Carlton Cinema Development

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!?

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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…

@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.

@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.