Heuston Station granted permission

@T.G. Scott wrote:

dublin until relatively recently has suffered from under investment and a lack of intelligent and coherent urban planning and more importantly execution of said plans. one can only mourn the failure of the widestreets commision to implement abercrombies ideas such as the phoenix mall for instance (reaching from the park to o’conell st) and his plans for a central square in and around what is now the corpo hq with 10 -12 avenues/ boulevards ending there much like the area of the arc de triomphe in paris!!!
coulda woulda shoulda…..

The Wide Streets Commissioners (1758 – 1851) and Abercrombie plan (1916 and again in 1941) were not the same thing.

http://www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/dublin/city_development/index.html

it was on the news lastnight, 2 years before any work will start on the site!

look here , it a nice slender tall landmark building, GET OVER it, its a perfect gateway entrance to the city coming from the west side n nothing wrong with that……
FORGET the dockalnads its not happining there!!!!
let’s see a bit of common sense here ,
there is not much chance of a cluster of high buildings going ahead if they keep getting the thumbs down , right? ,plus there is potential for the Hueston area to become a cluster of high rises!!
my opinon its a nice building, it always looks better than on paper ,people?

that really needed to be expressed!!!!!

The decision by An Board Pleanála has to be broadly welcomed, common sense finally prevails, its just a pity the same choice wasn’t taken on Spencer Dock, the Sir John Rogerson Quay development etc. The docklands should have been our version of Canary Wharf, its a pity a few of the members of the DDDA don’t have the same courage as those individuals in An Board Pleanála who overturned the rejection.

The article in the Indo said

“the high quality of the design involved was a factor in the decision”.

Is this a precedent? I normally see submissions made on design dismissed as irrelevant/subjective and that submissions need to be based on planning regulations rather than any aesthetic consideration.

In any case what makes this a high quality design? The pictures I’ve seen are of a very ordinary looking design. Dated rather than timeless. Nothing I see in it suggests that the height was an intrinsic element fo design. Looks almost like it was an adjustable plan and you could add of subtract 20 stories at a time without needing too much work!
Has anyone read the full report – did anBP elaborate on the role design played on the decision?

Interesting too that the height of the spire has been greatly superceded. I had been worried that the spire would form an artificial planning ceiling on dublin.

not meaning to debate your actually point dowlingm but it always amazes me when toronto is quoted as a good example of urban anything; i have spent a bit of time there, wandering through the city centre surface carparks, along the underdeveloped downtown streets, stared at the lake across the road and urban wasteland driven along the 4 lane highways through 200 km of sprawl etc etc etc . . .

now the problem with Vancouver is the drugs and the awful ersatz gastown; the big plus is the pile of sulphur, the white whales and that nudist beach.