with the Carlton site. Nice to see we have learned from history!!

C

The new proposal includes for streets namely Moore Lane and most of Henry Place being completely demolished and rebuilt in paving with ultraviolet light strips!! histrical street pattern retained as per request of ABP? DCC and ABP have destroyed enough of Dublin the public should see the demolition plan with this submission, 90% of the block is being demolished

@GrahamH wrote:

So I think it is agreed amongst pretty much everyone – and from all ends of the architecture and planning spectrum on this website – that this is categorically not what O’Connell Street and this new city quarter warrants or deserves in design terms. Therefore a systems failure has to be identified, either in our planning process or in the architectural profession, or both.

Developers and some architects have often been heard in recent years waxing on about overly-prescriptive planning laws, yet surely the outcome of the above is precisely the result of a lack of clout and clarity in planning policy? Or more pointedly, the erroneous interpretation of planning policy? Alternatively, one can argue that the relative ‘freedom’ offered by planners in this case was to enable architects to come up with imaginative and creative design solutions in accordance with best design practice. Architects, after all, know best when it comes to design – right? Why shouldn’t they be given the rudder on this one? Logic would dictate that they should.

The reality is that we see both professions culpable in this:

In spite of some worthy Additional Information modifications made by Dubln City Council, an effectively illegal interpretation of the O’Connell Street ACA under the 2000 Planning Act led to the initial grant for the scheme by DCC: -1 for planners.

The initial proposal was over-scaled, crudely integrated with its host environment and ignorant of existing building grain and street patterns: -1 to architects, and -1 to planners for granting it.

An Bord Pleanála then gets called in to clean up the mess as usual. They enforce planning policy and civic design character by decree – hardly the best method of producing creative design solutions: both +1 and -1 to the planning system.

Architects come back with a thoroughly dismal redesign that could not express in bricks and mortar the concept of a mean-spirited, begrudging sulk any more if it tried. The O’Connell Street frontage attempts little distinguished sense of urbanity or clarity of expression, never mind anything that approaches a civic-minded outlook for the first major intervention on the capital’s main throughfare in nearly a century: -1 to architects

An Bord Pleanála now reassesses, and grants permission on the basis of a raft of conditional redesign measures that attempt to address the refusal of the promoters to engage in a meaningful manner with the critical planning and design issues at stake. The result is a compromise that does nobody any favours, and where the energy that is expended in the whole arduous process would have been immeasurably better spent concentrated on a thoughtful and engaging urban design proposal – critically, had the guidance been there from the outset.

‘Systems failure’ – I agree wholeheartedly with this point. At the root of this failure is the archaic culture of the built environment professions and the weakness of local government.

Primary role of plannners in Ireland: to draw up a development plan for the city every 6 years and to regulate development proposals, based on the zoning map and standards listed in the plan. (little or no design training required; hence lack of any interest/involvement from architects in the drawing up of plans and assessing developments; antipathy between professions and difficulty speaking on the same wavelength).

Primary role of planners in continental Europe: to initiate, steer and coordinate proposals (as well as regulate). Design training prerequisite; high % of architects specialise in planning/urban design during last years of primary degree. High % architects hired in public sector.

Tho get us out of such disillusionment, confusion and antipathy between planners/architects/ABP/DCC/developers, etc the city needs a comprehensive strategic spatial plan which would incorporate pilot projects, mechanisms for delivery, monitoring, etc. A more public sector-oriented process with proactive planners and architects working in tandem to entice investors into building the right projects would go some way to reconcile the ‘adversarial’ nature of planning that is embedded in our culture.

+1

. . . . as they say in these parts

There’s literally no possible way they could build such a thing on the country’s premier street.. is there?

http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/232347.htm

granted PP yesterday. Hopefuly get time to read the conditions later.

@tommyt wrote:

http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/232347.htm

granted PP yesterday. Hopefuly get time to read the conditions later.

I no longer have any respect for ABP, they are quite literally the single worst influence on Dublin.

Why was the Royal Dublin hotel knocked before planning for this was granted? Are they not part of the same scheme? I hope something progresses because one giant hole on the street is bad enough but a second is worse.

The Royal Dublin is a separate application for a new headquarters for Dublin Bus to replace the one being demolished.

All very standard conditions. A couple of minor changes to the Carlton building and the link to Moore Street. What a depressing outcome. And what a waste of time (a lot of time) and money. Its not just an indictment of our flawed planning system but of the paucity of imagination of architects and the crude understanding of city making by the aparatchiks of Wood Quay.

The only good thing to come from this is that it will probably never be built. However, expect demolitions to take place….just in case.

@StephenC wrote:

The only good thing to come from this is that it will probably never be built

What makes you think that? The wheels seem in motion now..

5 years of a demolition zone half way down OCS while people actually design a decent development would be preferable to that absolute shrine of mediocrity.

@Yixian wrote:

What makes you think that? The wheels seem in motion now…

Where do you think Joe O’Reilly is going to get the €1 billion to build the thing?
How likely do you think John Lewis are to set up shop in Dublin in this climate? Remember no anchor, no development.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0327/1224267172959.html
is this the same plan? Doesn’t seem to be any of the street in the original, just a covered arcade running back to Moore st with glass canopy over half of moore st, although image doesn’t appear in link. It’s rather depressing to think what could become of the area, like it or loathe it, moore st has developed organically and i love this street, probably one of the most interesting in Dublin, i’d love to see the streets behind redeveloped into a high density residential area, a warren of small independent shops and restaurants like you’d find off las ramblas or tokyo backstreets. But no, the british high street’s gonna punch it’s way through to the ilac mall dressed in chrome, glass, aluminium and every sterile contemporary accessary going.

@StephenC wrote:

Where do you think Joe O’Reilly is going to get the €1 billion to build the thing?
How likely do you think John Lewis are to set up shop in Dublin in this climate? Remember no anchor, no development.

Praise be to the recession!

it said there will be a straight through pedestrian route between O’Connell and Moore st. and both entrences will have square edges, which will hinder pedestrian movement. I’d prefere a corved entrence and a curved walkway between the two streets, it gives the impression of a longer street, and adds some ambience.

The plan in the irish times would give the impression the pedestrian route is through the entrance of the carlton.

Im glad they got the green light, 5 stories is enough for O Connell street !

is there any way to see what this proposal looks like?

The design approved by An Bord Pleanála is conservative a real opportunity was lost to add something that would bring focus to O’Connell, the original design without the sky park was much more exciting.

@Bago wrote:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0327/1224267172959.html
….. ……., moore st has developed organically and i love this street, probably one of the most interesting in Dublin, i’d love to see the streets behind redeveloped into a high density residential area, a warren of small independent shops and restaurants like you’d find off las ramblas or tokyo backstreets. But no, the british high street’s gonna punch it’s way through to the ilac mall dressed in chrome, glass, aluminium and every sterile contemporary accessary going.

Yes, I agree.
Moore St. cetainly has developed organically with all dem apples, oranges, peaches, pears and bananas.
I think the design should be organically sustainable, with lots of authentic historical ruins, tastefully decorated with ivy and with some nice sepia-tinted framed photographs.
There should be lots of bunny rabbits, like in the books. It should smell nice as well and have lots of fluffy bits. I certainly hope they don’t let in any of those nasty northsiders with their horses and smelly tracksuits! 😮

both entrences will have square edges, which will hinder pedestrian movement.

Ahh, those pesky square corners, never got the hang of them…

Mixed reactions from two of the objectors…reading up now…

Canary in the coalmine for PHASE TWO of the building recession got to be planning applications for city-centre surface car parks. This one for a site on the Grand Canal Basin adjacent the new theatre was refused by DCC – Search%20Criteria%20>%204499/09. The refusal has been appealed by the applicant, Kilsaran Concrete – details.

And now the Carlton want a surface car park on the site of the Royal Dublin Hotel, Upper O’Connell Street – Search%20Criteria%20>%202373/10

Actually its a different part of the Dublin Central site – site of RDH is under construction for a new headquarters for Dublin Bus. However your point is valid… “temporary” car parks on cleared sites were the scourge of the city centre in the 1980s and took years to resolve. However, it begs a question which is bound to be repeated elsewhere in the city:what do do with a big site when you have permission but no money to develop.

Surface car park on O’Connell street? *hangs head in shame*

Is this the 80’s? or Belfast?

Hey, its not as if we haven’t seen enough crap put onto O’Connell Street over the years….amusements, derelict offices, 3D rides, cheap shops, fast food, Jesus statues, “temporary” signs…. whats a surface car park or two….

Pardon me Stephen, you’re right.

@Devin wrote:

Canary in the coalmine for PHASE TWO of the building recession got to be planning applications for city-centre surface car parks. This one for a site on the Grand Canal Basin adjacent the new theatre was refused by DCC – Search%20Criteria%20>%204499/09. The refusal has been appealed by the applicant, Kilsaran Concrete – details.

And now the Carlton want a surface car park on the site of the Royal Dublin Hotel, Upper O’Connell Street – Search%20Criteria%20>%202373/10

Remind me again, is not car access to this premier street already severely restricted? Very long term parking obviously.

Plans for Carlton site rocked by arsenic find
Top 10 Nama developer Joe O’Reilly’s €900m development of the Carlton site in Dublin city centre has been hit with an unwelcome discovery — arsenic contamination.

Sources close to the development have suggested that treatment of the site to rid it of the harmful chemical could prove very expensive, while others said the discovery of the contaminant could have implications for the pending Metro North project.

How common / big of a problem is this around the O’Connell street area?

@culchiebuilder wrote:

How common / big of a problem is this around the O’Connell street area?

Moore Street and O’Rahilly lane area primarily. It’s not really such a big problem provided the developer has done their homework, realizes its a brown field site and makes allowances in advance. I have been aware of this re Carlton site for years. The story as headlined is making news in a summer season when this is already long since known. A quick glance at Rocque’s 1756 map shows Moore Street as “Brick Lane” – in the 1730s Brick Lane would have of course been on the outskirts of the city, and the bricks produced here would have been used for Henrietta Street.

Hope this is of help – welcome to the site 🙂

@hutton wrote:

Moore Street and O’Rahilly lane area primarily. It’s not really such a big problem provided the developer has done their homework, realizes its a brown field site and makes allowances in advance. I have been aware of this re Carlton site for years. The story as headlined is making news in a summer season when this is already long since known. A quick glance at Rocque’s 1756 map shows Moore Street as “Brick Lane” – in the 1730s Brick Lane would have of course been on the outskirts of the city, and the bricks produced here would have been used for Henrietta Street.

Hope this is of help – welcome to the site 🙂

Helpful indeed. An interesting journey through history there!

@hutton wrote:

The story as headlined is making news in a summer season when this is already long since known.

Very much so

Here’s Brian Lenihan a few weeks ago on a tour of the part of the site that’s the retreat from the GPO in 1916:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoqwBZnfUqM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSOGmbpWICs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE6L3kcya_0

(There’s a few comments in there about the architectural interest of the Moore Street houses, mainly in part 3, if I remember right.)

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0105/1224286779848.htmlhttp://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0105/1224286779848.html well done to dublin city council and joe o’reilly for the policy of deliberate dereliction

Its a real mess. Is this whole development site being actively managed while we await the development?Its doesn’t appear so. Even something as simple as the site notices which were plastered on every building during the planning process remain in place. The terrace along Henry Street, some of which are set for demolition (or are they? I lost track of the changes) are in terribly poor condition and have a consequent impact on the quality of the prime retail pitch. Further up O’C Street the former Royal Dublin Hotel development seems to have stopped. The big worry here is No 42, a hugely important townhouse which is half way in the process of restoration.

I never really bought into the whole National Monument status for these buildings on Moore Street. They are very poor quality in my view. The historic group advocating their protection are certainly very vocal but I’m still not convinced.

However, I really abhor this slow slide towards dereliction for large sites in the city. It is so retrograde.

Partial demolition of 1916 buildings

Madam, – For some time concerned relatives of the 1916 leaders and others have been calling for State intervention to ensure the 1916 National Monument on Moore Street is preserved and protected in its entirety. That Dublin City Council officials are party to the destruction of its surrounding buildings (Home News, January 5th) is truly astonishing.

These buildings adjoining the National Monument were singled out for special mention in the Shaffrey report on Moore Street, commissioned by the City Council, as being of historical importance. It was on foot of that report that numbers 14 to 17 Moore Street were declared listed buildings. Are the officials aware of their own reports, one wonders?

This disgraceful decision to demolish raises the following questions: 1. At what stage were these structures considered a danger to the public? 2. At whose behest was this demolition decided upon? 3. What steps were taken prior to demolition decision to warn members of the public of their dangerous condition? 4. Was any consideration given to the possibility of action other than demolition in order to render the buildings safe? 5. Are the important architectural elements of the building now in storage with a view to their reinstatement?

The city officials responsible for this drastic action are paid out of the public purse. The owner of the site and the National Monument is a Nama’d developer.

For how long more must we wait for the State to carry out its responsibility to ensure the monument is fully protected and the surrounding area developed only in keeping with its status? – Yours, etc,

JAMES CONNOLLY HERON,

The Save 16 Moore

Street Committee,

Pearse Street,

Dublin 2.

Is this really going to be so wonderful?

I really don’t like Dundrum Town Centre (I think it’s called), the main sample of the proposers’ work. Walking through it feels like being inside a Barbie doll’s intestines – it’s all beige plastic.

Surely we want more for our main street than this temple of commerce full of multinational chain stores?

Spot on Tighin, we can do without the beige plastic. What in Gods name is wrong with creating an urban area with proper streets and lanes, there’s a network of laneways that could be redeveloped, increase the heights and densities, something on a par with templebar could be created between moore street and O’Connel street, minus all the tourist traps and cultural pretensions. There’s a lovely cafe/bakery opened on moore street, bake all their own bread in the back, cafe de paris, not much to speak about it’s interior but it’s a good place. I’d sooner this than the UK high street invasion topped with a sky park.

Points taken. I probably didn’t word it very well though. I wasn’t suggesting an actual templebar, rather a redevelopment and enhancing of the existing laneways and roads, maybe undertaken in a similar fashion to the redevelopment of templebar by a consortium of architects, with a view to creating a fairly balnced urban area, albeit probably needing to be bolstered by some larger stores. Throw in a playground and park at ground level to. Maybe i should have used Wallaces millenium bridge to jervis luas stop as an example.
Anyway, anything other than a retail therapy clinic dropped from the sky.

From An Poblacht (which I refuse to link to)
Dublin City Council urges rejection of shopping mall plan for Moore Street 1916 site
TODAY’S report by Dublin City Council on the future of the near-derelict National Monument site of Moore Street – last post of the leaders of the 1916 Easter Rising before their surrender to the British Army – recommends to Heritage Minister Jimmy Deenihan rejection of a plan by commercial property developers dominated by a shopping mall.

find it on a website near you….

ya know links are useful things can actually find the report?

So is a search engine.

To be honest this whole story is a joke. The buildings are in bits and are a disgrace. I bumped into a group called http://www.1916museum.ie a few weeks back who told me that they had a lease on the building from CL and were now seeking funding (as ever) to realise a museum. Lots of slick branding and flat Dublin accents (a la trade unionists) telling me about the value of the building to the city and the State. However when I asked the quite logical question as to why a group that cared so much and held a lease couldn’t even be bothered to clean up the front (and I mean just remove raggy bunting and that all that shit plastic signage), he couldn’t even humour me with an intelligent response…..oh look there’s some I know over there far far away from you.

Perhaps there is a great story to tell here but the problem is interminable and intractable and the building is a bloody disgrace (like its host street). Aul Dublin….its with O’Leary in the grave.

although Mícheál Mac Donncha and otehrs say the report was “published” yesterday I can’t find it anywhere on the DCC website. do you have link to it?

so this 1916museum.ie group are directly linked to the chartered land developers, but it also seems that save moore street group have allied themselves with the competing developer, which is a mistake imho.

ah im getting the two “james connelly”‘s mixed up
this is the group that was in the ilac http://1916rebellionmuseum.com/
which keeps the 3 buildings for musuem but knocks the new street through to moore street

its the same james connnelly that was backing this ? http://www.gaelicadventure.org/pdfs/h16.pdf

which maintain the whole street

@ StephenC….you make very cojent points.

This whole episode reeks of knee-jerk threadbare nationalism heaped upon equally vapid preservation.

The whole monument issue is really muddying the waters and in fact I’d say its the reason why we have reached a standstill. Many people, particularly politicians are afraid to do anything least the green flag is hoisted and the old chesnut of “West Britery” is thrown about!:)

C

The effects of the stalled Chartered Land project are also starting to show on the section of Henry Street from Moore Street to Henry Place/Lane? Remember this is still one of the two premier retail streets in the city and country, so could Dublin City Council at least humour the public that it cares about its condition. The quality of shopfronts and upper floors is deteriorating dreadfully and the standard of retailer is racing southward…hardly reflective of the prime retail core. The stretch is littered with site notices and the like from the planning permission stage (these are supposed to be removed within a set time) and everything is just dirty and grubby. No one seems to care….least of all NAMA it seems which I understand essentially controls the site together with Joe O’Reilly’s loanbook. The usual Irish mentality that if you let the building deteriorate so far then everyone will welcome anything you choose to do simply to see the place cleaned up.

A walk around the corner onto Moore Street makes one wonder whether they had arrived in downtown Lagos. There is simply no control whatsoever of standards along this street… Sure its lively and ethnically diverse etc, etc but does that mean it needs to be a kip? And you’re supposed to buy food here? Dublin’s authentic street market? Can we have some standards in this city? Cant we aspire to just a little more than mediocrity and making-do?

Quality businesses vie with fleapits and health hazards and we celebrate this as something worth experiencing! Its astonishing to me.

I’m sorry if I am perceived as being racially insensitive here but I just feel that there is one set of rules (rarely enforced now) for Irish property owners that simply don’t apply to ethnic businesses in many cases….whether the excuse is that the owners cannot be identified or that the staff don’t speak English at the first sight of bureaucracy I don’t know….but the Council and other agencies seem oblivious to the gulf in quality between many shall we say ‘Irish’ and ‘New Irish’ businesses.

Of course any hope at all for standards of shopfront, business interior, quality retailing on prime retail streets, mix and diversity of retail have all gone out the window in Dublin. The Council just aren’t interested. Mediocre thinking controls policy making in City Council…lowest common denominator applies. And most shop-owners or building owners just dont care any longer…its all about the bottom line and if a couple of hundred quids worth of plastic signage and a dollop of lurid pink paint with get me noticed then who gives a fuck. To rally against it is only to make oneself world-weary and depressed.

Wasn’t it all meant to be so different…

Dublin City Council Retail Core: the City Centre Retail Plan

rewatched the tg4 doc, t o try figure out who’s who, a letter that nama was giving 250,000 to do works on the national monument was featured and questioned by nial ring

http://www.facebook.com/savemoorestreetdublin/posts/470599686315968

Public Consultation Period for Planned Works at Moore St National Monument Extended to 24 April 2013
http://www.merrionstreet.ie/index.php/2013/03/public-consultation-period-for-planned-works-at-moore-st-national-monument-extended-to-24-april-2013/

what is it that they are planning to do?

Carlton site building to become Japanese restaurant
Former council building was to be part of Joe O’Reilly’s ‘Dublin Central’ development

Fri, Apr 19, 2013, 06:00
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/carlt…rant-1.1365198

A former county council building on Dublin’s O’Connell Street which was to be part of a massive €900 million shopping centre development by Chartered Land is to be turned into a Japanese restaurant.
Signs were yesterday erected for “10 Thousand Restaurant” on the old Fingal County Council building opposite the Gresham Hotel.
The building, which was vacated by the local authority in 2006, was bought by developer Joe O’Reilly for the “Dublin Central” development.
The shopping centre, granted planning permission in 2010, was to cover 2.7 hectares encompassing the former Carlton cinema and vacant plots stretching to Moore Street, some of which have been derelict since the 1970s.

Nama portfolio
No construction has started on the site and the lands now form part of Nama’s portfolio of loans. Dublin City Council last January granted permission for the use of the former council building to be changed from offices to retail/restaurant. The application was made by All Points Building & Maintenance with the consent of Chartered Land.
The conditions of the council’s permission state that the building can be used as a restaurant for three years only.
Dublin County Council was the first tenant of the 1975 building before Dublin was split into four local authority areas in 1994.
The redevelopment of the Carlton site has been beset by planning and legal problems concerning historic 1916 Rising buildings on Moore Street.

What is the story with the Carlton cinema, I read they got planning permission for a shopping centre a while back but it ran into problems ? Some of the artist impressions did kinda look out of place.

Can the new restaurant only be used only for 3 years. What happens to it after that ?