gaiety centre

And the interior…

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! 😀

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

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

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.

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?

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 🙂 ).

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

@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.

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.