gaiety centre
- This topic has 150 replies, 36 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
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despite the shoddy appeal they made misquoting street names, and the refusal quoting from objections that had been withdrawn.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……….
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.
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 desirableOriginally 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.
on a related note, i never understand why people complain about an-taisce objecting, their role is to articulate the heritage perspective, abp then take that into consideration when deciding. if you don’t like the decision then your fight is with abp for agreeing with an taisce, not with an taisce for making the arguement in the first place.
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.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
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
