Heuston framework plan

Home Forums Ireland Heuston framework plan

Viewing 100 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #709864
      missarchi
      Participant

      don’t think it is finalised yet:eek: but here is my 10 minute job…
      for some bits its to late others its not…
      red = georgian
      the other colors you can guess

      make what????

    • #798006
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      That’s not as daft as it looks.

      O.k. it is as daft as it looks.

      However, you have a valid point in there somewhere that ‘Heuston Gate’, ‘Clancy Quay’ and the rest of Kilmainham are disconnected urban entities, and are being developed in isolation from each other.

      These areas are being marketed as new urban quarters, but there is no discernable vision for how they could connect with each other and maybe even complement each other.

      missarchi, in what way is ‘red’ Georgian? Do you mean Georgian in the sense of East European?

    • #798007
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      The ‘Heuston South Quarter’ is starting to take a bit of shape. The Eircom HQ building, on the corner of St. John’s Road and Military Road, was part of the first planning permission and is nearly complete.

      I have lost track of the rest of the development because there have been so many subsequent planning applications, but some of the apartment blocks, which were originally standard repetitive dross, have been redesigned and look like they could be getting interesting.

      This colour scheme, is this Rietvelt?, who’s up on the heros of the modern movement?

      Worth noting that the existing mature trees have been retained all along the street frontage (suggestion here for Lansdown Road!).

    • #798008
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @gunter wrote:

      However, you have a valid point in there somewhere that ‘Heuston Gate’, ‘Clancy Quay’ and the rest of Kilmainham are disconnected urban entities, and are being developed in isolation from each other.

      These areas are being marketed as new urban quarters, but there is no discernable vision for how they could connect with each other and maybe even complement each other.

      “We fetishise the urban experience, but without rigour. Or real comprehension.”

      OR:

      Aah Clancy Quay…

      PS This is the answer to an old ‘How well do you know Dublin?’ frivolous teaser, btw.

      (I’ll get my coat.)

    • #798009
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @gunter wrote:

      This colour scheme, is this Rietvelt?, who’s up on the heros of the modern movement?

      Possible Rietveld, possibly Mondrian, possibly Tati?

      (Couldn’t find my coat.)

    • #798010
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      The ‘Brunel’! block at Heuston South Quarter.

      Isambard Kingdom Brunel?

      Because it’s near a railway line? That’s pretty tenuous. I’m sorry, but this is the ‘Dubai’ block.

    • #798011
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      yeap sad what could of been…

      Mondrian, possibly Tati?:cool:

    • #798012
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      I nearly missed this one. There are so many thousand word essay site notices up on this hoarding you don’t notice them any more.

      I don’t know what the rest of you think, but this to me is a new low.

      Over the last five years each block in the Heuston South Quarter (HSQ) has gone back in for revised planning with the result that the scheme, as reluctantly granted planning permission by Bord Pleanala, must now have nearly doubled in floor area.

      They’re calling this ‘Modifications to blocks 5B & 6’, when it’s patently a completely different, gargantuan 13 storey, scheme on the site of previously permitted blocks 5B & 6. Personally, I detested blocks 5A & 5B for their insipid relationship with the formal gardens at the RHK, but dumping a shapeless brown turd on the site is completely unacceptable.

      I think the facade panels are supposed to be bronze, but it looks like a two tone mess. In any case we already have a bronze clad mega-block, it’s called ‘Park House’ on the North Circular Road, and it was built, what, 30 years ago?

      Sorry about the spiral bind down the middle of the render, but that’s the way it’s presented. For orientation, the view is looking north with the tracks at Heuston station at the top of the picture, the Dubai block on the right and the formal gardens at the Royal Hospital on the left.

      The turd would dominate this view from the RHK, where it would be in front of the Dubai block, to the left of the Deputy Governor’s house.

    • #798013
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      My first thought:

    • #798014
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      I forget the story, did God smote the tower of Babel, or just turn all the builders into Poles and Latvians?

      God, in this case, is going to have to be Emma Deane, planning officer, (Reg. no. 2821/08, lodged 14 May) and I will be looking for a good smoting.

      This is a shot of the model above and a recent view of the site, from down in the formal garden, below.

    • #798015
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @gunter wrote:

      The ‘Brunel’! block at Heuston South Quarter.

      Isambard Kingdom Brunel?

      Because it’s near a railway line? That’s pretty tenuous. I’m sorry, but this is the ‘Dubai’ block.

      Nice building, but you right you could swear it was copied from a Dubai building. The obviousness is laughable. Irish architects just cannot seem to be more inspiring or inventive when it come’s coming up with their own tall buildings.

      There are just as freighened as the rest of the population of this country.

    • #798016
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      warning — a well worn out drum is about to be banged..

      Maybe this gargantuan block of a building (bronze behemoth pictured above) is a result of the mass hysteria involving tall buildings and the inevitable refusals?
      Its just a thought.

      and a couple of taller slender tower type buildings , in this situation, in this area which has been pegged for higher densities, would perhaps have less impact??

    • #798017
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Or they put the bronze behemoth in the model so someone would say: this is so awful! we need a couple of tall slender structures! A case of ‘I know that you know that I know…’

    • #798018
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @paul h wrote:

      Maybe this gargantuan block of a building (bronze behemoth pictured above) is a result of the mass hysteria involving tall buildings and the inevitable refusals?
      Its just a thought.

      and a couple of taller slender tower type buildings , in this situation, in this area which has been pegged for higher densities, would perhaps have less impact??

      That’s the rational for the 32 storey Heuston Gate tower, which, unfortunately, seems to have vanished into the twilight zone. I’d be inclined to agree with you that a cluster of slender towers, in the right context, would be better than this. I’m not sure though, if we could use the term ‘less impact’. It was clear from day one that there was no way this development, in it’s relationship to the Royal Hospital, was ever going to be low impact.

      To get planning permission in the first place, they proposed a relatively low, staggered, semi-transparent pair of blocks (6A & 6B) as the interface between this proposed new ‘urban quarter’ and the formal gardens below the primary north evevation of the Royal Hospital. The ‘Heuston Framework Plan’, which paved the way for this development, set out some guidelines which seemed reasonable at the time, but now look quite foolish. One specific guideline was that the development of the Eircom site (as it then was) should not encroach on a minor vista from the corner of the Royal Hospital building to the tiny cupola on the Royal Infirmary in the Phoenix Park, more than half a mile away, (you can hardly see it, to the left of the cranes, in this photograph). That’s the reason for the staggered set-back of blocks 6A and 6B as originally proposed and it ruined the possibility of creating a strong urban edge to the formal gardens, which, in my opinion, the formal gardens could easily have handled. A stronger edge here would have ‘contained’ the development beyond, and reduced the type of jarring impact that the likes of the bronze block are likely to create.

      Although I didn’t agree with the original relationship, the current proposal bizarrely replaces only one half of the original interface with the gardens by sticking in this 4 – 13 storey bronze block in the place of block 6B (and block 5), while leaving it’s twin, block 6A alone! Again the western elevation of the bronze block is splayed to preserve the sight line to the Infirmary, at the expense of an orthogonal relationship with the Royal Hospital and the formal gardens.

      The planner’s report seeking additional information on the original development, 5 or 6 years ago, pointed out that the Royal Hospital was a ‘world class 17th century building’ and that any development on this site would need to raise it’s game to address that standard.

      As far as I’m aware, from day one, the whole HSQ development has been designed by the one practice, Anthony Reddy & associates, despite the fact that the various blocks diverge considerably in style and quality. On one level, it may be commendable that there is this variation and vitality rather than a numbing sameness to the development, but on another level, there’s no excuse, on a heritage sensitive site like this, for any of the blocks not to be treated with the greatest possible skill and sensitivity.

      Reddy has done other good work in the area, their Hilton hotel opposite Kilmainham Gaol, protographed here through the main gate (Richmond Tower) of the Royal Hospital, is a well regarded essay in building sensitively in a historical setting, with, as has been said before, an appropriate touch of civic grandeur. A bit of this forming a defined urban edge to the RHK formal gardens would go a long way towards settling this new ‘urban quarter’ at HSQ into a respectfull relationship with it’s 17th century neighbour.

    • #798019
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      gunter: take your point entirely about a strong uniform building line defining the relationship between the RHK and any new development; not sure about your confidence in the hotel and its civic presence. The ‘mullions’ (which is how they read) are too arbitarary and capricious in their placing and I think they mock rather than complement the classical regularity of Kilmainham courthouse opposite. I’m not saying it’s a bad building (though hardly very exciting), just not up to the job in situ.

    • #798020
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      :confused:

    • #798021
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Johnglas, I know the ‘mullions’ are arbitrary, but that’s the problem with hotels, all the pigeon holes are the same size, so you end up with either boring repetition, or you go down the ‘pattern’ route like our chequerboard Portuguese friend in the docks. I think the Kilmainham Hilton, apart from the corner / mesh feature which you see I’ve carefully kept out of shot, is a decent third way.

      The convincing stonework (to the front only), the great broad flight of steps to the podium and the well executed separation of the sandstone block from the granite podium by a recessed fully glazed ground floor, give it the elusive ‘Civic’ quality, in my opinion.

      I was a bit surprised that it didn’t make it into either the AAI or the RIAI awards this time. Quite a lot of people around here, who routinely hate all buildings that haven’t been around for at least fifty years, quite like this one.
      Having said that, most of the rest of the development, particularly the ‘pick and mix’ blocks facing north towards the Memorial Gardens, are very dissappointing, to be polite about it.

      Are they three question marks, or just three hairs, on that button’s head?

    • #798022
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      gunter: Obviously I’ve not seen them, so I can’t say; even the hotel I need to see to be fair, and I might then change my mind. I saw the mesh in a photo in AI (or whatever it’s calling itself this week) and liked it no more than you. I’m not totally convinced that a more regular and logical arrangement of wall and window wouldn’t have been achievable; but, yes, it is a hotel.

    • #798023
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @gunter wrote:

      The ‘Heuston Framework Plan’, which paved the way for this development, set out some guidelines which seemed reasonable at the time, but now look quite foolish. One specific guideline was that the development of the Eircom site (as it then was) should not encroach on a minor vista from the corner of the Royal Hospital building to the tiny cupola on the Royal Infirmary in the Phoenix Park, more than half a mile away

      That view is quite important. And it must be seen in context with other historic views. When Heuston Gate was being planned, it was deemed that the views or ‘cone of vision’ from the terrace in front of the Royal Hospital to the Royal Infirmary, the Wellington Monument and the Magazine Fort would be maintained. I can’t agree that development should have lined the edge of the gardens. I’m wary when I see the term “strong urban edge”. I’ve seen it used too many times in planning consultants’ reports to justify overdevelopment.

    • #798024
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      The development, as now being constructed, is about twice the scale that was originally permitted, which would make it maybe 3, or 4 times the scale of the development envisaged in the original Heuston Framework Plan. That’s the context in which I think the guidlines in that plan need to be urgently reviewed before they become cast in concrete.

      The tiny cupola on the Royal Infirmary may be a delightful little feature, but I think it’s time to question whether it constitutes strong enough a focal point to dictate the building line half a mile away, when there are much more immediate and, in my view, important relationships to be considered.

      The cupola would still be visible from the formal terrace, just not from the extreme eastern end of it. The vista to the Wellington monument is direct and safe, though I have a suggestion in this direction that I need to do a bit more work on and I’ll post it up in due course. The vista to the Magazine Fort is about to vanish behind the Clany Barracks development.

      In general I’m in favour of the whole new urban quarter at HSQ and when it’s augmented by the Heuston Gate development (32 storey tower) on the east side of Military Road, and then linked up with the redevelopment of the Guinness lands, it will bring the city centre to the doorstep of Kilmainham for the first time. That’s all great, on one level, but there is no excuse that the interface with the Royal Hospital has to be the weakest element of the whole scheme!

      I think the developers are taking the easy option here, they’re running with the Infirmary vista because it doesn’t cost them too much in site area, while at the same time, they’ve quietly dropped the original low key frontage at blocks 6A & 6B because they know that any slight design contribution that these blocks may have made, in presenting a modestly scaled frontage to the gardens, has been rendered meaningless by the growing scale of the amended development behind.

      In my view, this unbuilt end of the HSQ development needs to be radically re-examined and not just in the context of the direct relationship with the formal gardens and the Royal Hospital itself, it needs to be examined in the context of an overall planning vision for Kilmainham and the role that the RHK grounds will have to play if the disconnected urban nodes at HSQ, Clancy Barracks, Islandbridge and what remains of Old Kilmainham itself, are ever to moulded into a coherently planned district, exploiting it’s abundant natural and man made attributes and legibly connected to it’s long and rich heritage.

      It’s a bit of an indictment that the last time Kilmainham was a lgible coherent district, it was the 1530s, before Henry VIII desolved the monastries! We’ve had more than our fair share of major public buildings since then and plenty of major infrastructural projects, but no comprehensive planning, no overall vision. Now would be a good time to put that right.

    • #798025
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Hmmm, bit late maybe given the development that’s underway?

      @gunter wrote:

      The tiny cupola on the Royal Infirmary may be a delightful little feature, but I think it’s time to question whether it constitutes strong enough a focal point to dictate the building line half a mile away, when there are much more immediate and, in my view, important relationships to be considered.

      Well the view is supposed be of the building, not just its cupola. While the façade is mostly hidden by trees at the moment, that could change. The OPW are quite into restoring vistas at the moment. The axial vista along the NCR to the Wellington Monument has just been restored by significant pruning of the trees lining it. Looks great too. And as you may well know major 18th century vistas are being restored at the moment out in Castletown.

      @gunter wrote:

      The vista to the Wellington monument is direct and safe, though I have a suggestion in this direction that I need to do a bit more work on and I’ll post it up in due course.

      Could your idea be something to do with those ghastly ‘90s apartments (must qualify for some of the worst buildings in Dublin for their ugliness and location) sitting at the bottom of the Wellie Monument in that view? Will await with interest!

      @gunter wrote:

      The vista to the Magazine Fort is about to vanish behind the Clany Barracks development.

      Last time I was at the Royal Hosp. the height line of Clancy Barracks’ new development was just below the Magazine Fort, and a bit to the right of it.

      @gunter wrote:

      I think the developers are taking the easy option here, they’re running with the Infirmary vista because it doesn’t cost them too much in site area, while at the same time, they’ve quietly dropped the original low key frontage at blocks 6A & 6B because they know that any slight design contribution that these blocks may have made, in presenting a modestly scaled frontage to the gardens, has been rendered meaningless by the growing scale of the amended development behind.

      The northern of these two blocks seems to be still happening – visible in the model of that ridiculous sprawling drunken 13-storey building you featured above.

    • #798026
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Devin: You’re not meeting me half way on this Heuston thing at all are you?

      First off, it may be late in the day to be trying to influence the final shape and form of this development, but nobody else appears to be bothered and the developers see this and keep coming back in with bulked-up re-designs of each block in turn. If someone doesn’t make a stand, they’re going to run amok on this site. As you know Devin, if someone doesn’t shine a light on the planners, they’re liable to wave all of this stuff through, to use your phrase.

      The last blocks that remain unbuilt (apart from the hotel recently permitted, at twice the scale of the previously permitted office block, at block 2), are blocks 1 and blocks 6A & 6B. These are the buildings with frontage to the RHK gardens. It’s just a wild guess, but if they get what they want with the massive bulk up of block 6B, I can’t see them not trying their luck with 6A, (and block 1 for that matter).

      In their application for the re-design of block 2 (to be a 14 storey, 22,013m.sq hotel in place of the 7 storey, 10,731m.sq. office block) the developers specifically stated that other location within the scheme had been considered and rejected because ‘ . . a building of this size on these sites was judged to have an impact on the new public square and on the view from the Royal Hospital where buildings 6A and 6B form ‘pavilion like’ edges to the gardens’!

      Now that they’ve obtained permission for the bulk-up of block 2, their ethical concerns for maintaining the ‘pavilion like’ edges to the gardens, seems to have vanished into the mist!

      And people will tell you that developers (and their architects) are a cynical and unprincipled bunch!

      On the vista to the Infirmary, I’m sorry, it just leaves me cold. IMO these kind of guidlines come about when consultants are appointed who have no real feel for the subject site and they start scratching around for things to pad out their reports with, to justify the fees. O.k, this might be a bitter and twisted comment, but it’s not wrong.

      On the vista to the Wellington monument, I wasn’t proposing to buy out all the 1990s apartments on Conyngham Road and demolish the blocks to reinstate the sylvan view across to the Phoenix Park, although obviously I would have the resources to do that any time I liked, you understand. The vista to the Magazine fort is another one of those that challenges gunter’s eyesight to the limit. Maybe other people can see this one, but personally I won’t be missing it and if it’s still there, it’s only because the Clancy development hasn’t progressed northwards up the site yet.

      My central point is that HSQ, Clancy Barracks and the rest of Kilmainham are being developed in an inward looking fashion and in cocooned isolation from each other. This is wrong! It’s wrong that St. John’s Road West is a dual carriageway instead of a street, when it’s located inside the city centre as defined by the Circular Roads. It’s wrong that the Royal Hospital grounds are today an unplanned, carved up, carcass of a space that is a barrier to the coherent development of the area as much as it is a recreational asset to dog walkers and concert promoters. Maybe we can fix all of this in fifty or sixty years time, but why can’t we fix it now?

    • #798027
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      No I agree with a lot of what you’re saying. But it has a lot to do with Dublin’s chronic motor car culture. Until the traffic lessens these areas will never be connected.

      Here is an example of unconnectedness:
      The planners would talk for years about getting the city’s cultural institutions “linked up”. RHK / IMMA was always a bastard to get to; just that bit far from the centre for a pleasant walk. Since 2004, it has been served by Luas, but you wouldn’t know it …
      Provided you know what the stop is, you get off at St. James’s Hospital (no announcement for IMMA, and no signpost towards it at the stop). IMMA is a short, pleasant, partially traffic-free walk westwards along James’s Street, down the concrete steps and uphill into the place. But, provided you know which direction to go along James’s Street when you get off Luas, there is NO SIGN at the top of the steps directing you down towards IMMA, and no sign telling you which way to go at the bottom. If you were to just follow the map, you would end up doing a much longer walk back along James’s Street towards town, then down Kilmainham Lane. And the concrete steps are grotty. They should be improved as a civic route. Why can’t we get these basics sorted out?

    • #798028
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      I think the absence of a sign post to the concrete steps (Cromwell’s Quarters is the official nane), from the Luas stop at James’ Hospital, might have something to do with it’s former street name. ‘Murdering Lane’ ! the continuation of ‘Cut Throat Alley’, which a lot of people around here think is still the more accurate description.

    • #798029
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @Devin wrote:

      Here is an example of unconnectedness:
      The planners would talk for years about getting the city’s cultural institutions “linked up”. RHK / IMMA was always a bastard to get to; just that bit far from the centre for a pleasant walk. Since 2004, it has been served by Luas, but you wouldn’t know it …
      Provided you know what the stop is, you get off at St. James’s Hospital (no announcement for IMMA, and no signpost towards it at the stop). IMMA is a short, pleasant, partially traffic-free walk westwards along James’s Street, down the concrete steps and uphill into the place. But, provided you know which direction to go along James’s Street when you get off Luas, there is NO SIGN at the top of the steps directing you down towards IMMA, and no sign telling you which way to go at the bottom. If you were to just follow the map, you would end up doing a much longer walk back along James’s Street towards town, then down Kilmainham Lane. And the concrete steps are grotty. They should be improved as a civic route. Why can’t we get these basics sorted out?

      Youre quite right there Devin; the grotty concrete steps are of course “Cromwells Quarters”, and are featured in Flora Mitchells “Vanishing Dublin”. Crossing over the Camac by Bow Bridge links one immediately into IMMA. This short route could be one of Dublins delights for the visitor to the city – but is instead, as Devin notes, grotty and bereft of even the most basic interpretation and signage 🙁

      I wonder have IMMA pushed for enhanced linkage – it is most certainly in their interest?!

    • #798030
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @hutton wrote:

      I wonder have IMMA pushed for enhanced linkage – it is most certainly in their interest?!

      IMMA always seemed to me to be unnaturally relaxed about the huge numbers of visitors that trudge past them en-route to Kilmainham Gaol, without ever darkening their door.

      This could have something to do with the fact that museums seem to have their own rules for calculating visitor numbers that don’t seem to be dependant on counting actual visitors. I know that when Declan McGonigal was director of IMMA, they were using an automatic counter on the entrance door, so irrespective of whether the ‘visitor’ was coming in to look at the ‘art’, or buy a coffee, or fix a light bulb, they were counted in the annual attendance! I wouldn’t even be surprised if they counted the door swing that got you out again, but I couldn’t absolutely swear to it.

      Back in McGonigal’s time, you had to go through the IMMA main door just to get to the cafe, which in my experience, 90% of the visitors to the RHK did, never going anywhere near the ‘art’. I often had to wait outside for five or ten minutes, waiting for someone to swing the door, just to avoid giving him the satisfaction of counting me in his annual attendance.

    • #798031
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      I’d say that impressed the girlfriend :p

    • #798032
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      That kind of patience and determination is frowned upon in frenetic Celtic Tiger Ireland where the quick buck, fast food, plastic culture is king. How sad. 🙁

      I for one applaud your principles gunter, even if it does make you seem like a sad, pathetic person. 😉

    • #798033
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      In the absence of big victories massamann, it’s the little victories that count!

      Here’s a google map/diagram of the RHK grounds showing the location of the various ‘enclave’ developments around it’s perimeter.

      Despite the fact that the RHK grounds are nearly twice the size of Stephen’s Green, there are only two entrances (marked with green Xs), located at the east and west extremities of the site. The whole northern boundary consists of a planted screen to St.John’s Road as a buffer to the dual carriageway here and the Heuston railway yards beyond. Beyond that, a bit to the west, and behind another embankment and boundary wall is the Clancy Quay development.

      There is potential for connectivity, but it will require open minds and a full IAP, or LAP, focused on the Royal Hospital grounds to demonstrate where the connections can be made. At the very least, I’d be in favour of punching several holes in the RHK boundary walls to get it into some kind of public use.

      As well as just puncturing holes, there is also a case for re-imagining the RHK grounds as two separate amenity resources, one, formal in character, and focused on the Royal Hospital complex and the recreated 17th century clasical gardens in the east, and the other, more informal and archaeological in character, focused on Bullys Acre and the heritage of the Knights Hospitaller’s preceptory, the ‘Castle House of Kilmainham’ and it’s predecessor the Gaelic monastry of St. Maighnan, in the west.

      The historic west avenue would still link the two, but the northern boundary and, to a lesser extent, the southern boundary, could be modified to open up the park as a kind of ‘town green’ as opposed to the ‘walled estate’ that it is now. The wonderful ‘Meadows’ area of Edinburgh is an example of this type of amenity space in the heart of a city, no walls, no railings just undulating parkland criss-crossed by paths and fronted by high quality urban terraces.

      In this scenario, a new, one sided, access street could be swept in from St. John’s Road West creating a wedge of mixed commerial and cultural development in a triangle bounded by this new curved route to the south, the presently bleak frontage to St. John’s Road to the north and the wall of the formal gardens to the east, where a restrained, civic scale, frontage could balance the HSQ mega-development on the opposite side.

      A new north/south pedestrian route separating this development wedge from west wall of the the classical gardens would formalise an impressive vista to the Wellington monument, (a real vista that you won’t need binoculars, or imagination to see). The new park frontage street would take all vehicular access to IMMA in from St. John’s Road and provide direct access the existing car and bus parking areas, without having to drive around three sides of the 17th century Royal Hospital building, as is the case now.

      I know the lawn lovers will be up in arm again, but there’s still loads of grass for everyone.

    • #798034
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      I’ve attached (I hope) a pic of the Meadows as mentioned by gunter. It’s a fabulous space (even if it is in Embra) and it is really a town ‘common’. You could do this with the RHK grounds (though you won’t have Arthur’s Seat – an old volcano – in the background), but critically there needs to be enclosure, so you may have to build on part of the grounds to achieve it.

    • #798035
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      This amazing pile (Barclay-Bruntsfield church; Pilkington 1862-4) is at the other (west) end of the Meadows; Edinburgh’s answer to Monkstown church?

    • #798036
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Wasn’t that bought by Blackrock International Land who intend to develop the grounds?

    • #798037
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @johnglas wrote:

      I’ve attached (I hope) a pic of the Meadows as mentioned by gunter. It’s a fabulous space (even if it is in Embra) and it is really a town ‘common’. You could do this with the RHK grounds (though you won’t have Arthur’s Seat – an old volcano – in the background), but critically there needs to be enclosure, so you may have to build on part of the grounds to achieve it.

      johnglas:

      That’s exactly what I’m talking about. Sorry for making you go to Embra! The meadows, looking the other way, towards Bruntsfield and the Golf Tavern, would be even better.

      I agree, the right amount of enclosure is the key.

      Hey johnglas, now that you’re with the pixels, any chance we might persuade you to go up the road to Cumbernauld and take a few shots of the future, 60s style, I can’t find any of mine from a few years ago. I was shocked to find that some of it had been knocked down, surely Cumbernauld is a List 1 structure?

    • #798038
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      gunter: you’ve given me a project; prob not anytime soon, but I will try. C’nauld is a bone of contention (that’s a philosophical statement); it’s universally derided as the epitome of dullness, although most of the ire is directed at the awful 70s shopping centre. However, having been designed as an ‘Italian hill town’ (I kid you not), it then sold its integrity by an ill-conceived suburban sprawl to the north, It suffers from 1970s dull municipal worthy greyness, which in the west of Scotland is like saying it could be the outer suburbs of Nowa Huta. Leave it with me.

    • #798039
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Another one of the (frosty) Meadows, looking towards Bruntsfield and the west (with the wonderful Golf Tavern at the left).

    • #798040
      Paul Clerkin
      Keymaster

      OPW puts plans for Dublin skyscraper on hold
      The Irish Times

      Plans to create Ireland’s tallest building, a 32-storey skyscraper by Heuston Station in Dublin, are the latest victim of the downturn in the property market. Three years after securing planning permission to build the apartment block as part of a residential, office and cultural centre, the Office of Public Works has put the ambitious development on hold. The OPW is still saying the project could proceed, but with just two years left on the planning permission, industry sources say this is very unlikely in its present form. At the height of the property boom, the land with planning permission was estimated to be worth €100 million, but is unlikely to fetch that sum in current market conditions. A spokesman said the State body had not been in contact with any potential developers in the private sector about a joint venture, nor had it opened discussions with the HSE, Revenue Commissioners and Garda Síochána, which occupy part of the 4.5-acre site and would have to leave before development could begin.

    • #798041
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      paul you would think the same of the heuston quarter?
      It would not surprise me… with the cost of building over tracks
      I still could not understand the logic of the steel approach… vertical triangles and a gap for tall poppies

    • #798042
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      surprising my comment about the article above being a ripoff of one in the tribune was deleted. Yet again IT relying on other papers for news.

    • #798043
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Since we’re already having a bad day!

      The big ugly brown scheme at the RHK just went for AI.

      Out of sheer desperation, I’m goin to try and read some positives into the planner’s report.

      ‘The (original) masterplan and parent permission set out an urban design structure, which was organised with a simple clarity and coherence.’
      ‘The proposed Block 6 introduces a type of building massing and envelope, which is at variance with the established parameters of the site.’
      ‘The overall massing and scale of the building needs to be re-evaluated taking into account the original urban design structure established as part of the masterplan and in particular the parent permission.’
      ‘The proposed building introduces a type of building massing and scale that could compromise the usability of the Civic Square (to the north) and the residential square to the south.’
      ‘From all viewpoints the building reads as a very large mass, which could overwhelm the public spaces . . ‘

      In fairness to Emma Deane, the planning officer, that isn’t a bad table of observations.

      Unfortunately, that’s as far as it goes, where you would expect the next line to read: ‘Accordingly we REFUSE PERMISSION’! instead the bottom line reads: ‘REQUEST FURTHER INFORMATION’.

      The AI will consist of:

      1. A bucket full of new photomontages from specified locations including several from which we won’t be seeing the building.
      2. Another model.
      3. A 3D visualisation of the movement through the pedestrian route.
      4. The applicant is invited to ‘review’ the overall massing etc.
      5. The applicant is requested to ‘address’ how their sceme appears to compromise the quality and usability of the civic square.
      6. Shadow analysis
      7. Add ‘green’ features to the proposed Block 6 in order to provide a more ‘holistic’ strategy for the building’s environmental performance.
      8. Revise the depth of floor plate from 17m to 14m.
      9. Provide more info on the economic impact on the area and the city.

      I could be wrong, but the key paragraph in the Planner’s report seems to be the final passage in the Assessment:

      ‘The proposed development could have significant economic and social benefits and synergies with the other substantial private and public investments in the surrounding area boosting the attractiveness and competitiveness of the city and achieving strategic planning objectives such as as regeneration and rebalancing the city on an east-west basis.’

      This is a dry, and I hope reluctant, synopsis of the effusive 6 page inter-departmental report filed by the DCC Economic Development Unit, headed by one Kieran Rose, senior planner.

      As usual with a Rose report, instead of a bit of common sense and critical judgement, you get loads of buzz words ( progressive, synergy, dynamic, competitive, innovative, creative ), woven into a dense tapestry overlaid with multiple quotations from obscure sources:

      Vlad Mykhnenko?
      Competitive Cities in the Global Economy,
      Ivan Turok,
      The Creative Knowledge Economy in Dublin,
      Christian Hilber
      The cost of Reulatory Constraints on the British Office Market,
      The Barker review of Land Use Planning,
      Regional Policy and Agglomeration Economies in Ireland,

      None of this probably matters anyway because the bottom line for Rose is: ‘The architects are Make and they have an international reputation for innovative architecture and this adds to Dublin’s assets as a ‘Creative City”

      That sounds a lot like the thinking that gave us the Clarence, It’s a Foster, we must have a Foster.

    • #798044
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      and another thing,

      How did this application get past that woman in the basement who keeps sending back my planning applications because the ad didn’t say ‘Velux window on the roof’,’ or some such?

      They’ve described this development as: ‘Modifications to Blocks 5B & 6’!

      Have they changed the meaning of the word ‘modify’?

      My Little Oxford Dictionary defines ‘modify’ as ‘tone down, qualify; make less sever; make partial changes in.’ !

      Then they’ve had the audacity to describe the new block as: ‘a mixed use building’!

      The block consists of 26,000m.sq. of office floor space and less than 1,000m.sq. of ground floor retail and cafe use. That’s 96.3% office and 3.7% something else! That like calling Leinster House a mixed use building, because it’s 97% talking shop and 3% security hut.

    • #798045
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @gunter wrote:

      Despite the fact that the RHK grounds are nearly twice the size of Stephen’s Green, there are only two entrances (marked with green Xs), located at the east and west extremities of the site. The whole northern boundary consists of a planted screen to St.John’s Road as a buffer to the dual carriageway here and the Heuston railway yards beyond. Beyond that, a bit to the west, and behind another embankment and boundary wall is the Clancy Quay development.

      There is potential for connectivity, but it will require open minds and a full IAP, or LAP, focused on the Royal Hospital grounds to demonstrate where the connections can be made. At the very least, I’d be in favour of punching several holes in the RHK boundary walls to get it into some kind of public use.

      .

      stop. just stop. It’s bad enough that such a wonderful oasis in the city is overlooked by the Heuston development – now you want to saturate the place with humanity. There’s 2 entrances to RHK. If people want to use the gardens, they use those entrances. End of story. stop trying to turn the place into St Stephen’s Green. So what if it’s convoluted, so wht if it’s not “convenient”. f**k convenience and f**k this contamination. next thing, you’ll be wanting to turn the Royal Oak into a wine bar.

    • #798046
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      There is no force on earth that could turn the Royal Oak into a wine bar.

    • #798047
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @gunter wrote:

      There is no force on earth that could turn the Royal Oak into a wine bar.

      Bono.

    • #798048
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      The amount of buildings -offices/appartments , etc…crammed into the Heuston plot is really OTT. It’s gone to the other exteme now!

    • #798049
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      The HSQ must be nearly completed now. Any news on the development???

    • #798050
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @johnny21 wrote:

      The HSQ must be nearly completed now. Any news on the development???

      Walk up past heuston station and look in through the large open gate. Well underway but far from finished. Completed Eircom building also has a very poor relation to the street, a very sandyfordesque approach to the street level.

    • #798051
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @Bago wrote:

      Walk up past heuston station and look in through the large open gate. Well underway but far from finished. Completed Eircom building also has a very poor relation to the street, a very sandyfordesque approach to the street level.

      Thanks bago:)

    • #798052
      Anonymous
      Inactive
    • #798053
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      About a year ago, the OPW re-configured the Irwin Street entrance to the RHK / IMMA, pulling the entrance back from the street and duplicationg the original single entrance to have dedicated IN and OUT gates. In general, most people agree that they did a decent job.

      However, the planning application at the time promised that the original armorial crests which topped the early 18th century entrance pillars, would be replaced by ‘something more appropriate’ to the current function of the building as the Irish Museum of Modern Art.

      It appears that we now have that ‘something more appropriate to the entrance to the Irish Museum of Modern Art’, and it resembles three cheap, stainless steel, toilet roll holders!


      A subliminal message perhaps that the art you are about to see is crap?


      The original gate with the original armorial crests in place, taken from the inside.

    • #798054
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      It’s perhaps a sign of the times that when the ‘masters of the universe’ in the banks are proven to be shysters (if not actually crooks), these new entrance gates at RHK signify, as gunter says, the lack of any real artistic content within. I recently visited the Glucksman and the Crawford galleries in Cork; the Glucksman was wonderful (if a bit too ‘industrial’ in feel internally), but the ‘art’ exhibits were absolute junk, apart from one about books, while the Crawford had great expansive new spaces (eccentric on the outside, again a bit industrial and poorly-finished on the inside) with absolute rubbish swilling around inside. Both were empty more or less apart from the cafe in the Crawford. Maybe our more realistic view of the limits of capitalism will be mirrored in our new view of the ‘arts’. Architectural spaces are great, but if you can’t fill them with anything interesting, what’s the point? The RHK should become the ‘Museum of Dublin’, showing real stuff about real people and places. It’s too good a building to waste on anything else.

    • #798055
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Ok, first of all Johnglas + gunter, we can agree that the OPW’s “interpretation” of what the IMMA represents is to say the least -crude and ugly-. I also agree that the quality of detailing in the Crawford is in the whole poor and in some cases terrible. It seems that Erik von Egeraat comes from the school of “Concept” in Holland; a country where the “ideas” industry is becoming increasingly separate from the “implementation” industry. (i.e. architects with big ideas but no detailing abilities/duties)..

      With regard to the quality of Art in the IMMA, I have to say that I disagree with your sentiments. Over the last year I have been there numerous times and on each occasion I have taken something from the Installations and touring presentations which frequent the institution. The turn-over of artists and displays is refreshingly frequent and there is a pleasant air of respectful interest about the place.

      In addition, Johnglas, your statement that the art exhibitions were complete “junk” is just that, your opinion, and I would say that interpretation of modern pieces is almost totally subjective. The Glucksmann’s programme is very consciously avant garde and as such is bound to be somewhat hit and miss, whilst the permanent works on the ground floor of the Crawford are generally classics of post 1900 Irish Art. It certainly is not rubbish “swilling around inside”.

      The idea of the RHK becoming a “museum of Dublin” is, quite frankly a load of tripe. In my opinion, the site is barely geographically appropriate for it’s slightly off the mainstream Irish museum of modern art status. Why would it suit a museum “for the people of Dublin” more? It is not really suited to the role of an art gallery but it is even less well suited to that of a “folk” or “real life” or even “real people and places” – what does that even mean? Photographs of real people and places? i.e. modern interpretations of real people. i.e. MODERN ART. which it is clearly – by your standards – wasted. Or perhaps you mean it should have high quality reproductions of streetscapes and historical scenes – either way, the low ceilinged, narrow corridor-ed RH Kilmainham is wasted?! as a public amenity which consistantly draws a significant amount of tourists and locals.

      Oh, and the restaurant in the Crawford is famous for it’s food, it has links to the “Darina Allen” family of cookery… the food is thar barr.

    • #798056
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      IMO there’s only one place for a museum of Dublin and thats the civic museum on South William Street – the fact that this building has been left to rot for about 10 years at this stage is nothing short of a discgrace. What’s wrong with having a Dublin Museum right in the middle of the CBD – and locationally some of the hip-kids on St William might learn something about their city

    • #798057
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @CM00 wrote:

      Johnglas + gunter

      First of all, there is no ‘johnglas + gunter’, I want to scotch that rumour before it gets off the ground.

      Secondly, not all ‘Modern Art’ is junk, but when you take one of mankind’s higher aspirations, a tradition of skill and endeavour that has continuously lifted the spirits since the first bison was painted on the first cave wall, and you turn your back on that tradition and give people instead an un-made bed, or a stack of mouldy sliced bread in a shop window, (Temple Bar 1990?) you are going to annoy people.

      I don’t necessarily subscribe to the view that Damien Hirst should be sat in front of a bowl of fruit with a sketch pad and a 2B pencil, before he’s allowed to flog another pickled shark in a tank of formaldehyde, but I can see the csae for some regulation of the term ‘Artist’, under the Trades Descriptions Act.

      On IMMA, I do quite like this piece . . .

      but only because it looks like chocolate!

      . .

    • #798058
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      CM00: the other half of the ‘deadly duo’ has already scotched the rumour that he is Batman and I am Robin (or vice-versa). We can agree to disagree about the content of much ‘modern’ (i.e. contemporary) art; my point was that these large spaces were hardly adequately served by what was indeed ‘swilling’ around them (see your own comments about the spaces in the RHK). On the wider point on a ‘Museum of Dublin’ in the RHK, you may well be right in terms of its suitability and location, but you carried an argument which was not mine ad absurdam. There are many cities which have museums illustrating the history of the place from a variety of perspectives and I believe a city like Dublin needs such a museum; my problem with Sth W St was always that the venue was far too small and the collection too eccentric and not comprehensive or systematic enough.

    • #798059
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @gunter wrote:

      Since we’re already having a bad day!

      The big ugly brown scheme at the RHK just went for AI.

      Out of sheer desperation, I’m goin to try and read some positives into the planner’s report.

      ‘The (original) masterplan and parent permission set out an urban design structure, which was organised with a simple clarity and coherence.’
      ‘The proposed Block 6 introduces a type of building massing and envelope, which is at variance with the established parameters of the site.’
      ‘The overall massing and scale of the building needs to be re-evaluated taking into account the original urban design structure established as part of the masterplan and in particular the parent permission.’
      ‘The proposed building introduces a type of building massing and scale that could compromise the usability of the Civic Square (to the north) and the residential square to the south.’
      ‘From all viewpoints the building reads as a very large mass, which could overwhelm the public spaces . . ‘

      In fairness to Emma Deane, the planning officer, that isn’t a bad table of observations.

      Unfortunately, that’s as far as it goes, where you would expect the next line to read: ‘Accordingly we REFUSE PERMISSION’! instead the bottom line reads: ‘REQUEST FURTHER INFORMATION’.

      The AI will consist of:

      1. A bucket full of new photomontages from specified locations including several from which we won’t be seeing the building.
      2. Another model.
      3. A 3D visualisation of the movement through the pedestrian route.
      4. The applicant is invited to ‘review’ the overall massing etc.
      5. The applicant is requested to ‘address’ how their sceme appears to compromise the quality and usability of the civic square.
      6. Shadow analysis
      7. Add ‘green’ features to the proposed Block 6 in order to provide a more ‘holistic’ strategy for the building’s environmental performance.
      8. Revise the depth of floor plate from 17m to 14m.
      9. Provide more info on the economic impact on the area and the city.

      The Tower of Babel has been reduced somewhat following the AI. It does look a lot more plausible it must be said:

    • #798060
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Above mock up actually looks quite nice. It’s reminiscent of a toned down Friedenreich Hundertwasser in my opinion. Don’t know if any one else agrees?

    • #798061
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @layo wrote:

      Above mock up actually looks quite nice. It’s reminiscent of a toned down Friedenreich Hundertwasser in my opinion. Don’t know if any one else agrees?

      I suspect Hundertwasser would be turning in his urn if he thought a corporate office block was claiming any of his engaging, chaotic, odd-ball heritage!
      Personally I think we’re clutching at straws in ascribing the influence of any significant architectural/artistic antecedents to this.


      Hundertwasser doing his two-dimentional Gaudi thing in Vienna, and the former NMB building in Amsterdam.

      I’ve tried hard to see a bit of the organic architecture of Alberts & Van Huut (NMB building, Amsterdam, 1979 – 87) in this, but apart from the heavy pile build-up, a bit of grass on the roof, and a general shapelessness, it’s hard enough to even make this connection.

      I agree that we need to look at moving on from the slick sheen of corporate architecture today, but this doesn’t do that, it mixes bronze facade panelling with a load-bearing aesthetic and, to me, it looks much more like a square footage grab than an architectural statement.

      My biggest problem with this proposal is the chaotic relationship with the RHK and the formal gardens. That diagonal ‘sight line’ to the Phoenix Park Infirmary (see Devin’s model pics) is driving me mad. Because of this protected sight line, the new ‘urban’ square within the scheme is squashed and dark, while a wasteful, triangular, nothing space is created between the three westernmost blocks and the wall of the formal gardens! This is daft IMO, as is the insipid hotch-potch of an elevation that they’ll be presenting to the gardens, which they’ve kept low, circa 4 storeys, as if we won’t be able to see all the 11 storey stuff behind!

      I know nobody else agrees with me, but a strong, punctuated, urban edge right on top of the wall (OK 5m back or whatever) would be far more deferential to the formal gardens than this splayed half-assed setback.

    • #798062
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Well I actually agree completely, gunter. I believe that the thinking which views this mess as being more respectful to the formal gardens simply because the building heights have been lowered a bit at the perimeter of the site is misguided to say the least.

      It would be far preferable to reinforce the garden’s boundary instead of completely disregarding it which is what has been done here by effectively introducing a new visual boundary; i.e. the broken hodge-podge of angles, heights, styles and materials which comprise the faces of the buildings immediately visible from the gardens. I would have had no objection to a terrace of 10 or 12 storied buildings a little behind and properly aligned with the existing wall reinforcing the garden’s edge. In fact, this would have been far superior by respecting the boundaries of the formal garden and the lines its layout establishes. I imagine ‘though that the knee-jerk reaction against such a proposal would have been very strong.

      I think even among some of the well-meaning planners and critics, there is a subconscious belief that height is the most important characteristic of a building. An idea which ironically they share with the most purile of the skyscrapesexuals in this forum who constantly bemoan the lack of appropriate masturbatory material in Dublin. Height is always the first feature mentioned: materials, orientation, positioning, etc. are seemingly secondary. On this site, I believe it is the positioning and orientation which should have been the most important issues if they wished to “respect” the formal garden which is all about 2d geometry and not height.

      Imagine the gardens of Merrion Square for example without the brooding wall of georgians visible behind the perimeter; would it be better to have dotted bungalows and two storied buildings at various angles where the existing terraces are and have four story buildings poking up behind the “respectful” stunted buildings visible directly from within the park? Admittedly, I’m reaching a bit here but on a grander scale, Central Park on Manhattan shows that parks and formal gardens are not necessarily compromised by nearby tall buildings assuming the positioning is regular; the effect is the opposite in fact by offering contrast.

      The original proposal wasn’t offensive to me because of its scale – it’s not like there is existing built urban grain and scale that it would compromise (it would be highly offensive sighted – let’s say – on Thomas Street) – or because of the fact that the developers were trying to maximise the floorspace (I am not motivated by a dislike of what others perceive to be greed) but because it, along with the rest of the “ensemble” completely destroys the visual geometric regularity created by the formal gardens.

    • #798063
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @jimg wrote:

      I think even among some of the well-meaning planners and critics, there is a subconscious belief that height is the most important characteristic of a building. .

      I think this site may also be witness to that time honoured strategy of developers to seek permission for an 11 storey building by first applying for a 13, or 15 storey building.

      One of the hardest things to accept about the western half of the HSQ development is the fact that the potential hard edge to the formal gardens (that we’re talking about) never seems to have been even considered, once that ‘Line of Sight’ to the Infirmary was set down as a seemingly immovable parameter.

      In dealing with the Royal Hospital, I think it would be fair to say that there has been a long history of nobody knowing what to do.

      Just after independence, there were those outline proposals to turn the RHK into a new parliament complex published in The Manchester Guardian, in 1923, followed by decades of use as a Garda headquarters, before total renovation in the early 1980s and ultimately conversion to use as IMMA about 1989.

      In the meantime, the grounds were abandoned to nature and the corner, where the HSQ development is now being developed, was covered in sheds and warehouses, some operated by the OPW themselves and some leased to the P&T (Eircom). In 1997, Dublin Corporation produced the ‘Kilmainham and Inchicore Action Plan’, which identified the ‘Eircom’ site as the desirable location for ”the relocation of a substantial amount of visitor parking and coaches” as well as being the site that offered the best opportunity to create a new vehicular entrance to IMMA to take the presure off the two historic entrances, ‘The Richmond Tower,’ and the older Irwin Street entrance (the one now graced by the ‘pimp my art museum’ toilet roll holders).

      Unfortunately this was the beginning of the era when the OPW couldn’t see past the dollar signs in their eyes, so a very different strategy was concocted.

      The OPW’s first move was a seemingly bizarre planning application to double the size of the existing, very large, car park on the west side of the RHK. Unsurprisingly this application was thrown out by the Planning Department on the basis that it was clearly in breach of the local area Action Plan and also, given that there was never more than a handful of people in IMMA at any one time, the existing car park was patently more than adequate to handle visitor numbers. The OPW were undetered by this setback and appealed to Bord Pleanála stating that ”’There is an immediate and urgent requirement by the Irish Museum of Modern Art (IMMA) for additional car parking to cope with the current visitor demand . . ”
      Unbelievably Bord Pleanála overturned the refusal granted the car park extension with token conditions about tree planting and a designated bus parking zone. With this permission in the bag, the OPW wasted no time in tarmacing the whole thing up to the wall of the Garda station.

      At the time this just seemed like a daft waste of public money, but the full extent of the devious little manoeuvre soon revealed itself with the posting of a vast planning application for the OPW / Eircom site, which was now fully exploitable on the commercial market, free from any requirement to accommodate visitor access or visitor parking for the multitudes clamouring to access the art in IMMA.

      The result of all this is:

      1. Now (numerous planning applications later) we have several million square feet of development, in a jumble of multi-storey blocks, crowding onto a part of what used to be the curtilage of the Royal Hospital, Kilmainham, with no master-plan for the rest of the grounds and no attempt to acknowledge the imbalance that is in the process of being created.
      2. We have (probably) the biggest inner city surface car park in Europe which can only be accessed by driving cars and buses around three sides of the most important 17th century building in the country.

      3. We have the remaining ‘Meadows area’ of the Royal Hospital lands routinely treated as a patch of waste ground to be leased out to commercial concert promoters, corporate fun games event holders and an annual, two ring, circus, despite the fact that the lands, being the site of the Knights Hospitallers Priory, are supposed to be zoned for archaeological protection and every tent peg and circus truck is potentially damaging archaeological strata below the churned up grass.

      4. The final ironic twist is that half of the vast surface car park at the Royal Hospital has now been cordoned off and designated as ”Eircom Car Park No. 3” to provide a 120 space shortfall in the basement parking provision at the corporate office blocks built on the HSQ site. This is the part of the car park for which there was ”an immediate and urgent requirement by IMMA for additional car parking to cope with the current visitor demand” !!


      The western half of the IMMA car park now cordoned off for Eircom, with circus tents in the distance.


      The ‘Meadows’ area recovering from one of the recent concerts.

      Sorry, this went on a bit.

    • #798064
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @gunter wrote:

      I know nobody else agrees with me, but a strong, punctuated, urban edge right on top of the wall (OK 5m back or whatever) would be far more deferential to the formal gardens than this splayed half-assed setback.

      I do agree… lets say 7.5 mtr min. 4-5 story and bricks and you have a formal response..
      and mabye + 2 or so further back

      re the carpark bugs me aswell… there are so many people who cannot afford to buy houses architects included and this would be a prime spot to put the carpark underground… and mabye just mabye build a nice row of 2 storey cottages while giving half the carpark back to green space and pumping a new entrance in from the south

    • #798065
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Spotted a large building on the corner between the HSE building and heuston station on a 1950s aerial photo in the national photographic archieve. Odd building, 5 storeys high and quite narrow, dutch billy style gables, sitting right on corner of johns road and steevens lane. Looks rather peculiar, you’d never have imagined anything was ever there. Anyone know what happened it or what it was? Lots of oddities in the photographs, disappeared parks and buildings everywhere.

    • #798066
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @missarchi wrote:

      I do agree… lets say 7.5 mtr min. 4-5 story and bricks and you have a formal response..
      and mabye + 2 or so further back

      re the carpark bugs me aswell… there are so many people who cannot afford to buy houses architects included and this would be a prime spot to put the carpark underground… and mabye just mabye build a nice row of 2 storey cottages while giving half the carpark back to green space and pumping a new entrance in from the south

      leave

      it

      alone

    • #798067
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @Bago wrote:

      Spotted a large building on the corner between the HSE building and heuston station on a 1950s aerial photo in the national photographic archieve. Odd building, 5 storeys high and quite narrow, dutch billy style gables, sitting right on corner of johns road and steevens lane. Looks rather peculiar, you’d never have imagined anything was ever there. Anyone know what happened it or what it was?

      It was the, Victorian era, Nurses Home building, serving Stevens Hospital, and it was cleared at the time that the hospital was renovated and turned into Eastern Health Board offices (HSE). I remember it as an impressive structure, but I think the back and sides, which were probably more visible than the front, were a bit of a mess.

      @wearnicehats wrote:

      leave
      it
      alone

      Oh dear! I sense another disagreement about to break out

    • #798068
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      some one is having a bad day:p
      its to hot in the south pole… is it true rich rogers is dsylisesx

    • #798069
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      I’ll have to stop refering to this as ‘the big ugly brown building’, now that the applicants have apparently dropped the ‘Bronze’ cladding in favour of old-fashioned, high class, ‘anodised aluminium’. The planner’s report does raise one eyebrow at this little switch, noting dryly that the original sales pitch claimed that the bronze cladding (or possibly, patinated brass) ‘offers a richness and depth not seen in materials such as anodised aluminium’ !

      Anyway, being the Planning Office, they’ve given it thorough going over and duly taken one floor of the eastern half of the block, reducing it to a modest 10 storeys, before handing it a clean planning permission, together with an invoice for their slice of the action, which is a recession busting 4,082,937 Euro and 59 cent, in ‘financial contributions’ and ‘special financial contributions’!

      Any concerns that we might have had about the discordant relationship of this metal clad mega-block to the Royal Hospital’s 17th century setting and the set-piece of the formal gardens, appear to have been groundless.

    • #798070
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      the piece that looks like chocolate I have seen something similar somewhere…

      bronze and brick have a rhyme about it a step down…
      don’t blame the amen… do you buy

      grassy hills or grid bricks

    • #798071
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      I can’t see this being appealed. It’s subordinate to RHK, which is the important thing. Plus it will help hide that dreadful imitation-Dubai building which is such a feature in views at the moment 🙂

      gunter, you’ll have to make your peace with the 2003 preserved cone of vision. It’s not going anywhere …….. erm, except to the Infirmary & Mag Fort.

    • #798072
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      We’ll see about that.

    • #798073
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      I agree that the view to the Infirmary from RHK terrace is not much at the moment, but it could be restored, as the NCR vista to the Wellie Monument was restored recently, pic below.

      Other than that, gunter I’m surprised you’re fixed on the idea of developing the boundary of the gardens. The cone of vision was the right thing to do. The context of RHK is that it’s a 17th cen public building in a natural landscape setting. It can be argued that development has come to close to the building and its gardens, or that the site has been overdeveloped (though an argument for 6 years ago) but there’s no basis, in historical context terms, for developing along the edge of the formal garden.

    • #798074
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @Devin wrote:

      I agree that the view to the Infirmary from RHK terrace is not much at the moment, but it could be restored . .

      Devin, how do you restore a view that’s virtually impossible to see in the first place without binoculars? and more importantly, why?

      Granted, my eyesight wouldn’t be 100%, and some of my difficulty with this vista to the cupola on the Infirmary, may have do do with the fact that I can’t actually see it, but what I can see is the full-blown urban quarter springing up on the edge of the formal gardens and it’s this immediate relationship that strikes me as more important.

      @Devin wrote:

      The context of RHK is that it’s a 17th cen public building in a natural landscape setting. . . . there’s no basis, in historical context terms, for developing along the edge of the formal garden.

      I would very much doubt that there’s much basis, ‘in historical context terms’, for developing anything of the scale proposed anywhere near such a significant ’17th century public building in a natural landscape setting’.

      I understand the temptation (with or without the distraction of the sight cone issue) to step the development down on the west side, towards the edge with the RHK formal gardens, I just don’t think it works.

      If it was all just park land, I think it would work, but the presence of the formal gardens presents a different challenge and one that this wretched ‘sight cone’ issue has given them the opportunity to dodge.

      In the Additional Information submission, the applicants assert that one of their ‘goals’ is to:

      ‘Create a gradual transition in height along the east-west axis of the site, mediating between the urban scale of the masterplan and the park landscape of the Royal Hospital, Kilmainham’

      No mention there of the Formal Gardens! nothing to suggest that the particular challenge of addressing the particular formalities of a 17th century formal garden ever entered their thinking in any meaningful way, other that to just keep the scale down and hope nobody notices.

      I like the urban scale of HSQ and I also like several of the buildings, including the Eircom building and most of Military Road. I also like the fact that, in the re-design of Blocks 5B & 6, they’re attempting something different than the orthogonal blocks and straight line planning of the rest of the development, but don’t think that this stepped bulky form is the right solution for a formal context that, itself, has enough ‘urban square’ characteristics to sustain a hard edge (as I’ve stated before) albeit with lots of gaps and punctuation to link into the mass of the urban quarter behind.

      Unfortunately the scanned images on the planning file are too poor in quality to post, but when I look at the images from the formal gardens, I see the kind of jumble of unrelated buildings that you tend to see in places where there is no real concept of ‘planning’, lots of urban energy, but no evidence of a guiding hand making it all look resolved and respectful of it’s immensly important setting.

      Obviously, I could be completely wrong!

    • #798075
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      here is round 2 of the plan loaded with errors what do you think of the st james hospital connection…. Im not well informed on the blue area but its proposed dense and with a little height…

    • #798076
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      You’ve wiped out two early 18th century hospitals and probably paralysed the whole rail network . . . . . but then you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs!

      On the subject of our eponymous railway station: Who is the Iarnród Eireann senior executive with overall responsibility for light bulbs?

      Does anyone know?

    • #798077
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @gunter wrote:

      On the subject of our eponymous railway station: Who is the Iarnród Eireann senior executive with overall responsibility for light bulbs?

      Does anyone know?

      I’m sure there’s a committee!

    • #798078
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @Devin wrote:

      … as the NCR vista to the Wellie Monument was restored recently, pic below.

      How was that achieved? Would look great floodlit at night. Miniature Washington Monument

    • #798079
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Major trimming. The trees used to meet in the middle of the road.

      The comparison with the Infirmary is that trees need to be cut back to reveal the Infirmary building from RHK terrace. It’s hidden at present ….. rather daft given that it was decided to protect this view.

    • #798080
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Gunter asked…..

      On the subject of our eponymous railway station: Who is the Iarnród Eireann senior executive with overall responsibility for light bulbs?

      Teacher Teacher !!!!….It`s the same person who`s in charge of the Bulbs for The Spire …. :p :p :p

    • #798081
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      What happened to this public space project? Lodged as a proposal with local authority exemption, but undecided – <a href="http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=2680/07&backURL=Search%20Criteria%20>%202680/07

    • #798082
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Where did all the traffic lights go in that plan?

      That plan has been put on hold by DCC anyway for budget reasons, even though the new developments on the street inc Hilton Hotel etc has contributed about EUR200,000 to the council twards it.

    • #798083
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @ac1976 wrote:

      Where did all the traffic lights go in that plan?

      That plan has been put on hold by DCC anyway for budget reasons, even though the new developments on the street inc Hilton Hotel etc has contributed about EUR200,000 to the council twards it.

      Probalby pocketing the money at Council HQ like the Bankers and the rest of the robbers in the country.

      But pity this paving scheme is not gonna go ahead. Kilmainham is a potentially great area, historically rich with the Gaol and Hospital etc…, that has been neglected for years and years. The Kilmainham Courthouse is still missing a letterbox flap after many, many years.

      BTW …..is yer wan Paris Hilton wearing the stillettoes and running along with the dalmation in that rendered image.

    • #798084
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      looks like the develepor (LALCO) paid DCC EUR232,427 twords this, how much was it gonna cost? and were they actually ever going to build it?

      http://www.dublincity.ie/AnitePublicDocs/00022960.pdf

    • #798085
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @GregF wrote:

      is yer wan Paris Hilton wearing the stillettoes and running along with the dalmation in that rendered image.

      As suspected, the above mentioned Spirit of the Place appears to be this lady-who-lunches’ perfume – which, if producing such exhilarating results, I’d be most earnest to get my hands on.

      At least gunter wasn’t too stressed over the closure of IMMA (why the Royal Hospital also had to remain closed is beyond me) – by contrast I walked the whole way out from St. Stephen’s Green two weekends ago only to find the place similarly barricaded, without so much as a sinner around. One had no choice therefore, but to photograph various misgivings about the grounds. In avoidance of drawing attention to such trivial matters as decaying paintwork and joinery, it is suggested that for this reason alone the museum be kept open.

    • #798086
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      It is utterly shameful and pathetic that, after long years overwhelmed with traffic and filthy Co2 fumes, Dublin is set to remain a civic basket case that can’t even make the few small planned gestures towards civic quality and reducing car movement.

    • #798087
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @ac1976 wrote:

      looks like the develepor (LALCO) paid DCC EUR232,427 towards this, how much was it gonna cost? and were they actually ever going to build it?

      DCC will probably argue that the money was spent on upgrading the pavement, planting some trees and possibly the installation of the wobbly cut-out silhouette figure ‘Art’ on the north side of Inchicore Road. Lalco’s responsibility would have ended at the property boundary and the full pavement has been done, to a pretty high standard.

      How it could have cost €232,427 is another matter.

      On the lassy with the dog, she’s well known around here! I see her every day, if she’s not walking that dog in her high heels, she’s in her pyjamas, smoking a fag, pushing a buggy 🙂

    • #798088
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @Devin wrote:

      It is utterly shameful and pathetic that, after long years overwhelmed with traffic and filthy Co2 fumes, Dublin is set to remain a civic basket case that can’t even make the few small planned gestures towards civic quality and reducing car movement.

      Agreed.

      @gunter wrote:

      On the lassy with the dog, she’s well known around here! I see her every day, if she’s not walking that dog in her high heels, she’s in her pyjamas, smoking a fag, pushing a buggy 🙂

      Lol. I think the best bit of graffiti I ever saw on a development hoarding was here, about three years ago, where photos of plush apartment living were framed by square boxes measuring maybe 1m x 1m – beside which a helpful individual had written “actual size” 😀

    • #798089
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      I don’t like the poles however Madrid styles bollards would be great here

    • #798090
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @gunter wrote:

      This has been running for weeks now, the same dodgy act, the same scratchy sound, What’s the plan, are they going to keep showing this until the viewing figures reach twenty?

      Dublin would get a million more hits if it connected the dots and made the dots interesting…
      none of this temp stuff for the big players far far away…
      I’m glad the interconnector has been extended…

    • #798091
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @missarchi wrote:

      I’m glad the interconnector has been extended…

      extended to a ”Future” station at Inchicore :rolleyes:

    • #798092
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      It’s contemporary art, gunter, and you’ve got to like it because those people who control contemporary art say you really, really should or you just DON’T GET IT! (And you won’t be hip.)
      What a waste of a classic buiding.

    • #798093
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Ok, but if I did ‘GET IT’, what is it I’m getting?

    • #798094
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      You wouldn’t understand.

    • #798095
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      On a slightly off-topic note, does anyone know what the round building – currently being finished – right next to the entrance to Phoenix Park (Heuston side) is? Went past there the other day (not my usual part of Dublin) and couldn’t help but wonder…

    • #798096
      Paul Clerkin
      Keymaster
    • #798097
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Ah, cheers!

    • #798098
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      gate looks good though.

      added bonus is that philistines will be distracted and have an accident.

    • #798099
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @marmajam wrote:

      added bonus is that philistines will be distracted and have an accident.

      This is strictly illegal, you cannot place low level obstacles across a pedestrian route 😡

      Is there no one in the OPW with a shread of common sense?

    • #798100
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      They have these balls in Madrid except they are better balls and more of them…
      I’ve noticed an insane amount of way finding in a city now for the blind.
      It’s getting to the stage now where where I think you could call your self an accessibility architect. I also feel they are quite dangerous for people with vision that are not used to them being there because its so easy to trip up and hurt yourself which I’m sure many do.
      I don’t know about you but the amount of money going in to all this must be massive.
      It’s gotten to the stage here where its very hard to find a normal footpath that has not got some massive strip running through.

    • #798101
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      I think i can remember that not to long ago there was a massive travellers camp just outside the main entrance along the road to Houston station. Maybe, the bollards are there in case they should show up again. At least they lived the place up, the museum is completely desolate whenever i go.

    • #798102
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @magwea wrote:

      I think i can remember that not to long ago there was a massive travellers camp just outside the main entrance along the road to Houston station. Maybe, the bollards are there in case they should show up again. At least they lived the place up, the museum is completely desolate whenever i go.

      A massive travellers camp is hardly desolation. Are you sure that wasn’t an exhibit? any photos of that?
      Funny enough there are plans to improve IMMA:
      -To connect the musuem with Heuston (IMMA Avenue)
      -To open an additional Science Museum (65,000 visitors per year, 60,000 sq ft) from 2011
      -To add additional (3000 sq ft+) exhibition space in a new building from 2011
      -To create a new entrance to the Museum along the new IMMA avenue
      -To open a Dart station at Heuston
      That is all part of the Heuston Gate (Eircom / OPW) development.

      I’m guessing the current main entrance will end up as the carpark entrance

    • #798103
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      @ac1976 wrote:

      to create a new entrance to the Museum along the new IMMA avenue

      The new IMMA avenue?

      You need to wake up and smell the tarmac.

      They re-surfaced Military Road, this is ”the new IMMA avenue” and duplicating the gate pier and sticking shiny steel drums on top is ”the new entrance”.

      The promised Science Centre has nothing to do with IMMA, it was going to be on the other side of the street and it pretty much died when the 32 storey tower died. Anyway it was the same movable feast that’s been promised to every regeneration area for years. There are still people in Smithfield who think it’s going there!

      As a building, it’s no loss IMO, it would have been standard feeble fare from the OPW, a grey concrete tribute to the Gateshead multi-storey car park, the exact opposite of what a Science Centre should be.


      a scan of a picture from one of the papers

      I love proper Science Centres, they can be brilliant. I spent four hours in this one in Bremen a while back.

    • #798104
      Anonymous
      Inactive
    • #798105
      Anonymous
      Inactive

      Any news of the Heuston framework plan? It seems like this and a lot of the other DCC framework plans have pretty much ground to a halt in terms of news recently :S

Viewing 100 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Latest News