Carlton Cinema Development
- This topic has 280 replies, 72 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
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) .
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!
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?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
