Grand Parade / Capitol Cinema / Patrick Street Development
- This topic has 18 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
It’s been a long time coming, but Padlake have finally recieved permission for their much needed Grand Parade/Capitol Cinema/ Patrick Street development:
“for a mixed use infill development at No.s 14-20 Grand Parade, No.s 55-57 St. Patricks Street and Market Lane, Cork City. The proposed development will constitute the provision of a mixed use development incorporating retail and office use, and the demolition of (i) Nos 14 and 15 Grand Parade, (ii) The Captiol Cinema Building (no.16 -20 Grand Parade), (iii) Nos 55, 55A, 56, and 57 St Patricks Street (with the retention and refurbishment of facades onto St Patrick’s Street) and (iv) the Vineyard Bar, Market Lane. The proposed mixed use development will be 4 stories above ground level in height and will provide 3 basement levels.”
This follows further information which led to the following changes to the original plans:
Grand Parade facade altered to fit in with surrounding buildings.
Rooftop services have been reduced.
Market Lane (off Patrick Street) facade altered to create a more active streetfront.
Patrick street elevaltion altered to fit into existing facades.Some images. In my view, it looks a bit drab and unimpressive from Grand Parade.
-
Some images. In my view, it looks a bit drab and unimpressive from Grand Parade.
As far as I remember the original application, they reduced significantly the bulk of the building as seen from Washington Street, the scale seems right now. But Grand Parade elevation is quite pathetic. This mock-townhouse elevations, this lack of any detail and design.. Eh.
-
-
remember, the planners gave the nod for this so there is obviously no design opinion coming through from them, they seem to be just focused on whether the place fulfills a retail strategy and whether it is within the planning laws. There never seems to be a name in there that has made a design opinion on major developments.
-
-
THAT’S The Vista From Washington St!!!
WTF
Never mind Patrick St facades, this development terminates the view looking down Washingston St. This is on par with the nasty multistory caprpark from the early 90’s on the same side. What does City Hall have against this part of town. Unforgivable.
-
Thats awful!
The architects (?) could have taken advantage of the great vistas down washington st and the grand parade.
Such a shame!…and is it just me or does the grand parade facade look massively out of scale?
-
Christ, that Grand Parade elevation is absolutely shocking!
Who in their right mind would consider that to be an acceptable infill solution in such an important location?
I really despair at the quality of architectural design and indeed planning in this country at times!:(
-
A wasted chance. The only consolation is that it will be a slight improvement on whats currently there :rolleyes:
-
That is an absolute architectural tragedy! How can they get away with CRAP like that?!
-
Looks like a retail park. 🙁
-
That is just horrible. I don’t understand those flat carboard walls and pvc windows, square feartures and the odd brickwork to make it appear contemporary and blending
We clearly don’t have a good field of architects in this country. The shite that is been built on our main throughfares of Dublin Cork and Limerick are just shabby.. Not all but alot of is just cheapish infill.
-
It actually looks redicoulous, the windows are like sliding doors. The windows are three times bigger than all the windows on the street. It’s pathetic and who ever designed it cleary doesn’t know what hes doing. He might want to take a good look at the urban fabric around the street. His design will surely prove to him what an eyesore that is.
-
I thought the previous Grand Parade facade was better (even if it seemed overly tall – though that may simply have been the render). The only positive is at least it can’t be much worse than what’s there.
It seems to me the one constant of the current planning process is:
“It doesn’t matter what goes in, it comes out short, bulky and very, very bland”.
-
@who_me wrote:
I thought the previous Grand Parade facade was better (even if it seemed overly tall – though that may simply have been the render). The only positive is at least it can’t be much worse than what’s there.
It seems to me the one constant of the current planning process is:
“It doesn’t matter what goes in, it comes out short, bulky and very, very bland”.
I disagree. I think what’s there is better than this.
-
Looks like our planners have decided to give it the Academy Street treatment.
I definitely feel that while none of the various options were ideal, this latest proposal is certainly the least imaginative, and I frankly find it Bland, capital B. Another showcase for the conservatism of our planners, with their ‘policy’ being implemented in what can only be described as a detrimental manner. While the previous proposal admittedly stood to be scaled down slightly, particularly in terms of its impact on the Market, it did not justify stripping it of any flair or character it had, resulting in the generic rubbish they have. That’s what you get for messing with a pretty decent design – any radical departures imposed are always likely to result in a sub-par design, a mangled version of the original, unless the thing is completely redesigned from scratch. And what merit there is in retaining the Central Shoe Stores building I just don’t know, I would have seen this as a golden opportunity to replace it with something infinitely better, or at least get rid of that fecking gargantuan sign!
-
previous scheme was much more successful. planners imo couldnt reconcile the need to integrate with streetscape along grand parade with its visual significance as a termination of the vista down washington street. they should have decided that one cannot address both equally, and should have decided to prioritise one over the other. i feel if they accepted that its importance as a terminating point for washington street in visual terms outweighed its role as part of the grand parade streetscape, a more interesting and acceptable design would have emerged. instead, the design is completely straight-jacketed between two conflicting design parameters and a slavish response to the planner’s conservative approach to this site.
what it needed i think was an acceptance that a strong visual statement was required on the grand parade. this involved an interruption of the established pattern and rhythm of grand parade facades, which is entirely acceptable. naturally, this would require a sensitive approach to the english market entrance. the problem with the central shoe stores is the signage. the building otherwise is fine and could have been integrated into the scheme. agree that it is a lumpy and boring design. pana facade ok.
-
@bunch wrote:
previous scheme was much more successful. planners imo couldnt reconcile the need to integrate with streetscape along grand parade with its visual significance as a termination of the vista down washington street. they should have decided that one cannot address both equally, and should have decided to prioritise one over the other. i feel if they accepted that its importance as a terminating point for washington street in visual terms outweighed its role as part of the grand parade streetscape, a more interesting and acceptable design would have emerged. instead, the design is completely straight-jacketed between two conflicting design parameters and a slavish response to the planner’s conservative approach to this site.
what it needed i think was an acceptance that a strong visual statement was required on the grand parade. this involved an interruption of the established pattern and rhythm of grand parade facades, which is entirely acceptable. naturally, this would require a sensitive approach to the english market entrance. the problem with the central shoe stores is the signage. the building otherwise is fine and could have been integrated into the scheme. agree that it is a lumpy and boring design. pana facade ok.
Actually I don’t think there needs to be a dilemma here. Just look at any Georgian planned town, and you’ll see plenty of houses which are identical to their neighbours but which simultaneously act as elegant termination points for intersecting streets.
The idea that building a completely bland and ugly building like this is showing some kind of respect for Grand Parade is ridiculous. That site, looked at from any angle, would have been much better served by an elegant and distinct symmetrical design, possibly slightly raised above the level of neighbouring buildings, in order to provide a good termination point for Washington Street.
My point, in a nutshell, is that where they could have had respect for both Grand Parade and Washington Street, they have respect for neither, and that there is therefore no excuse whatsoever for this rubbish.
-
i agree with your last point in particular. however, i think the challenge on this site involves more than just a symettrical and sympathetic response in order to produce a sensitive reaction to grand parade and a ‘pleasing’ terminus to washington street. the context is far removed from a typical georgian setting, and there is little in the way of uniformity and classical street layouts here. grand parade is more of a space than a street. the buildings that line it are diverse in form and character. the terminus from washington street does not centre on the site – i.e. the existing building is actually ‘off’ when viewed from washington street. i think symmetry is not particularly effective in this case as a conceptual approach. a strong visual statement at the terminus of the view from wash. st. should have been the priority. this would have added another interesting insertion into a streetscape that is characterised by varied, interesting and diverse building forms.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
