gaiety centre

I don’t suppose you know the file number?
ABP now publish all decisions and inspectors reports on-line pretty promptly but they are hard to find without the file number
Can you find the decision here: http://www.pleanala.ie/ ?

Bad decision

I think the grounds that An Taisce put forward for not building this are misguided to say the least. “South King Street has a mixture of 19th and 20th century buildings, it retains a cohesion of scale which would be unbalanced by the proposed development”.

South King Street has 1 good building – the Gaiety itself – the rest ranges from standard through to dross (particularly the Gaiety centre itself) – The street itself is too narrow for the seven stories of the proposed building to have a detrimental effect on the streetscape. The current building is five storey with plant room on top so I don’t beilieve the height argument one iota.

Im starting to think that An Taisce will not be happy until the replacement for the Gaiety Centre is a two storey red brick box like the recession built “stock” kitchen shop on the corner.

You can’t beat Google for in site seaching:
http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=site%3Apleanala.ie+%22south+king+street%22&btnG=Search&meta=

Ref No: 29S205325

.

.

.

i don’t see any problem with that at all. quite nice to be honest. well done u. shame about an t being as*holes…

.

ahhhh! that classic an t. how fortunate that we have them to look after our best interests….but i’m not going to get into them again suffice to say TYPICAL.

Regardless of the beautiful CAD rendering the project is not necessarily that good, to warrant an approval. The idea of a complete glass building with crystalline modules is neither unique nor conducive to a beautiful streetscape.

Well I’m sorry but that big heap was well shot down by an bord pleanala. It was a stump of glass that was highly illogical in form – and all that guff about ‘sharp contrasts’ to neighbouring buildings – sure the cooling towers at Sellafield would be sharply contrasting – bet you wouldn’t foist that there!

In total, the design was demented and incoherent. Best refused! It would have made a joke of Sth King St – would have resembled a bland street in a forgotten city in northern Britain (there are so many)…..

🙂 🙂 🙂 Three cheers to An Taisce!

Originally posted by J. Seerski

In total, the design was demented and incoherent. Best refused! It would have made a joke of Sth King St – would have resembled a bland street in a forgotten city in northern Britain (there are so many)…..

It does already………….

Also, when An Taise submitted the objection that eventually killed the scheme, they must have done a ‘save-as’ of some other report, because they didnt even bother to change some of the street names in it!)…..

that’s classic… thats indicitive of a blanket appeal approach and should be publicised….

Originally posted by J. Seerski
Well I’m sorry but that big heap was well shot down by an bord pleanala. It was a stump of glass that was highly illogical in form –

what is highly illogical in form?

Originally posted by J. Seerski

In total, the design was demented and incoherent. Best refused! It would have made a joke of Sth King St – would have resembled a bland street in a forgotten city in northern Britain (there are so many)…..

it is as paul said … it would have contrasted nicely with the gaiety.

Originally posted by J. Seerski

🙂 🙂 🙂 Three cheers to An Taisce!

for blankly appealing even though they didn’t have the street right.
for stopping progress into a more dynamic city.

I gotta say, I actually like the design on the Gaiety Centre – although the height of the structure from the western elevation does look out of sync, generally the design does seem to compliment the existing Gaiety front more than consume it. Hmmm – it’s tough to call, but I think it probably more of a shame that good ol’ An Taisce had their wicked way.

yea. i agree. although personally with the glazed facade i don’t think it would tower over the gaiety too much. of course all the images in the world won’t prove that. but it’s acedemic now as it’s rejected.i wish them well in the re-think

I’m not overly impressed with the building that was planned.
But how can J Seerski/An Taisce possibly think of this as a victory when the developer says that he’s considering leaving this building as is?
The existing building is one of Dublin’s worst, totally devoid of any value – a vacant lot would nearly be better.
This is depressing and you have to ask who An Taisce think they’re representing.
Also, anybody know how long the Chatham Court apartments – where these poor put-upon residents live – have been around? Is it an old complex?

PS:- Where are ye getting all these pictures of it. Are they the ones that were in the paper today or are there some online?

Originally posted by kefu
Also, anybody know how long the Chatham Court apartments – where these poor put-upon residents live – have been around? Is it an old complex?

Late 1970s – early 80s I think….
graham dwyer was posting images but he obviously been censored by his office…

ha ha ha

Not true Paul !!

I just decided enough was enough.

I wasnt asking if people liked it or not, just if they though it was right for An Taisce to have so much sway, despite the shoddy appeal they made misquoting street names, and the refusal quoting from objections that had been withdrawn.

Believe me, Dublin City Council wrote a glowing report on the scheme, and had been consulted all the way, there was even a presentation to An Taisce!

The building was developed up to construction drawings, gone out to tender, prototypes of facade structure and glass samples, etc…….

We should have been knocking down that brown depressing brick monstrosity by now!

Heres another image……….

gdwyer@wejchert.ie

One of the architects on the Board – Angela Tunney, signed the decision – which was a 4 to 1 vote.
Interesting note attached to the Direction
Note:
In arriving at its decision the Board considered the proposed building to be of high design quality and considered the proposed uses, particularly at street level to be most desirable. However, the scale of development proposed on this restricted site was considered inappropriate for the reasons given.

my mistake….

Well Graham, I think I’ve changed my mind.
I only saw the image in the Irish Times today and wasn’t overly impressed.
But that night-time picture you’ve posted now puts a whole new gloss on it.
I often find myself standing at this spot waiting for people outside Wagamama and find the Eircom building so dull and so depressing.
I know I’ve said this a million times before but who exactly are An Taisce trying to represent.

An Taisce did not take this decision. An Bord Pleanala did. It sounds like it was a tough one for them.
Castlethorn are pretty good developers though and I’m sure they will come back with a good revised plan. Given the note on the decision it sounds like they ought to stick with Wejcherts too.

Edit: BTW the Irish Times can’t be right in its claim “that DCC will review its strategy of promoting retail use on South King St following the surprise decision of the Board”. Where did the journo get this stuff from?
To quote from the ABP direction again: the Board considered the proposed building to be of high design quality and considered the proposed uses, particularly at street level to be most desirable

Any decent pics of the building?

Nightime renderings/vaseline on the lens not helpful.

Originally posted by kefu
Well Graham, I think I’ve changed my mind.
I only saw the image in the Irish Times today and wasn’t overly impressed. But that night-time picture you’ve posted now puts a whole new gloss on it.

Architecturally it is a good development when considered in isolation particularly at night. But the night image fails to display its impact on the adjoining Gaiety.

It is a good looking design and I feel a certain degree of sympathy for architects who are instructed to design buildings with maximisation of floorspace as the over riding priority.

Originally posted by kefu
I often find myself standing at this spot waiting for people outside Wagamama and find the Eircom building so dull and so depressing.

You can say that again, the Gaiety Centre is to paraphrase Royston it is “a Waste of Space” both visually and from a landuse perspective. 😡

Originally posted by kefu
I know I’ve said this a million times before but who exactly are An Taisce trying to represent.

An Taisce represent people with an interest in Heritage and the environment, their perogative is the Heritage element or effects of new build on heritage.

In this case I agree with An Bord. The written decision makes the next step very clear in my opinion, it is well designed as a stand alone building but it should be downscaled a little to preserve the status of the Gaiety in the architectural hierarchy of the existing streetscape.

I hope that the architects resubmit a scaled down version, it is too good a design concept to throw on the scrap heap. 😉

Though I’m involved in Dublin City An Taisce I didn’t have anything to do with this appeal.

I’d like to see something good on this site. Wejcherts haven’t always been my favourite architects – they did some terrible postmodern rubbish in the 80s and early 90s – but this design could have been good – perhaps 7 storeys was slightly overscaled.

This is a trend lately. In circa 1999 it was acknowledged that the scale of the core of the city centre should be preserved at all cost and that anything over 5 or 6 storeys should only be built outside, in the docklands or wherever. But now almost every scheme in the city centre seems to want to go up to at least 7 storeys. All in all I agree that this scheme was a tough one to call.

I see that that bitter Galway architect is back on his An Taisce-hating hobby horse on Archiseek again. grow up fin.

well said, notjim

what notjim said

Originally posted by Devin
I see that that bitter Galway architect is back on his An Taisce-hating hobby horse on Archiseek again. grow up fin.

ahhh! devin honey… why do we fight so. i have never got off my hobby-horse as u so ably put it.and i don’t hate every thing ye do. i think ye do sterling work on our beechs.
why don’t u go back into the dept. of environment and beg again for some more scraps. then maybe u might be able to make a clear objection that actual relates to a specific project and not blanket every new build around what ye describe as of historical interest. just because i’m not middle aged, balding and fat doesn’t mean i have to grow up. i could say welcome to the 21st century to u and all ur cronies. 😉

while it’s true an t doesn’t reject decisions it is a worrying trend that an bord pleanala tend to side with them a lot. they have to be in bed together!!!:D
i know it’s a personal preference but i don’t see how a glass facade can detract from a stone building. for me it enhances the old rather than take away from it. but then again i ( if i may say so) take a modern approach to architecture, life and the world.

yeah, you said it too vinnyfitz

So Devin, how do you explain the fact that An Taisce’s appeal included the wrong street names etc. It’s indefensible.
An Taisce is not there to stop any new development in Dublin.
After all, every new development in Dublin either overlooks, shares a streetscape – or whatever other bullsh** An T usually claims – with some historic building. It is after all a Georgian city.
An Bord Pleanala would hardly have rejected this on the basis of complaints from two residents whose garden was being slightly overlooked.
It was An Taisce’s inaccurate cut and paste appeal that killed the project.

That is not exactly how it works Kefu.
Once a file goes before ABP they are expected to look at the totality of the application – not just the points raised by the appellants. Obviously when preparing his or her report the ABP inspector focusses on the issues raised in the appeal but other issues can come up that the Board will have to decide on.

That’s why, for example first party appeals against local authority grant conditions (such as developers objecting to the amount in planning contributions being levied by a Council) sometimes lead to projects being rejected in their totality by ABP.

VinnyFitz, I know exactly how the system is supposed to work.
It’s how the system actually works that is my concern.
None of the An Taisce defenders have yet responded to how they can cut and paste objections (with wrong street names) and still retain any credibility whatsoever.

Fair enough.
But my comment arose from your previous post. The 2 residents’ objections would have been enough to put it on ABP’s agenda and they would probably have come to the decision they did even if An Taisce had been silent..

Originally posted by kefu
So Devin, how do you explain the fact that An Taisce’s appeal included the wrong street names etc. It’s indefensible.

I disagree, the individual in question would have been asigned to this objection only after a committee had agreed that an observation was merited. The same individual is working voluntarily and while being quite clear what they wished to say, obviously made a typing error when editing an existing document.

All property reports particularly valuation, building regulation, and planning reports are derived from templates, it cuts out waffling as the development plan objectives and guidelines are included.

Originally posted by kefu
An Taisce is not there to stop any new development in Dublin.
After all, every new development in Dublin either overlooks, shares a streetscape – or whatever other bullsh** An T usually claims – with some historic building. It is after all a Georgian city.

It is correct An Taisce are not there to stop new development, what they do is attempt to represent the viewpoint of heritage in a small percentage of particular applications.

Pleasant streetscapes should be preserved and An Bord are the adjudicators of what is worth preserving to the exclusion of additional floorspace.

Originally posted by kefu
An Bord Pleanala would hardly have rejected this on the basis of complaints from two residents whose garden was being slightly overlooked. It was An Taisce’s inaccurate cut and paste appeal that killed the project.

An Bord will consider the proper planning and sustainable development of an area, regardless of who objects. Residents objections are often dismissed because they lack the templates to build a coherent objection.

Pleasant streetscapes should be preserved and An Bord are the adjudicators of what is worth preserving to the exclusion of additional floorspace.

Does South King street count as a pleasant streetscape?

With the green centre on one side – which does not address the street and lets face it the Gaiety Centre and the recession designed Stock building are not pretty. Id say its a bit of a crock myself.

By all means preserve what is good and worth keeping

That’s complete bollocks about An Taisce doing cut and paste appeals. It sounds like an error in the appeal has been exagerrated to the point of a “cut and paste” appeal allegation. Can anybody post the relevant mistake?

An Bord Pleanala are notoriously assiduous and meticulous in their assessments and decisions on appeals (the heritage officer of an t. maintains they are the only planning body in Ireland who properly process planning applications – how else do you explain the 85% approval rate for one-off houses by local authorities countrywide?). If they thought A t were lazily cutting and pasting appeals, we’d be shot out of it.

Originally posted by Rory W

Does South King street count as a pleasant streetscape?

I consider the view on South King St worth preserving, yes the Stephens Green Centre is a disaster and yes The Gaiety Centre and Stock are two ultimately forgetable buildings.

However from Grafton Street to the Theatre there is a reasonably intact Terrace of period buildings. The Old Mercer Hospital and Theatre provide two landmark buildings, it has the makings of a decent streetscape but if a large glazed structure were erected at the proposed height it would entirely dominate the street.

What was proposed was a very independent structure that would change the character of the street entirely. It is obviously a lot better than what exists but that wouldn’t be hard.

A scaled down version at front elevation would be most welcome floor space could even be added by going up at a decent set back from the front.

Originally posted by kefu
you have to ask who An Taisce think they’re representing.

In the O’Connell Street thread, people were (rightly) saying what a monstrosity & cesspit the new building at the corner of Capel st and Mary’s Abbey is.

…Well that’s what happens when nobody has objected to an overscaled development.

You can’t win in an taisce. If people see something they don’t like they say “Why didn’t an taisce stop that?”. Like, why didn’t an t object to the bungalows beside the Liam Mc Cormick church in Burt in Donegal? (because the application wasn’t referred and no one else told an t about it)

If An Taisce didn’t know about the development on corner of Capel Street and St Mary’s Abbey – maybe they need to start examining the planning lists a bit more closely.
I’ve known about that development for about three years and it was well-publicised at the time.
Capel Street also has a “streetscape” that’s actually worth preserving unlike South King Street.

I didn’t say that an taisce didn’t know about the capel st/mary’s abbey development, just that nobody objected to it.

Personally, I think the character of the King st area was killed off many years ago by the Stephen’s gn centre

Originally posted by Devin
Personally, I think the character of the King st area was killed off many years ago by the Stephen’s gn centre

I don’t think you’ll fine many who disagree with that….

Tourists love it though, anybody from abroad i know, who has visited it love it… appeals to the disneyland in them i suppose

Originally posted by Devin
the character of the King st area was killed off many years ago by the Stephen’s gn centre

Did anything happen with regards to the plans to have the shops on the King St side of the centre open out onto the street as well. That would really improve the street, in my opinion.

I was an Irish embassey in Latin America last year and noticed the promotional literature given to would be tourists.

Instead of something like Kilkenny Castle it had none other than the Stephens Green S.C. I was a little bemused, but apparently it gets a large number of compliments mostly from North Americans
I’m sure Paddy Gallaher is delighted

Originally posted by Diaspora
the Stephens Green S.C. gets a large number of compliments mostly from North Americans

It’s the classic American retail psychology of malls: trapped inside with the goods, you’re more likely to buy.

I hate all this criticism of the Stephen’s Green Centre. I think it’s a wonderful building, inside and out. A lot of the sniping comes from snobs. The only legitimate criticism I accept is that the building turns its back to South King Street, and only has one entrance on that side. It should have many more access points, and should have shopfronts that link the street to the building.

Remember what was there before – that grotty old Rice pub? Yuk!

A lot of the sniping comes from snobs.

I think everybody agrees that the major flaw here is the face that the centre does not address the street with proper shopfronts – don’t think thats a snobby thing to say.

Pedant spot: it has two entrances on Sth King street

It actually has two entrances on SKST…

oops rory got there first…. and the only thing anyone has ever accused me of being a snob about is beer….

surely discering in terms of beer – you have to be these days!;)

As jlang has said, there was a plan to rejuvenate the facade at one stage, does anyone know what happened to it?

I can get over the facade of SGShopCentre – as disney as it is… it’s the interior. A cheap grotty aged hole with second rate shops. All this talk about the last nail in the coffin for Grafton St with the rejection of Eircom-South King St plan… SGSC is doing far more damage – and a far greater indicator of how bad things are. Surely the “premier” shopping precint of our supposedly affluent country can do better than this?

Originally posted by Sue
I hate all this criticism of the Stephen’s Green Centre. .

Remember what was there before – that grotty old Rice pub? Yuk!

I Disagree

Originally publisheded by Thoms Commercial Directory 1977
124 Emmet Antiques
125 Metropolitan cinemas
126 Rag Trade Boutique
127 Stephens Green Cinemas
128 Terry’s Sweets, House of Claude hair stylist
129 Glencree Peace Centre, Sounds unlimited, Factory Boutique
130 Mat & sons pianos & musical instruments, Inigo Jones Carpets, Gaiety Green – Gemini sports
132 Vacant
133 Antique markey McCormack Patrick,
134 Dandelion antique
135 Fancy pants Boutique
136 Trash boutique, Norman Terry
137 Upstairs- downstairs boutique
138 Oriental crafts
139 Brown George & sons Chemist, Miller Thomas R, optician, Millar gareth photographer,
140 House of cards, greeting cards, Cafferkey & Grady solrs,
141 Rice R, bar [/B]

Besides the two cinemas it was a virtually intact terrace of Georgians and lated replacements. The greatest gamble in Irish property speculation. A terrible loss to Dublins urban fabric.

But if you think the present incarnation is bad, the earlier proposals would have made the ILAC look like 5th avenue.

A red brick STW wasn’t it?

I agree that the centre is not bad – everyone loves to laugh at it cause it’s so out-landish now, which is fair enough.
But in the late 80s, this was possibly the highest spec building built in the city in that decade. This was the first time attention was paid to detail and finishing in a major public scheme (Powerscourt aside) – ok the Victorania frills and Regency green is out now, but was the height of fashion then.
Equally the balustrading, the lamp standards and wall sconces and flooring etc was unique in Ireland at the time and is worthy of praise,no one else bothered their arse to execute such high-standard developments at the time.
The fact that it is so over-the-top now I think makes it almost immune to criticism today – it’s in its own little world.

The corner ‘iron’ facade externally is equally distinctive, and not nearly as bad as people make it out to be and despite the crudeness of the supporting girders at close quarters, I like it.

I agree the floor access arrangements – an obstacle course to say the least, and the front does need to be cleaned (one of the first major uses of PVC here behind it too)

It’s extraordinary how tourists love this building, they’re always scrambling over each other to take pictures, esp at Christmas when it looks great.

Opening the shops to Sth King St would be great but there is a significant height differential which would probably render it impractical.
I agree about the shops – crap, indeed the only use I make of the entire centre is the handy cash machines at the (first) side entrance, and to olge in the window of the Sony Centre – mmmm dv cams….

I agree the status of the Gaiety should be maintained – regardless of what goes nextdoor it should be subservient to it in scale.

i wonder do tourists think it is old… real victoriana?
I’m sure a lot do….

And if it was Old Victoriana would we like it, regardless?

if it were old victoriana, it would probably be more elegantly done….
i dont have as much a problem with the interior as the exterior.. afterall shopping is the new entertainment and themes are all the rage in malls… the exterior does my head in….

Bad as it is, it’s not as ugly as the building directly across from it at the corner with the newsagent in the bottom. Now that’s an eyesore! (It may be listed too, though it’s definitely not something I’d want to preserve – it ruins the view along the Green.)

Jlang, I think that building with the Bus Stop newsagent in it is great. I remember it was used in a newspaper article about 5 years ago entitled ‘do you look at Irish Architecture?’ The giant colgate box sticking out of takes away from it slightly, but over all I think it is a strong building with a very definite presence.

Graham, with regards to the Stephens Green S.C not being criticised at the time, did Frank McDonald not refer to it as a ‘washed up Missisippi Paddle Boat steamer’ around that time?

I agree that the Bus Stop building is great. It’s not listed but it should be.

The problem with 20th century buildings like this is that when they lose their original steel windows it is a huge blow for the overall character of the building. Maybe that’s why it seems ugly now, jlang. The steel windows are gone a long time, early 80s judging by photos I’ve seen.

Sock Shop also have a unit in the building and they have utilised the original features of the building much better than Bus Stop. They use the full height of the original shopfront and have left the facsia unpainted, whereas Bus Stop have inserted a panelled plywood facsia at a lower level and painted everything.

Good point Devin. It is amazing isn’t it how the windows thing makes all the difference. It is the same on those 1940s/1950s suburban houses. I also noticed how the newer windows on the original Dublin Airport Terminal building detracted from it. Those older windows dont seem to cut the mustard with regards to the heat though.

Poor steel windows, everyone hates them now. Their slender profiles are great, but so unappreciated – pretty much all of 30s and 50s Dublin have had them replaced. My granny is the last house on her 50s road with steel windows, everyone else is PVC – it’s a difficult job persuading for restoration/reproduction.
But it is possible to doubleglaze and draught-proof them – it’s mainly the maintance issue, and the hinges etc jamming over time that people don’t want them – heaven forbid a bit of oiling and repainting were necessary.
I agree too about the lovely Bus Stop building – the only problem I have with it is that the facades on each street look too small owing to the size of the plot – it looks like it has had its wings chopped off.

F McD did say that indeed phil – although I didn’t actually say that it wasn’t criticised at the time – but yes, he did also say recently that as the cladding was just bolted on, it could equally be bolted off again – believe me, leave it as it is – you don’t want to know what lurks beneath it!

Agreed… the street level facade could do with a bit of love…. but the building is quite good quality I believe…. the ends of the building are nicely treated….

wonder who the architect was

http://www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/dublin/southcity/stephens_green/north_corner_lge.html

I’ll agree to differ. Maybe it’s just that the building’s getting a bit shabby these days.

Very interesting discussion on the street.

Its always interesting to see a street elevation you would never percieve in reality, except in a confined perspective…..

Here are some of the buildings you are discussing as you may never again see them!

It is in 3 sections, the first one is the stock elevation, the second one is the Gaiety elevation, and the third one is the Bus Stop elevation.

Email me for full res copies if you are interested.

Section 2

Section 3

Why not show the proposal in context….

Here it is……..

😀

No, in context in elevation along with all the other shopfronts…

Those are very interesting images Graham.

They leave me with three conclusions.

1. There is a serious redevelopment opportunity in the properties in your first image from the stock around onto Mercer St, the site would easily take a four story over basement scheme.

2. The streetscape is intact from the Gaiety up as far as Grafton St given the pleasant mix of buildings. The side wall of the Stephens Green Centre is a drawback, but at least it is uniform in height, Mercer St Hospital and the Gaiety still dominate the eye.

3. The proposal is an attractive montage and form, but it would dominate the street. A daytime image would be most welcome.

It is not the trickiest site to execute setbacks as the main important angle of vision is that from Stephens green of which that majority has been scaled down due to the narrowness of the Street.

It is however a very well trodden route.

I think the issue from the angle of the night shot being out of scale with the Gaiety nest door is that the section of the Gaiety adjoining the site is only two storey’s high. Anything taller than that is going to look out of scale with the Gaiety. But should this be allowed to dictate the scale of the redevelopment?

Originally posted by Paul Clerkin
Agreed… the street level facade could do with a bit of love…. but the building is quite good quality I believe…. the ends of the building are nicely treated….

wonder who the architect was

http://www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/dublin/southcity/stephens_green/north_corner_lge.html

Maybe I am completely off the mark here, but it seems there is a resemblance between the the Bus Stop building on Grafton street (for want of a better name) and the offices beside Bank of Ireland on Westmoreland Street.

http://www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/dublin/southcity/stephens_green/north_corner_lge.html

http://www.archeire.com/buildings_ireland/dublin/southcity/westmoreland_street/bankofireland_offices.html

Anyone have any thoughts?

Thanks

Phil

I was just thinking that! The bricks used and the concrete are very similar.
Sorry, you’re right Paul about the building being well ‘ended’ – I was thinking of the issue similar to what Rory just raised, the fact that the neighbouring building on Grafton St is a couple of storeys lower, making the corner building look stranded when seen from the Green side.

I like the idea of a glazed section on the proposed building wrapping round over the lower storey of the Gaiety – this would also in part alleviate the height differential issue.
I note the top storey setback is cropped out of the image – it would be helpful if it was fully included – and preferably not shrouded in darkness!
The bulk of the building presumably would be much greater in daytime with the loss of transparency – a daytime image is needed.
The terrace from the Green looks really nice when seen in your images Graham – always interesting to see familar buildings from a different perspective.

Forgot I took this picture of the S G Centre.
Now how can you not love that – look at it there, all she needs is a bit more icing sugar and a cherry on top 😀

And the interior…

Show the contextual elevation of the proposal inserted.

Originally posted by Graham Hickey

Now how can you not love that – look at it there, all she needs is a bit more icing sugar and a cherry on top 😀

It looks like someone forgot to take it down with the rest of the decorations after Christmas 1988! 😀

Gaiety green light

DEVELOPER Joe O’Reilly has once again been granted planning permission by Dublin City Council for his Gaiety centre complex in South King Street, Dublin.

is it the same design as what was originally proposed…i think it could be a great addition to the street .

Good news alright,

No An Taisce objection this time, roll on new retail space, big floor plates so I’ve heard so you can expect some big names

Just when I’ve started to get too old for H&M! 🙂

What has changed about the project – has the scale been altered?

Here’s an outline view of the original proposal, seen from Stephen’s Gn. North. It was monstrously out of scale with the Gaiety Theatre.

And here’s the same view of the revised proposal:

That first pic has got to be a joke – all of that piled on top was excluded from the original renderings posted here!

How it works in relation to the Gaiety is unclear, but the fact there’s so much glass should negate much of that bulkiness that looks so terrible in large buildings next to older structures – and should offset the yellow brickwork nicely.
Still, does it loom over the Gaiety in any other closer renderings people have seen?

Exactly – the views that Wejcherts never posted! It’s all in the file at the planning deask, ref. 2882/03.
Kefu was won over by the nice glowy low-level image posted by the Wejcherts’ architect (that’s why architects produce nice glowy images of their schemes!) and Rory W couldn’t believe why An Taisce were appealing (any clearer now Rory W?).

Just to recap, the developlment in the first image was granted permisson by DCC (!) & overturned on appeal (thrree parties appealed; John Phelan, Hugh & Ester McGahon and An Taisce).

I hadn’t intended coming back into this thread, but since the first image posted above throws a different light on the original 7-storey development, I’d like to clear up some of the rubbish that was written about An Taisce & its taking of the appeal against it early in this thread.

For example these three comments posted by the Wejcherts architect:

@graham dwyer wrote:

Dublin City Council…had been consulted all the way, there was even a presentation to An Taisce!

The “presentation” he refers to was not a pre-planning discussion as is implied, but a requested meeting after the appeal had been lodged, to try’n persuade An T to withdraw its appeal.

@graham dwyer wrote:

We should have been knocking down that brown depressing brick monstrosity by now! [if An Taisce hadn’t appealed]

Actually 3 parties appealed the scheme (listed in last post by me, above),

@graham dwyer wrote:

Believe me, Dublin City Council wrote a glowing report on the scheme

The DCC planner’s report on the scheme was a joke! It said that the City Architect considers that “having regard to the sensitive location of the development adjoining the Gaiety, a protected structure, it is acknowledged that there is a difference of scale. However because of the uniqueness of the design it is considered the two could cohabit without detrimental impact on the protected structure”. So screw the protected structure legislation and the amenity and overshadowing of surrounding residents and properties because the C.A. likes the “uniqueness of the design”? – absolutely outrageous!! And granting permission for this wouldn’t be the first blunder the C.A. has made (cue kiosks, for one).
If that report is described as “glowing”, how would the An Bord Pleanala planner’s report with the decision to refuse permission be described? It said:

“much of the applicant’s submissions [by Wejcherts] relate to the quality of the design of the proposed development”, but the planner says “In my opinion the substantive issue in this appeal is not one of design…but rather that the height, bulk, scale and extent of the proposed development… on the restricted site…would constitute serious overdevelopment…and would be contrary to the density and plot ratio provisions of the Development Plan…and as such the proposed development would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area…”

As well, there are some gems of contradiction to be found quoted in the report. Like where the residents of the apartment at No 7 Chatham St in their appeal said the proposed development would present “rising blocks of blank-walled stepped buildings” to their amenity, the architects’ planning application report says “it has been assessed that a marginal reduction of access to sunlight and daylight at the rear (south facing) elevation of the dwellings is likely to arise” 😀

The full report is worth a look for anyone who made comments on this thread (ref. PL29S.205325):

http://www.pleanala.ie/numeric/indexnum.html

Anyway, after being granted by DCC, the revised 5-storey proposal has just been appealed again (Ref. PL29S.209800) by two parties – the residents again, who say the scale of the development “remains overwhelming” – and by Wejcherts themselves (in conjunction with a planning firm), who are appealing against a condition in the grant that the 2nd floor projection in the façade shall be omitted (so much for An T delaying developments by appealing 🙂 ).

Developer Joe O’Reilly’s revised plans for the Gaiety complex on South King Street, Dublin 2, have been appealed to An Bord Pleanála by Tom and Máiréad Cranfield of Chatham Street. They have objected to the new scheme on a number of grounds, including the scale and aesthetics of the development. Mr O’Reilly was initially granted permission last year for the development of the Gaiety Centre site but Bord Pleanála overturned the decision following an appeal by An Taisce. He was granted permission for a revised proposal last November. The new plans involve building a five-storey development comprising retail units, a restaurant, offices and apartments. Mr O’Reilly has also lodged a first-party appeal against a condition of Dublin City Council’s approval, which stated that the front elevation of the development must be amended.

Thank you all for you comments and opinions, I have been following this thread with intrest! Although not all the facts presented by Devin are correct! Please email me to discuss!!!!!!

Have a happy christmas everyone. 🙂

Graham

It just goes to show that anything worthwhile takes time, I think the DCC condition on the facade is bull, it looked so different to anything else ever done here.

Any news on progress on the Elm Park Scheme, that one is fantastic for a speculative office development.

@graham dwyer wrote:

Thank you all for you comments and opinions, I have been following this thread with intrest! Although not all the facts presented by Devin are correct! Please email me to discuss!!!!!!

What facts are you referring to? As far as I am concerned I have not posted any incorrect facts. You have already engaged in public debate here about your scheme, so if you consider that facts presented relating to it are incorrect, then this is the place to raise them.

I don’t think anybody is discouraging the redevelopment of this site (including anybody in An T), but, as with redevelopment of any key city centre site, there’s only one chance to get it right.

I posted the above information mainly because of the tiresome knee-jerk reaction against An T appealing a development by certain people on the forum who, in this case, hadn’t inspected the planning application for themselves, but were making a judgement on the scheme on the basis of images posted here with the top of the scheme chopped off.

I’ve already said I’d like to see a good contemporary building here and I wish you luck with the development.

Was’nt a plan for King St just granted approval? There was an article in the Indo, did’nt get a chance to look at the details..

Just on a point of information – the Gaitey Complex proposed by Joe O’Reilly will not be proceeding as indicated by the Irish Times article. It is now revised at 3-levels, not 5, and will incorporated 4 penthouse apartments as oppose to the original 6. Design by A&D Wejchert. Sisk look set to be main contractors.

@lexington wrote:

It is now revised at 3-levels, not 5, and will incorporated 4 penthouse apartments as oppose to the original 6.

Does that mean 4 floors of apartments or four apartments?

4 apartments over the main retail area/department store.

But that will be lower than what is presently on the site

@lexington wrote:

Just on a point of information – the Gaitey Complex proposed by Joe O’Reilly will not be proceeding as indicated by the Irish Times article. It is now revised at 3-levels, not 5, and will incorporated 4 penthouse apartments as oppose to the original 6. Design by A&D Wejchert. Sisk look set to be main contractors.

That is completely incorrect. Where do get your info?

We have full and final permission for 5 commercial levels (4 over ground) and 1 level of apartments.

Any queries to gdwyer@wejchert.ie

Graham Dwyer
A+D Wejchert.

🙂

25/10/2006

It’s coming down.

The new vista down South King Street:

Good riddance.

H & M and Zara have signed up to transform this previously dead street in retail terms

If anyone would like more info on what is in store for this site, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Graham Dwyer

A&D Wejchert Architects

gdwyer@wejchert.ie

http://www.wejchert.ie
😮

this looks like a great addition to this area,sorely needed to keep up with henrey street!anyone know when itll be completed?

When, oh when, is its neighbour across the road – the Stephen’s Green shopping centre – going to introduce more entrances and exits? It’s bonkers that there’s only two ways in and out of the place, with no doorway at all from the west-side. Amazing how little that shop centre reacts to its passing trade. Most places reach out and grab you

Without question it is the lack of a rear exit at the west end that is most infuriating. It’s nothing short of bizarre that you pass by acres of Dunnes Stores frontage on Mercer Street, walking the entire way around the store before finally entering the centre at the side, especially if you want to avail of that particular outlet: completing a near 360 degree round trip. And this in the face of their Head Office directly across the road too.

Now that the whole George’s Street area is a bustling commercial location, it’s high time this market was served with a new rear entrance. If it means dividing the Dunnes unit in two, so be it. Times have changed since the doldrums of the 1980s.

@Sue wrote:

When, oh when, is its neighbour across the road – the Stephen’s Green shopping centre – going to introduce more entrances and exits? It’s bonkers that there’s only two ways in and out of the place, with no doorway at all from the west-side. Amazing how little that shop centre reacts to its passing trade. Most places reach out and grab you

I remember alterations being discussed about five years ago or so in various newspapers. Nothing seems to have come of it though. I think the issue is that it only grabs people at certain places and then traps them. In some ways I am kind of glad that it doesn’t spill out on to the street though.

@phil wrote:

I remember alterations being discussed about five years ago or so in various newspapers. Nothing seems to have come of it though. I think the issue is that it only grabs people at certain places and then traps them. In some ways I am kind of glad that it doesn’t spill out on to the street though.

Dunnes should open one through the back of their shop

A fair point JDivision.

Hard to believe that it is nearly 20 years old isn’t it?

Hope it’s better than the shite that the ILAC turned into. All gloss, no class.

12/10/2007

The hole being dug for the new Gaiety Centre development is simply enormous – one of the deepest excavations you’re likely to see in the city, especially adjoining existing (old!) buildings. It seems they’re going down at least a whopping three storeys – no doubt partly in compensation for the loss of (originally ridiculous) height proposed for this development. At least one of these basement levels is to be retail/commercial.

These pictures don’t remotely do justice to how far down they’ve gone – you really have to see it on site. I’d be a bit wary if I owned the Gaiety! (also note its chic new flytower above).

Is there parking planned for under here too?

Jesus… I remember a conversation I had with Wilfrid Cantwell shortly after BTs moved into the old Switzers location. And he was telling me that the water table in the Grafton Street area is quite near the surface, especially further down the street. How dry does the hole look? He had a story about the new basement in BTs flooding the Clarendon Street church basement because it was subterranean diverting water flow.

From the plans, it looks like its going down 11m.

Great! Thanks for that adhoc. What a depth!
Perhaps Paul the water table issues are due to the River Styne which flows in this area, roughly down from Harcourt Street, through the Green and along Grafton Street down to Hawkins Street? (ish). Indeed the winding form of Grafton Street is thought to be derived from following the course of the Styne. It may cause some headaches for the Metro…

Just as we’re in the area, the York Street redevelopment went down by one floor (this picture taken October 2006). The RCSI part of the site though (out of shot) apparently went down four storeys.

Here are a few images to help you get a feel for the building proposed for South King Street.
any queries, gdwyer@wejchert.ie

Regards

Graham

I am taking photos of the development from the same spot every two weeks, hopefully we can make an animation of its construction when its complete.
https://archiseek.com/content/attachment.php?attachmentid=6223&d=1194360467
SKS Basement Excavation 17-10-07.jpg
https://archiseek.com/content/attachment.php?attachmentid=6224&d=1194360467
model.jpg
https://archiseek.com/content/attachment.php?attachmentid=6225&d=1194360467
section.jpg
https://archiseek.com/content/attachment.php?attachmentid=6226&d=1194360697
South King Street 1.jpg
https://archiseek.com/content/attachment.php?attachmentid=6227&d=1194360697
South King Street 2.jpg

6/4/2007

Just a few shots of the emerging new Gaiety Centre.

View from near the Mercer Hospital showing the canted corner.

Looking west from the Green.

Two substantial storeys underground.

Looking across the ground floor – soon to be adorned with the trademark acres of polished white flooring, black ash shelving and sexy chromed trims of a Zara fitout, and the not so hot lazy industrial look of H&M.

Service core.

This will be stone-clad, as in the render posted above.

Finally, the distinctive steel sections that will support the undulating glazed facade.

Nobody’s going to want to go back over the tortuous gestation of this South King Street scheme, it’s a done deal and it’s probably best left alone.

A lot of people seem to be genuinely excited by it, and that fine, but it might still be worth making a couple of observations.

Designing a fully glazed facade to a multi-storey retail centre is a major gamble.

Upper floor glazing to retail space (which is actually quite rare) is invariably abused, sooner or later, for all kinds of reasons.

South facing glazing, as in this case, can be blindingly bright/hot internally, leading to unintended and possibly uncontrolled screening installations.

Retail managers often try to blank areas of glazing to better use the floor space.

Internal, billboard scale, advertising is often applied to make use of the eye-catching window space and/or shield the internal space.

The view out from the, floor to ceiling, glazing on the upper floors of this development, is going to be of the side elevation and roofscape of the Stephen’s Green Centre!

I’m just a little sceptical that all will be as imagined in the prmotional renders, in a couple of years time.

Remember when ‘schuh’ on O’Connell Street was the great white hope for contemporary in-fill, this is schuh last week!

Most of the observation in the back pages of this thread dealt with this issue of the scale of the development (first and second schemes, objections to etc.) and it’s relationship with the Gaiety, (apart obviously from the numerous comments that jumped across the street to take a swipe at the Stephen’s Green Shopping Centre, GrahamH excepted) but the quality and appropriateness of the design seemed to pass without question.

Perhaps in the intervening years and with big retail developments, like the make-over of Roches Stores on Henry Street, showing that contemporary architecture and retail streetscapes are not mutual exclusion zones, some re-appraisal of this scheme might have been attempted.

Here’s another example of contemporary in-fill on a retail street, this time from Edinburgh. Prince’s Street wouldn’t be known for it’s architectural integrity, or any other kind of integrity, but I think this is a decent scheme, even if it’s showing the early signs of mezzanine level window postering.

gunter’s edinburgh pic. You left out the . in .jpg:)

How did you do that?

Right click the red X – you’ll see ‘Properties’ in the pop-up box, which leads to another pop-up containint the URL (minus the .).

Ok, it’s an explanation.

But I’m still keeping the blinds closed.

I doubt the windows will appear as apparently transparent as they are in those photos. And it seems to me that it could end up looking very…corporatey. Pity they couldn’t have made it match a little bit more the lovely yellow brick of the Gaiety. Plus, there’s going to be loom factor 🙁

Yes, but if it had ‘copied’ the Gaiety that would have seemed too much like context or even been denounced by the modernistas as ‘pastiche’ (the ultimate shibboleth). Of course it will look ‘corporatey’; the ultimate intention of this development is too generate income, not contribute to townscape, and glass cladding is just flavour of the month. But it will reflect – ahem – the Stephens Green Centre. We can all look forward (or should it be backwards?) to that.

I disagree, in visual terms I think it’ll be a nice visual link between The Gaiety and Mercer STreet beyond.

In what way? I just don’t see any ‘connection’ at all.

Maybe I’m being ambitious but I think that the trees will screen parts of it and that from certain angles it will reflect the building on Mercer street in the glass rather than the shopping centre. I was actually in favour of the original proposal which was higher

I think we’re now in the position of hoping the bldg may be partly hidden! I’m sure you’ll agree that is unsatisfactory for anything claiming any kind of architectural integrity. Perhaps if the facade had more interplay between void and solid rather than being – in effect – all void; of course, we’ll need to see how it ‘reads’ once built and whether or not your prediction comes true; I’d have thought that the only reflection of Mercer St would be on the side away from Sth King St.

@johnglas wrote:

I think we’re now in the position of hoping the bldg may be partly hidden! I’m sure you’ll agree that is unsatisfactory for anything claiming any kind of architectural integrity.

.shhh.!.don.’.t.tell.heneghan.peng.!. 🙂

@johnglas wrote:

I think we’re now in the position of hoping the bldg may be partly hidden! I’m sure you’ll agree that is unsatisfactory for anything claiming any kind of architectural integrity. .

No, you and I have entirely different opinions on architecture and building quality based on your previous posts. Not starting an argument, but I disagree with a lot of things you’ve said previously

That is, I think, the whole point of a discursive blog. I remain steadfast in my total distrust of fashion and ‘names’.

Once again, the renders of a magical, ethereal, soufflé of a building are as artificial as the computer graphics themselves. All the windows reflect the Stephen’s Green centre opposite, which in itself is not entirely a bad thing. But it’s dishonest to suggest that somehow it would have looked different. The mantra of it’s just glass, sure you won’t even notice it – a sort of Ned Flanderesque “feels like I’m wearing nothing at all” is patently untrue. Again.

100% agreed. And to be a little more specific about what it reflects, we now have a delightful array of air conditioning plant pasted across the entire facade in delicate undulating waves. This was pointed out to be by one of the first people who saw the glazing go up, and I have noticed nothing else every since. Sorry to ruin it for everyone!

And believe me, it will.

But it will reflect – ahem – the Stephens Green Centre. We can all look forward (or should it be backwards?) to that.

It reminds me of a Mississippi tramp Steamer

as frank mcdonald said many moons ago

Well the newly revamped Gaiety Centre (is it even called that anymore?) has just opened, with Warehouse, Zara and H&M occupying the retail units at ground and first floor levels. It is clear that this structure marks a new departure in the history of building typologies in Dublin – namely the first large scale example of a building designed to be refaced and/or entirely disassembled as fashion dictates. Perhaps not consciously drafted as such, but certainly built with that longer term intention behind it all. It is difficult to imagine this building standing in its current form in 20 years time, never mind 200 years time. The trendy facade can be replaced at will and the substructure entirely dismantled like a giant jigsaw puzzle when required. Indeed, even the prospect of the flimsy highly polished shopfront trims surviving to the next recession is distinctly unlikely.

Nonetheless, this building (whose form cannot yet be properly assessed until expansive letting hoardings come down) does introduce a new concept to the capital – the idea of a shopfront on an intimate pedestrian scale. The shopfront heights are remarkably diminutive, and surprisingly effective in humbly bending a knee to the passerby. In this regard they are both sophisticated and respectful of a street that heretofore has not been a major retail destination, and thus offer to the potential for a happy coexistence of a number of uses on this street by not brashly dominating. They look especially well at night when an intimate and familiar connection with the public realm is always desirable.

Regarding the design of the building itself, it speaks volumes of the vacuousness of some trends in contemporary architecture, namely style before function, that a structure which has been entirely faced in glass is almost completely blacked out at first floor level to accommodate retail fitouts. It’s nothing short of preposterous. And this is starkly evident once you enter the building; one expects light-filled spacious floorplates yet everything is boxed in, and in most cases devoid of a connection with the outside world. Of course this is what retailers want, but it’s not what should be accepted by planners. The blanked out first floor with giant lettering referencing the store inside as a desperate exercise in damage limitation is as ridiculous as it is embarrassing.

While no fault of the building’s architects, the fitouts of the stores for what is a purpose-designed retail and commercial building are nothing short of dismal. I genuinely wonder where we have gone wrong since the early 20th century, and indeed since as recently as the 1960s, that retailing has on the one hand never had so much resources and effort poured into it, yet so spectacularly fails to articulate itself through either well chosen dramatic interiors of converted buildings, or in purpose designed architectural spaces.

Perhaps it was foolish of me to expect more of a speculative build, but I find it shameful that such a high profile structure in a prime infill site in the city can fail so miserably to confidently articulate itself in its interior design and its connection with the wider form of the building.

As any Zara whore can tell you, the company promotes some of the very best in retail design right across Europe. In many continental cities they occupy prestige premises in heritage buildings or host themselves in crisp and contemporary premises that conform to their wider image. I find it very difficult to believe that the outstanding opportunity to establish a purpose-designed flagship store just off a capital’s leading retail thoroughfare would be treated to such a dank, boxy, cramped, insular, poorly navigable fitout in Berlin or Barcelona or Prague, which in Dublin – like the one-off house in the countryside – is expressed through a paper thin veneer of fashionable shades of paint, luxurious material finishes and the random focal trinklet to guide attention resolutely away from the dismal lack of wider architectural expression. There isn’t even so much as a balcony, light well, mezzanine level, dramatic escalator shaft or even central displays to lend imagination to this supposed purpose-designed commercial building.

Don’t get me wrong, I think the finishes and wider decorative schemes employed to all the stores in this development are elegant and effective in their own right – especially Zara naturally – but the architect’s touch has been firmly kept outside the front door. Not so much as an opportunity lost, as a poor indictment of what we deem as being of importance when investing in our city.

@GrahamH wrote:

– but the architect’s touch has been firmly kept outside the front door.

Graham, it was the architects who gave them the zig-zag glass box!

What did they expect the retail managers to do? In retail, glass facades above street level are no use to anybody.

I know! They’re both culpable! Where were the planners in this? There should also be an addition in the upcoming review of the Development Plan to promote the best standards in retail design.

The planners don’t give a dam, I think we’ve established that, it’s the architect who should have known better.

The way I understand fashion retailing, it’s all about creating an artificial environment where the true value of things is no longer dicernable; a coat, for example that may have €10 worth of material in it and €15 worth of Taiwanese labour, is hung on rail for €200, or a shirt, that was never €50, is 50% off at €25! Places where a person’s very appearance is manipulated by soft lighting and dodgy mirrors to look younger/taller/thinner than they actually are. A place wher plastic payment can be deferred, at a hefty interest rate, to some time in the future.

These are the last places where they’re going to want windows letting reality in!

The location of this building jutting out into the street is a disgrace – it has ruined the vista of Mercer’s Hospital up King Street from the Stephen’s Green end. How no-one in the City Council stopped this happening in such a prime city centre location baffles me.

Anyone else see this in yesterday’s times

Shopping centre planned for Dawson Street
GARRETT KELLEHER, the businessman behind the Chicago Spire, is hoping to replicate the success of the recently opened Gaiety Centre on South King Street by developing a similar shopping mall in the former Royal Sun and Alliance building on Dawson Street.

It is understood that Shelbourne Development, Kelleher’s property firm, has commissioned a team of architects for the project and is considering submitting a planning application within the next six months.

The company has already received the green light from the local authority to convert part of the ground floor office space into a 186sq m (2,000sq ft) café, which has been let to Costa Coffee on a short-term lease, and industry experts claim this new retail outlet will strengthen Shelbourne’s case for a redevelopment of the site.

However it is expected that Dublin City Council will support a South King Street-style scheme at the former Royal Sun and Alliance building not only because it is keen to broaden the capital’s retail appeal and reverse the consumer exodus to suburban shopping malls, but also because the site is one of the few in the Grafton Street area able to accommodate the larger-scale floorplates demanded by international fashion multiples.

@Rory W wrote:

hoping to replicate the success of the recently opened Gaiety Centre on South King Street

‘success’? The paint’s barely dry. Is it deemed successful because it hasn’t fallen down yet? We really are clutching at straws.

in this economic climate, success indeed means built.

success = successfully let

Took a couple of photos during the week.

@Paul Clerkin wrote:

success = successfully let

Hmmm… Looks as if there’s a fair bit to let there yet…

In a similar vein has anyone seen the new Tommy Hilfiger store on Grafton St? They’ve blocked out the upper storey opes with some kind of silver boarding – looks absolutely terrible and I’m only hoping its some kind of temporary measure but somehow I doubt it.

@hutton wrote:

Hmmm… Looks as if there’s a fair bit to let there yet…

All the retail is let, the offices aren’t and could be a hard sell in current market

@jdivision wrote:

All the retail is let, the offices aren’t and could be a hard sell in current market

Agreed. There’s plenty going a-begging right now 🙁