Liberties LAP on display DCC

It looks like there could be some good stuff in this.

At top left, there appears to be an interesting new sloping, Smithfield shaped, square, apparently incorporating the existing St. James’ Church Grave Yard, accessed by new streets linking to Heuston and bordering the retained Guinness lands to the east, (site of new brewery). Nice idea, but not sure how this is going to work, if there ends up being a chemical plant on one side.

A map showing a zone of potential higher structures south of James’ Street. If this was done properly and consciously composed to be a dense counter nucleus to the Docklands, and not diluted by speculative developers chancing their arm in random locations outside the zone, this could be outstanding.

Water of unknown origin (*I hope cagey doesn’t see this*) back in part of the Grand Canal Harbour interspersed with a cluster of juice carton shaped taller structures. Again the juxtaposition of dramatic new structures in an existing and robust urban context, but one which currently lacks a coherent form and identity, in combination with the ‘canal’ water side element, could be stunning!

An interesting potential street pattern for the Guinness block fronting Victoria Quay and Heuston Station.

I would like to throw in the Luas Option 2 into the mix. Option 1 is far from a dead cert.

There are some positive words in the Liberties LAP about acknowledging the gabled house origins of most of the streets and squares of the area, but despite the fact that the draft LAP has been in production for some time, nothing, in this regard, seems to have filtered down to the Planning Dept.

On the ‘Dutch Billy’ thread, there was some discussion in recent months of a ten storey redevelopment proposal (Planning Ref. 3840/08) for the corner site on New Row South / Blackpitts, incorporating an existing 19th century warehouse known as ‘The Laundry Building’, which is a Protected Structure. The application was refused by DCC at the end of September, on the grounds of height, bulk and scale and also on the grounds that the, predominantly residential, proposal would be contrary to the Z6 zoning.

However there isn’t a single word in the Planner’s report to acknowledge the the site was originally developed as one of the most imaginative and significant pair of houses in the whole ‘Dutch Billy’ tradition in Dublin. Again despite the fact that the original houses date to close on three hundred years ago, and that there are many unanswered questions about the structure and internal layout of these houses, there is nothing to reflect this in the archaeological report, which looks for nothing more than ‘standard conditions’!
Nothing about investigating the existing two storey structure for evidence of original fabric, nothing about recovering the original floor plans of the gabled houses, (which may have incorporated some unusual interlocking around the great central chimney stack to take account of the tappered site) , no specific requirement for the archaeological investigation of the eatrly 18th century foundations.

The pair of houses known as ‘The Seven Gables’ shown still largely intact but after the loss of the original twin, pediment topped, curvilinear gable profiles

A similar view of ‘Seven Gables’ with a view of the opposite corner with it’s pedimented gables still intact.

A drawing of ‘Seven Gables’ showing the probable original arrangement of gables.

The LAP is intended to be a spur to the regeneration of the Liberties, but the fact that much of the Liberties was never significantly redeveloped in the generations after the loss of most of it’s characteristic original building stock, presents us with the opportunity to recover valuable information on the original streetscapes, an opportunity that it would be a crime to miss.

Neither should the opportunity to frame future redevelopment in the light of a fuller understanding of the area’s original development (that such an in-dept investigation may reveal), be missed.

IMO, there are 12 or 15 specific sites in the Liberties LAP area, where the original, characteristic, gabled houses survive to a sufficient degree, (or are recorded to a sufficient degree), for these structures to be restored with City Council assistance, in a deliberate programme aimed at creating a network of points throughout the district where the full depth of the historical streetscape could be legible again within the context of an overall, predominantly contemporary, regeneration.

first (and only?) LP of the Liberty Belles, 1971

What ever happened to the Liberty Belles?

Well one of them is still standing at the junction with Thomas Davis Street! With a radioactive salmon pubfront. Otherwise it’s frightening to think most of them are now hitting 50. The 70s wasn’t that long ago surely?

The question could equally apply to St. Nick & Co. looming in the background there, in which case they’re all huddled together, larger than life, in the left-hand stairhall of St. Nicholas of Myra. Quite a sight.

Grand Canal Harbour development proposal

I was going to let this one go by, because I believe in densification, particularly in the city’s forgotten corners, and nothing is ever perfect anyway, but when an application attracts the rake of objections that this one has, it would be a pity to miss the party.

In all there are twelve objections to the planning application (reg. no. 3855/09), including an objection from Diago: ”Insufficient clarity as to the expressed delivery of a distinguishable tower as envisaged in the LAP”, . . . . an angry objection (mostly aimed at the LAP) from a serious, Liberties-based, top-floor, planning consultant: ”How could one 75m tower suddenly be more appropriate than three? Does anyone want to answer this question on behalf of Dublin City Council? Who is the appropriate party? Architects, Planners, the many invited Consultants who have been retained for their expert opinions on the previous versions?”, . . . . and individual objections from no less than five different Residents Associations!. . . . . .There’s even a surprisingly lucid objection from An Taisce 🙂

I particularly like this view. They obviously couldn’t decide between a plaza and a pond so they ended up sticking the trees in the pond, nice one.

The serious point here is that the whole heritage repository that is the Grand Canal Harbour, in this proposal becomes usurped and re-packaged as a shallow caricature of itself to give a veneer of depth to a pretty generic, over-crowded, office park.

People who believe in urban densification are constantly being let down by people who seem just to believe in greed, packaged in the language of urban densification by people who should know better.

@gunter wrote:

Grand Canal Harbour development proposal

I was going to let this one go by, because I believe in densification, particularly in the city’s forgotten corners, and nothing is ever perfect anyway, but when an application attracts the rake of objections that this one has, it would be a pity to miss the party.

In all there are twelve objections to the planning application (reg. no. 3855/09), including an objection from Diago: ”Insufficient clarity as to the expressed delivery of a distinguishable tower as envisaged in the LAP”, . . . . an angry objection (mostly aimed at the LAP) from a serious, Liberties-based, top-floor, planning consultant: ”How could one 75m tower suddenly be more appropriate than three? Does anyone want to answer this question on behalf of Dublin City Council? Who is the appropriate party? Architects, Planners, the many invited Consultants who have been retained for their expert opinions on the previous versions?”, . . . . and individual objections from no less than five different Residents Associations!. . . . . .There’s even a surprisingly lucid objection from An Taisce 🙂

I particularly like this view. They obviously couldn’t decide between a plaza and a pond so they ended up sticking the trees in the pond, nice one.

The serious point here is that the whole heritage repository that is the Grand Canal Harbour, in this proposal becomes usurped and re-packaged as a shallow carricature of itself to give a veneer of depth to a pretty generic, over-crowded, office park.

People who believe in urban densification are constantly being let down by people who seem just to believe in greed, packaged in the language of urban densification by people who should know better.

but come on, you have to admit doing something with that area and bringing some life to it is better than what is there now!?

@OisinT wrote:

but come on, you have to admit doing something with that area and bringing some life to it is better than what is there now!?

You don’t think we should try and raise the bar a bit . . . .you know . . . above the ‘better than what’s there now’ threshold?

So Guinness used to be supplied by gravity?
Did the luas fill in the canal?
How did the site end up being filled in with concrete given the water pressure issues the area faces? maybe that’s why there are no tall buildings no water pressure for the fire sprinklers…
Where does the Guinness water pipe come from?

Guinness water originates at Gallanstown Waterworks beside Park West in the Canal- couple of underground reservoirs out there

@gunter wrote:

You don’t think we should try and raise the bar a bit . . . .you know . . . above the ‘better than what’s there now’ threshold?

Oh I totally agree, but we could spend years arguing over what is right for that space and nothing would ever get done. At some point I’ve given up on ever seeing any change in this country as ideas never leave the planning stage – and if they do, they’re crap and half-assed.

Diageo protest fails to sink canal harbour shop dream
Evening Herald

A MAJOR shopping and restaurant hub for Dublin city has been given the green light – despite objections from global drinks company Diageo.

The Canal Harbour Development Company was granted permission for a “mixed use” scheme of apartments, shops, bars and restaurants.

Also included in the proposal is an aparthotel, exhibition centre, gallery and a medical centre.

The 1.32-hectare site at Grand Canal Harbour in Dublin 8 consists of disused industrial and commercial buildings and a warehouse, which is a listed structure.

The company plans to demolish all the buildings except the warehouse and construct six blocks ranging from three to 12 storeys.

Dublin City Council’s granting of permission is likely to be followed by an appeal to An Bord Pleanala, given the level of objection to the scheme.

Dozens of opponents came out against the ambitious plan.

Heritage body An Taisce, while saying the site was suitable for a “high density scheme”, insisted the plans were “excessively crowded and constrained”.

It added: “The proposal conveys a sense of developing the former canal harbour (to) within an inch of its life.”

Diageo Ireland expressed its support “for the principle of a mixed use redevelopment of these lands”.

However, the company, the Guinness parent group, questioned the impact the towers might have on views from the company’s rooftop Gravity Bar, one of the city’s top tourist attractions.

In addition, a number of residents associations lodged objections.

Residents of Westcourt on James’s Avenue complained locals did not know how “construction traffic, pollution, noise and construction hours will be managed”.

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/city-news/diageo-protest-fails-to-sink-canal-harbour-shop-dream-2202470.html