gaiety centre
- This topic has 150 replies, 36 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
i was suprised to see that abp rejected the redevelopment of the eircom building on south king street as shops and apartments, this street needs something doing to it.
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.
this is a hard one, the building doesn’t look too bad, but it is too high for the street and for the gaiety. on the other hand, south king street is desparate, it looks like it would have been good planning to allow it.
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?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
